While an undergraduate student at Seton Hall between 1997 and 2000, I had the distinct and memorable pleasure of being a student of the author of this book, Robert Mayhew. I sat for 7 of his course offerings over 3 years, and he continues to stand out in my mind as one of the most competent, engaging, and effective instructors with whom I have dealt in 22 years of schooling. Mayhew has the unique ability to satisfy the mildly curious as well as the most discriminating academician. In the years since graduation, I've paged through several of his volumes on the ancient Greeks, and I found them more interesting than any of the work I was doing in law school. You cannot go wrong with him.

Ayn Rand describes the necessary elements to take a theme abstraction and present it as a set of concretes directly related to the theme abstraction - the Romantic style. To help convey her reasoning she analyses examples from writers, herself included, who fit in, and some who don't. Victor Hugo and Isak Dinesen are two examples that are consistent with her preferences. Sinclair Lewis and Thomas Wolfe being two that aren't.

When I reviewed, The Fountainhead, I stated that Ayn Rand had an unfortunate tendency to indulge in 'eye poppingly bad' literary prose, which in this book she goes into great detail to point out its merits. Whilst her defence of these sections is logical, it still doesn't take away from their basic quality: they're still eye poppingly bad. As badly written as the pieces she has chosen from elsewhere to demonstrate how not to write. Unlike Victor Hugo's, and Isak Dinesen's, which is very smooth . When she writes more plainly, as she does for most of the time, her intention is conveyed perfectly well without any need for colourful and distracting prose.

That was the only real contradiction and failing of this book. Everything else is very appropriate for those who have the inclination and determination to write well in the Romantic style.

Her Non-fiction follow up is worth reading as a companion volume

The Art of Nonfiction is taken from a series of informal lectures that Ayn Rand gave to students in 1969 on the topic of the art of nonfiction writing. It was not prepared for publication by Rand, but the material in it was culled from these lectures, for which Rand had only an outline to prepare her. The Art of Nonfiction serves as a companion piece to The Art of Fiction, both from an author who wrote some of the Twentieth Century's most important and influential fiction and nonfiction works.

This work aims to teach the reader the principles behind the art of nonfiction writing. The chapters, which follow the order of the lectures given by Rand, cover such topics as how to get ideas for writing, the importance of and how to create an effective outline, the role of the conscious and subconscious in writing, editing, and how to prepare an article for publication. The book focuses on nonfiction article writing (all of Rand's published nonfiction works are compilations of her nonfiction essays), but also offers advice on nonfiction book writing. Rand was convinced of the omnipresence of one's philosophy in one's life and work, and this is evident in this book, which is replete with tie-ins to her philosophy and fascinating philosophical analysis of such topics as the nature of the subconscious mind and how to properly allow one's philosophical convictions influence one's writing.

Although the content is excellent and the progression is logical and persuasive, the reader should bear in mind that the material in it was neither prepared by nor intended for publication by Rand, who did not believe that the material as presented in these lectures would be good enough for publication. Still, it is remarkable how solid the material is, considering that it was done with little preparation on Rand's part.

One need not agree with Rand's philosophy to gain value from this book, so well reasoned and persuasive is her presentation. Both writers and readers have much to gain from this important addition to Ayn Rand's literature.

A long time admirer of Rand's work, I found this a refreshing perspective on her. While I'd come to know her characters and read her philosophical works, I really didn't feel I truly understood her until I read this book. I cannot compare it to letters or the like because I have not read them. But, this work is like looking in on practical applications of her philosophy. For example, her discussion of the value of Christmas to atheist such as herself is very enlightening. In addition, her discussion of the monopoly of force still rings in my mind years after I first read it. Being born in the 70's, growing up in the 80's & 90's, her philosophy brings me much joy compared to the pink socialism that I have seen throughout my life and been frustrated by. I think this work should be a supplement to any serious reader of Rand and would highly recommend this.

If you would like a quick, easy-to-read introduction to Ayn Rand's philosophy...if you would like to see how Ayn Rand applied her philosophy...if you simply would like a glimpse into the objectivist world, then this is the book. This is a compilation of numerous articles on various issues that touched America, including the death of Marilyn Monroe. Some of the articles may shock you, but all require a second read-through. Keep in mind, though, that Ayn Rand was a narcissist who had a closed-minded view of who her followers were and who they weren't; that prevented her from portraying objectivism for what it is -- a great "philosophy of philosophy," a method of interpreting human actions and a guideline for having your own ideas.

