The backdrop of real-world modern history (with a little bit of X-rated fun!)
A LONG series made for a great, entertaining and informative way to pass a couple of months with a long commute!
Extremely well researched, detailed and balanced. this goes light years beyond the HBO documentary.
Level of detail - willingness and ability to reach out to the "other side" for commentary and include opposing opinions in footnotes.
Covered a lot of history I never knew about - or knew the significance of. Covered things in perspectives I hadn't seen or heard of before, yet as an enjoyable story.
His voices are always great - but this one was probably the best. His foreign accents, and imitations of voices of historical characters whom we all know - were all spot-on and very enjoyable.
Resolution of the storyline for old characters in the first books.
Scott Brick, possibly, Ayn Rand, definitive not.
This was not a "story". It was a preachy rant. Though I don't completely disagree with her "philosophy", this was the worst possible presentation for many reasons.
As a "story", it was terrible. As opposed to trying to (in the course of the naritive) make thoughtful, logical, arguments or otherwise pose well-constructed ideas - it attempted to make a point, solely my trying to draw an unbelievable imaginary world in which anyone or anything in opposition to this point is cartoonishly incompetent, or a bumbling, blundering idiot, whose actions lead to the complete crumbing of everything around them. Thus it was ridiculously unbelievable.
It is akin to me writing a "story" illustrating why "Democratic ideals are good", which merely consisted of a bunch of drunken hillbilly Republicans, who were physically destroying society with the frequent explosions of their poorly-constructed backwood moonshine stills.
It's sole objective was to try to preach her values. It did this by having extraordinarily long-winded narratives by their characters which preached the same messages over and over and over. There was at one point a 3+ hour speech given by one character that would have been overkill even by Muhamar Ghadaffi's standards.
Any rationale human should know that the way to get a point across is not to completely restate the same arguments, over and over and over for 60+ hours. The pace of the book was extremely slow. I had spans of an hour go by in which no movement happened in the plot.
Much of my incentive in listening to it was the "notoriety" it has in popular culture. After being shocked at how poor I thought this book was, I did some research which lead me to believe that much of it's popularity comes from a small but vocal following, in conjunction with free printing and distribution of the book by Ayn Rand's foundation.
In short, it seemed like a long-winded, rambling manifesto of a person who loved the sound of their own voice - giving it no consideration to how anyone else might perceive it.
I don't know if it's a plus of a minus - but his portrail of the "villans" in the book made them look like all blathering, bumbling, whiny idiots. I thought this made the book pretty unbelievable. I don't know if it was *supposed* to be like this or not.
Boredom. Very looong-winded, a not-so-interesting point, and a very boring story.
Report Inappropriate Content