I read Invisible Monsters.  I don't find it particularly memorable now - I can't say at all what I thought about it at the time.  It's one of those books that I can read a synopsis of and recall the story but if you just said the name to me I wouldn't be able to recall anything about it.

I followed up a couple of years later by trying to read Choke, but I made it about 50 pages in before I lost interest and never picked it up again.  I distinctly remember being very bored with it  and wondering why people loved him so much. 

I had a couple of his other books that people had given me over the years, but I recently gave them all away to a place that redistributes books for free.  There's no point in continuing to drag around books I'm not going to read. 

I think Ayn Rand is an apt comparison.  Poor writing and story-telling coupled with a childish, ill-formed ideology.  In a culture where few people are trained in the basics of philosophy and critical thinking, that ill-formed ideology is just enough to resonate with teens and 20 somethings - people just on the cusp of adulthood and trying to figure out how the world operates.

I think Ayn Rand is an apt comparison.  Poor writing and story-telling coupled with a childish, ill-formed ideology.  In a culture where few people are trained in the basics of philosophy and critical thinking, that ill-formed ideology is just enough to resonate with teens and 20 somethings - people just on the cusp of adulthood and trying to figure out how the world operates.

I had a person that was close to me revere Rand as a demi-god. I told this person that Rand was full of shit. Then she would ridicule me for not having read her fiction. I read enough of Fountainhead to taste puke in my mouth, enough of Rand's Objectivism drivel to stun a mule, and enough of Rand's "intelligentsia" garbage to start babbling apologetically like Greenspan before the House's financial committee after the housing bubble collapsed.

I found an article once that explained how Rand dealt with a critic of her theory while at her own symposium. She contentiously scoffed at her critic before everyone and instead of forming a thoughtful response lambasted him/her for not being a positive thinker(!). That was it? I thought. Is this how she justifies her theories by denying every opposition? Borrowing the words of Bill Hicks: "How scientific!"

I've met more than my fair share of objectivists. They certainly think that their theory of laissez-faire capitalism (as opposed to socialism or any other community-based theory of economy) is the most humane on earth. But when prompted about the welfare of the less fortunate (mainly the handicapped or diseased) they briefly mention willful donations to charity, which I might add contradicts the premise of Rand's theorem of maintaining capital. In all reality, they would rather send the disabled to a privately run gulag than believe that the mentally/physically handicapped are as human as any objectivist. Besides this, I'm incredibly creeped-out by the blank stares they seem to adopt whenever they are questioned about their infallible theory, as if the brainwashed rebuttal mechanism had kicked in right as the criticism vibrated their eardrum.

"There's no point in continuing to drag around books I'm not going to read.  "

I have a lifetime of books, wanted to have my own library at one time. Now they are either stored in boxes or still on shelves (I have a full truckload) but I plan to donate all of them as soon as possible to the local thrift store.

My eyes are to bad for reading books anyway.

Donate them to a library ...

The libraries around here are all closing down.

Damn ...
... I see

I take all my unwanted books here: http://www.bookthing.org/ which is basically the best place in Baltimore as far as I'm concerned.

I like their 24/7 book drop and their friends.

I have an autographed copy of invisible monsters.   

.. it use to be my most favorite item i own.