What many regard as the most influential philosopher of the 20th century, Philosopher and Novelist Ayn Rand was known for crafting novels of Hugoesque proportions that presented the heroic elements of the ideal man, as well as writing epistemological treatises on the art of logic and the process of concept formation that focused on the most abstract and fundamental issues to man. In *The Ayn Rand Column*, Rand shifts to a different gear as she writes short crisp pieces on the current issues of her day.

*The Ayn Rand Column* contains over 35 pieces by Rand ranging from the brief, but concise pieces such as an "Introduction to Objectivism", "The Secular Meaning of Christmas", and "Why I Like Stamp Collecting" to the more lengthy "Textbook on Americanism", "Modern Management", and "The Fascist New Frontier." The collection also features an introduction by the book's editor Peter Schwartz, that helps ties the pieces together.

My favorite piece in the collection is Rand's "War and Peace" where Rand makes the case for why today's peace movements are *not* advocates of peace, but of gang-rule, statism, and thus dictatorship. Quoting Rand,

"Professing love and concern for the survival of mankind, these [peace] movements keep screaming that...that armed force and violence should be abolished as a means of settling disputes among nations, and that war should be outlawed in the name of humanity. Yet these same peace movements do not oppose dictatorships; the political views of their members range through all shades of the statist spectrum, from "welfare statism" to socialism to fascism to communism. This means that they are opposed to the use of coercion by one nation against another, but not by the government of a nation against its own citizens; it means that they are opposed to the use of force against *armed* adversaries but not against the *disarmed*..."

And after some discussion of the concretes events to support her claim, Rand concludes:

"...Let all those who are seriously concerned with peace, those who do love *man* and do care about his survival, realize that war cannot be outlawed by lawless statist thugs and that it is not war but *force* that has to be outlawed."

If I may make a brief philosophical assessment: Wow!

What is most illuminating about this collection is Rand's ability to dissect what, at first glance, appears to be a concrete, trivial issue--say the much-maligned "commercialized" gift-giving during Christmas--and shows how it relates to some timeless philosophical principle of vital importance (Sorry! You'll have to read the book for the principle). To use a popular metaphor, Ayn Rand was a woman who could see the forest (abstractions) for the trees (concretes), and vice-versa.

Though this book uses the issues of the 1960's to reveal the work of philosophy in action, it is of value to the modern reader of today, as the philosophical principles Rand elucidates are timeless.

This collection of essays, an expanded edition of The New Left, was compiled by Peter Schwartz, founding editor of The Intellectual Activist magazine.  In addition to Rand's 12 essays, Schwartz has added three of his own to tackle modern issues from an Objectivist world-view: "Gender Tribalism," "The Philosophy of Privation," and "Multicultural Nihilism."   These works approach the issues much as I suspect Ayn Rand would have done, and they are interesting additions to the book. 

"Collectivism," writes Rand, "has lost the battle for men's minds; its advocates know it; their last chance consists of the fact that no one else knows it."   The essays in this collection are part of Rand's efforts to make it known. Although I find Rand's Objectivist philosophy at times execessively severe and ulitmately incorrect with regard to its athiestic core, her reasoning is sound when it comes to her criticisms of the "new left."  The struggle between the forces of individualism and collectivism (in Rand's view, between rationality and irrationality) is perhaps not quite the epic battle she depicts, but it is a serious contest, and if the individualists lose, that loss will have lasting negative effects on human freedom and progress.    

Rand's essays are well-reasoned if a bit emotional, but perhaps a little passion is what this debate really needs.  Thinkers on the left have normally resorted to the kind of dramatic language Rand employs;  perhaps it is time for thinkers on the right to take it up as well, without, at the same time, abandoning focus on rational argumentation, as the left has done.  One flaw in the essays is that they are repetitive; though the points the author makes may be valid, she begins to sound too much like a preacher repeating the same truism multiple times in only slightly different ways.  Schwartz in his essays exhibits the same lack of consciseness, but to an even greater degree.  Nevertheless, I think Rand addresses better than any other writer I have read the problem with collectivist thinking, and she brilliantly exposes the collectivist basis of modern politcally-correct idealogy.

I wish I had discovered Rand in my high school and univeristy days; her writings may have given me some comfort in an enviornment where diversity of thought was not much tolerated. I recommend this collection as a must read for anyone who wishes to expand his intellectual repitoire, whether on the left or the right.

If you are are serious about ideas and sympathetic to today's fashionable causes, such as feminism, environmentalism and multi-culturalism, this book will make you think again.

