This book is very long, yet I'm in the middle of listening to it a 2nd time. The great Grover Gardner delivers another fine performance with Shirer's extensive examination of the Third Reich. From the philosophical and historic roots of Hitler's goals, to the societal pressures and everyday life of the German people, to the military strategies and geopolitical maneuvering, this book comes as close to telling the complete story as any single book can do. Do yourself a favor and get this book!
Wow! Finally a compassionate soul with the courage to shout (figuratively) that being introverted is not a defect that requires treatment. Simply hearing someone else describe the trials introverts go through in this world, and knowing I do the same, was quite touching. The soft voice of the narrator was a perfect fit. Some original scholarly research would have gotten 5 stars out of me. Great work nonetheless.
Be prepared to relive negative childhood memories. I discovered that my parents are also introverts whose ability to fake being outgoing led them to pressure me to do the same.
This is my first Ayn Rand novel, and I enjoyed it, with exceptions. The protagonist, Roark, is a great character; fully formed and well executed. As is Dominique; complex and engaging. The antagonists, however, the adversaries of Roark seem like facile caricatures of socialist/collectivist thought. Give Roark an opponent who isn't a sniveling toad or a conniving jerk. Then we'll see what he's made of.
If you're interested in this because you liked "There Will Be Blood," definitely give it a listen. The story goes into much greater depth about the social, political, and economic issues of the day. The relationship between father and son is complex and more realistic. Also, this version is read by Grover Gardner, one of my favorites. Great book; great performance.
Excellent listen. Sound economic analysis of controversial issues. The section about sumo wrestlers was interesting, but not exactly relevant to an American audience. I would recommend this to anyone interested in the whys of society.
In the introduction, Prothero makes the point that it is well intended, but ultimately disrespectful (at best) to speak of all religions as essentially the same; a different path up the same mountain. Despite his success at pinpointing the different goals for each religion, and the processes for achieving those goals, Prothero fails to adequately explain why the "different paths up the same mountain" metaphor is wrong, harmful, or otherwise misguided. Is it wrong to conceptualize nirvana as the "buddhist's version of heaven?" If so, why?
If the ultimate presription is understanding, why not use the mountain metaphor as a rallying point for all people, regardless of belief? Understanding can only occur if we can identify with each other's plight.
Report Inappropriate Content