What kind of light in the loafers lib would read a phony and fanciful work of fiction when there is so much non-fiction work that can actually make you more wise and learned?
What kind of light in the loafers lib would read a phony and fanciful work of fiction when there is so much non-fiction work that can actually make you more wise and learned?
Well your manifested ignorance is not exactly a ringing endorsement for avoiding fiction.
Wow, a homophobic slur, politically ignorant name-calling, and a stunning display of literary and cultural ignorance, all in one sentence! A dimwit trifecta! As to your question, as a published writer of a novel, many varieties of non-fiction, and four collections of poetry, I would suggest you get yourself a library card, do a whole bunch of reading, and keep your public yap shut until you acquire some basic literacy. And Rojo, my novel, The Body Electric is available in paperback from the publisher and on Amazon. Take a gander; it even has running in it!
What kind of light in the loafers lib would read a phony and fanciful work of fiction when there is so much non-fiction work that can actually make you more wise and learned?
This post was edited 15 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
Actually wrote post
What kind of light in the loafers lib would read a phony and fanciful work of fiction when there is so much non-fiction work that can actually make you more wise and learned?
The next nonfiction book you read should explain a false dichotomy. The one that follows can give you a clear enough sense of human cognition to know that good fiction and nonfiction complement each other, which should underscore the sense that the dichotomy you draw is indeed false rather than predicated on a necessary allocation of finite t8me resources.
When you get to fiction, I’d usually suggest Dostoevsky, but for you a Dick and Jane book is probably a more appropriate level. Or perhaps just Jane, because you apparently need no further instruction about being more like her counterpart.
Actually, by that definition all the stuff he read about the Shelburritto defense and how he thought “she answered honestly to the interviewers’ questions” counts. No?
I was talking to someone about this a while back. I used to read a lot when I was young, and in my 50s I've started again. Comparing notes we realized that a lot of men don't read much during the productive part of their careers, especially not novels. Reading fiction gets pushed way down the priority list when you're focused on work and family.
What kind of light in the loafers lib would read a phony and fanciful work of fiction when there is so much non-fiction work that can actually make you more wise and learned?
What kind of light in the loafers lib would read a phony and fanciful work of fiction when there is so much non-fiction work that can actually make you more wise and learned?
Why do conservatives love Atlas Shrugged so much?
Talk about a fanciful work of fiction.
What I found mildly amusing, during Paul Ryan's political heyday, was his professed allegiance to Ayn Rand's focus on reason. He went so far as to "urge" his staffers to read her work, and gave copies of Atlas Shrugged to some as Christmas presents. In general, he said the policies he advocated were reason-based.
Except...he's a practicing Catholic, and his religion is fundamental to his life. By definition, faith is "belief in things not seen"--whether "seen" by the senses or through reasoning. Little bit of a contradiction there. In later years he backed off from Rand. He says Aquinas is more of an influence.
So, yeah: Conservatives who love Ayn Rand (and Atlas Shrugged) are fans of a strongly atheistic author and a work that helps explain her commitment to atheism. Of course, some of these folks are also Christian nationalists. I'd make some comment about cognitive dissonance, but these people aren't very big on cognition in any case.