Ayn Rand's essays are clear, incisive and compelling. Peter Schwartz's contributions are equally lucid. He has the remarkable ability to cut through the rationalizations and smokescreens thereby exposing the essence of an ideology. His attention to detail is astonshing. Ever considered why environmentalists use the term "environment" rather than "nature"? Schwartz has.

Peter Schwartz has taken on a tough assignment; few question the validity of the causes he has in his sights. His is an unpopular position, but after reading this book you might wonder why.

If you really want to understand today's trends, Ayn Rand and Peter Schwartz offer a clear and cogent analysis unlike any other I have read.

If you are are serious about ideas and sympathetic to today's fashionable causes, such as feminism, environmentalism and multi-culturalism, this book will make you think again.

Ayn Rand's essays are clear, incisive and compelling. Peter Schwartz's contributions are equally lucid. He has the remarkable ability to cut through the rationalizations and smokescreens thereby exposing the essence of an ideology. His attention to detail is astonshing. Ever considered why environmentalists use the term "environment" rather than "nature"? Schwartz has.

Peter Schwartz has taken on a tough assignment; few question the validity of the causes he has in his sights. His is an unpopular position, but after reading this book you might wonder why.

If you really want to understand today's trends, Ayn Rand and Peter Schwartz offer a clear and cogent analysis unlike any other I have read.

First book was good. well.....Now they (or Mayne himself) is/are not moving foward. repetitious schemes with minimal ideas. Graphics drowned in mindless Form-z models and renderings. Mighty Thom Mayne has lost his creativity.

One of the few architecture books at the brick and mortor bookstore that isn't sealed shut with shrink wrap. After I flipped through it I immediately bought it through amazon. It is designed by Cranbrook design superstar Lorraine Wild, the design perfectly represents what Morphosis is about. I take it from the other reviewers that they only looked at the images and did not read anything at all because they did not "get it". Their work is delivered as a cyberpunk novel outtake, the setting an industrial dance club with torture devices. There is a wonderful surreal short story that acts as a sort of guide to viewing the work as well. I am not an architect but this is inspirational enough for me to spend half a decade in school to become one. Reminds me of the Jean Tinguely book published in the early 70's (with sketch overlays) and a similar design philosophy as Low/Tek

Being an architecture student, I constantly refer to many books, and Morphosis is one of my favourite contemporary architecture firm. This is really a thick and quite a heavy book. Its a compilation of many of Morphosis' work. Their "Best Of.." volume. This marvelous edition is divided into 2 parts. The first part consist of many colourful computer generated views, elevations, plans and 3D computer models etc of their buildings. The 3D models give a good visual understanding of their complicated but exciting buildings. The second part consist of essays by Thom Mayne. The thing about Morphosis is Mayne's writing is clear. He states his intention and theories clearly without getting out of the subject of architecture much. He talks about the difference between a project and a building which is a very good way of looking at architecture today. The graphics and writing provide a very clear understanding of their buildings. The bottom line is, if you like Morphosis, you'll love this book among your collection.

This book is far too dense to be read by anyone (like me) without a thorough background of recent Chinese history and politics. Even though I am comfortable with pinyin, no way could I keep straight the constant barrage of names zipping by. No explanation is ever given for various Chinese political terms, many of which were not familiar to me. And there is no historical narrative present to unite the material and keep it interesting.

If you are just an average joe/joan like me who wants to know more about China, don't waste your 28 bucks on this book.

This book, written by one of Hu Yaobang's staff, shows a very different picture of the players during this period of time than in books penned by western China Watchers. While Deng appears to have truly been interested in political as well as economic reforms, the hardliner coalition in the Chinese Communist Party was able to use his paranoia of personal attacks against him to veer him away from Hu Yaobang's progressive programs. Had he been able to see through the machinations of the hardliners, China might have been farther along in its modernization than it is.

I think the most interest aspect of this book is how it portrays Hu's successor, Zhao Ziyang. Western authors portray Zhao as a reformer. However, Ruan Ming shows us a schemer that is more interested in pushing Deng to the wayside and garnering full authority for himself and his "new elite". In 1989, the West saw a tearful Zhao supposedly working in the interests of the student protestors, symapthizing with their demands for democracy and reform. However, Ruan Ming shows us that this was a merely a tactic in his ongoing struggle to build power for himself within the party.

Overall, I think this book should be required reading for anyone interested in the inner workings of China's government. For once we have an account from a former member of China's government. I feel his account has painted a picture of China's key political players stripped of their masks. We are given an excellent example of how divided China's government is and how that relates to China's ability to develop into a "First World" Power in the future.

Rand was not the greatest non-fiction writer. In fact, some of her non-fiction books are downright mind-numbing. _The Voice Of Reason_ sort of plies a thin line between being interesting and just plain pedantic.

Rand was, in essence, a reactionary. She reacted -- and with good reason -- to the 1960s and 1970s, a rather insane period in our time. She makes some excellent points in "Apollo and Dionysis," contrasting the amazing human achievement of the Moon landing with the mud-wallowing revelry of Woodstock.

But venomous polemics do not "reason" make. In the world of Randians, all is black and white. Balance does not exist. Either you are are an Apollonian creature of the mind -- a faceless John Galt -- or you're a craven Dionysian carouser. (Rand never figured out how to, as Hunter Thompson wrote, "wallow with the eagles at night and fly with the pigs in the morning.")

This maddening tendency toward judgment leaches from every essay in this collection.... and is the prime reason why I can't give it a much better rating.

This volume contains a selection of lesser known columns, articles and essays from Ayn Rand's impressive oeuvre. The essays, etc. are arranged into three broad sections: Philosophy, Culture and Politics.

Page after page reveals profound insights into the intellectual atmosphere of the times. The writing is always informative and thought provoking, and quite often brilliant.

In short, this volume is especially suitable for readers already familiar with the gist of Ayn Rand's philosophy and literary writing.

This collection of essaies is invaluable to those individuals who believe that "reason ... is the glory of our nature." In these essaies, Ayn Rand analyzes events in the world from the '60s and '70s, such as the Apollo 11 mission to the moon, and the American debacle in Vietnam. There is an incisive clarity to these essaies, and to Ms. Rand's philosophy in general. Her philosophy, that of Objectivism, is not a faith or a creed: it affirms the fundamental principle that man should be guided by his reason in an objective manner, to pursue his own self-interest. Personally, I felt this way about life when I was younger, but I was sidetracked during adolescence (when we all are vulnerable to "collectivist" ways of thinking due to our intense desire at that age to be accepted by our peers) by the prevailing philosophical ideas of the day: that reality is not knowable to us with any certainty, that one opinion is as valuable as another, that there is no objective reality, and that there is no basis for me to have strong convictions about anything. Reading these essaies (after reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged) is like coming home again to the reality that was there all along. Rand, despite the unwavering strength of her convictions, was despairing of the chances for America to retain any of the glory with which it was bestowed at its inception. She makes a convincing case that the birth of this nation was during a brief historical flash when the ideas of the enlightenement (e.g. that the distinctive feature of a man or woman is his power to produce earthly success by the power of his intellect, and that I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of my own happiness) were transcendant, and that the US has been in intellectual (and hence, real) decline ever since. These essaies provide clear, practical instances of looking objectively at events in the world. Ms. Rand shows the rottenness of multiculturalism, while at the same time blasting racism. This is an example of how screwed up intellectual life is in this country: today you would be called racist if you are against the emphasis on multiculturalism in this society. But Rand's point is that people cannot be judged based on their race or other accidents of birth; we should be judged instead solely on the acheivements of our intellect--the products of our reason applied to our free choice. This is a beautiful book that has had a major impact on me. In fact, it has helped to save me from the cesspool of collectivist philosphy that threatens to overrun our world. Incidentally, this in fact may be the good that comes out of 9/11/01: that the people of the US and the world will see how years of appeasement and passivity has emboldened the enemies of reason. Buy this book and read it. You'll be glad you did.

Although Erickson makes some good points along the way, the book on the whole is a disappointment. Erickson committed three cardinal mistakes in writing it. To begin with, he unwisely adopts a dialogue form of presentation. The trouble with this is that philosophical dialogues constitute the most difficult form of philosophical writing. In order to for a dialogue to be effective, the characters participating in it must be presented as real human beings, not just cardboard puppets ventriloquistically manipulated by the author. Erickson is clearly out of his depth in the whole business. His characters have no personality at all. They do not fight for their ideas, like real human beings would, but calmly accept all the arguments presented by the character Philosophus, who represents Erickson himself. Erickson would have been better off writing the work in the traditional style of the essay. Philosophical dialogues should only be written by those equipped with the necessary literary and dramatic genius to bring them off. A second mistake involves Erickson's decision to focus primarily on abstruse technical questions. Too much of his book is preoccupied with an analysis of vague philosophical terms. Terms like absolute, apprehension, contextual, free will, identity, necessity, reason, unit, and value are tossed around as if they meant something definite. Most of Erickson's critique reduces itself merely to a purely verbal analysis of the meanings of these vague terms, out of which obscure technical problems are deduced and endlessly quibbled over. Erickson would have been better off focusing the lion's share of his attention on the factual shortcomings of some of Rand's more controversial philosophical contentions. It is on the empirical side that Objectivism is most vulnerable.Toward the end of the book, we find one of Erickson's puppet-characters declaring: "I think we now have a sufficient understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of ObjectivismŠ" This implies that Erickson believes his discussion of Rand's philosophy is comprehensive. Here he commits his third mistake: for his book is not comprehensive. It ommits a discussion of two of Rand's most important and characteristic doctrines: her theory of human nature and her theory of history. You would think a doctrine as critical to the Objectivist ideology as this one would warrent a word or two from Erickson's cast of puppets, but they are strangely silent on the whole issue. What could possibly be the reason for this? I suspect the major reason is that Erickson more or less sympathizes with Rand's view of history and thus sees no reason to animadvert against it. He prefers to quibble over such inconsequential issues as time and space and the problems raised by discussing perception in terms of vague philosophical concepts. It is primarily for the above stated reasons that I cannot give Erickson's book a rating higher than two stars. While he does, as I stated above, make a few good points along the way, the book on the whole is overly-technical, prolix, destitute of empirical rigor and, worst of all, dull.

Erickson's critique of Objectivism is highly defective. While he brings a sincerity to his discussion which other of Rand's commentators have not possessed, his arguments are generally poor and his reports of Rand's claims confused. The book is also badly planned and edited and suffers grievously under the dead weight of its dialogue form. Erickson's misapprehensions reach their deepest when he discusses technical issues in the Objectivist epistemology. Rand and her followers introduce the notion 'perceptual form' to indicate the *means* by which something is *directly* observed by a knowing subject. Erickson fails to grasp the difference between Objectivism's unique variant of direct realism and the flawed but popular theory of perception wherein the knowing subject apprehends, not something external to herself, but internal *representations* of the external. Because of this confusion, Erickson treats Objectivism as reifying form into the object of perception itself, and in attacking this idea argues against a theory which Objectivism opposes. His error is based on a misunderstanding of what it is to perceive something in-a-form. He believes that Rand wishes to argue that we perceive things in a *different* form; different, presumably, from the one which they possess on their own. But since form is the means by which we perceive a thing, there is no form which a thing is in other than the one in which it is perceived. Erickson performs a similar reification of the notion 'unit', which is again simply the external object of awareness under a certain perspective. After about the middle of the book, Erickson's prose becomes very garbled and the quality of argument - already dubious - suffers. He moves into various technical issues in the sciences and economics which are inappropriate to a book on philosophy. He argues against the Einsteinian view of the relativistic nature of space and time on purely *a priori* grounds, hardly the way to approach empirical questions. Even so, his arguments are not successful. The book's cover advertises a solution to the problem of universals, but I must confess I could not find it. He introduces God into his speculations with no more attempt at proof than the claim that "Atheism is getting to be out-of-date" (p. 219) The philosophy which he attempts to present under the name "Factivity" lacks an analysis of, among other things, facts. The book has two virtues. The first is its general fair-mindedness. Erickson is willing to adopt ideas from Rand and seems to have no psychological axe to grind; he even intervenes on her behalf early in the book, making decent arguments for her position which she never herself made. The second is his comparison between Rand and the Marxist tradition, especially Lenin. While Erickson is not the first to make this comparison, he provides new and intriguing references and points of similarity.

This book is excellent for readers who agreed with many of Rand's views but were upset by her atheism. It removes a basic contradiction: If belief in God causes the "evil" in Atlas shrugged, why does the Catholic faith argue against the same evil. Simple, Rand was wrong.

The book attacks Objectivism, but does not argue against Rand's true genius -- her ability to get inside the head of New Age man and describe and explain this evil being.

The book does answer the question on universals. The observations on memory are brilliant.

Examples of the new philosophy of Factivism include: "Name a nonexistant fact" answer the Past.

The only reason for the four stars is that the book is hard to read. I have read it four times and have mastered only about 50%. Definitely geared to philosophy buffs. Another similar book is "Raselas" (spelling)