How Ayn Rand Became an American Icon

04SCTLS

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
3,188
Reaction score
7
Location
Lockport
How Ayn Rand Became an American Icon

The perverse allure of a damaged woman.

By Johann Hari
Posted Monday, Nov. 2, 2009

http://www.slate.com/id/2233966/

Ayn Rand is one of America's great mysteries. She was an amphetamine-addicted author of sub-Dan Brown potboilers, who in her spare time wrote lavish torrents of praise for serial killers and the Bernie Madoff-style embezzlers of her day. She opposed democracy on the grounds that "the masses"—her readers—were "lice" and "parasites" who scarcely deserved to live. Yet she remains one of the most popular writers in the United States, still selling 800,000 books a year from beyond the grave. She regularly tops any list of books that Americans say have most influenced them. Since the great crash of 2008, her writing has had another Benzedrine rush, as Rush Limbaugh hails her as a prophetess. With her assertions that government is "evil" and selfishness is "the only virtue," she is the patron saint of the tea-partiers and the death panel doomsters. So how did this little Russian bomb of pure immorality in a black wig become an American icon?
Twonew biographies of Rand—Goddess of the Market by Jennifer Burns and Ayn Rand and the World She Made by Anne Heller—try to puzzle out this question, showing how her arguments found an echo in the darkest corners of American political life. But the books work best, for me, on a level I didn't expect. They are thrilling psychological portraits of a horribly damaged woman who deserves the one thing she spent her life raging against: compassion.

Alisa Rosenbaum (her original name) was born in the icy winter of czarism, not long after the failed 1905 revolution ripped through her home city of St. Petersburg. Her father was a self-made Jewish pharmacist, while her mother was an aristocratic dilettante who loathed her three daughters. She would tell them she never wanted children, and she kept them only out of duty. Alisa became a surly, friendless child. In elementary school, her class was asked to write an essay about why being a child was a joyous thing. She instead wrote "a scathing denunciation of childhood," headed with a quote from Pascal: "I would prefer an intelligent hell to a stupid paradise."
But the Rosenbaums' domestic tensions were dwarfed by the conflicts raging outside. The worst anti-Jewish violence since the Middle Ages was brewing, and the family was terrified of being killed by the mobs—but it was the Bolsheviks who struck at them first. After the 1917 revolutions, her father's pharmacy was seized "in the name of the people." For Alisa, who had grown up surrounded by servants and nannies, the Communists seemed at last to be the face of the masses, a terrifying robbing horde. In a country where 5 million people died of starvation in just two years, the Rosenbaums went hungry. Her father tried to set up another business, but after it too was seized, he declared himself to be "on strike."
The Rosenbaums knew their angry, outspoken daughter would not survive under the Bolsheviks for long, so they arranged to smuggle her out to their relatives in America. Just before her 21st birthday, she said goodbye to her country and her family for the last time. She was determined to live in the America she had seen in the silent movies—the America of skyscrapers and riches and freedom. She renamed herself Ayn Rand, a name she thought had the hardness and purity of a Hollywood starlet.

She headed for Hollywood, where she set out to write stories that expressed her philosophy—a body of thought she said was the polar opposite of communism. She announced that the world was divided between a small minority of Supermen who are productive and "the naked, twisted, mindless figure of the human Incompetent" who, like the Leninists, try to feed off them. He is "mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned." It is evil to show kindness to these "lice": The "only virtue" is "selfishness."
She meant it. Her diaries from that time, while she worked as a receptionist and an extra, lay out the Nietzschean mentality that underpins all her later writings. The newspapers were filled for months with stories about serial killer called William Hickman, who kidnapped a 12-year-old girl called Marion Parker from her junior high school, raped her, and dismembered her body, which he sent mockingly to the police in pieces. Rand wrote great stretches of praise for him, saying he represented "the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. … Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should." She called him "a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy," shimmering with "immense, explicit egotism." Rand had only one regret: "A strong man can eventually trample society under its feet. That boy [Hickman] was not strong enough."
It's not hard to see this as a kind of political post-traumatic stress disorder. Rand believed the Bolshevik lie that they represented the people, so she wanted to strike back at them—through theft and murder. In a nasty irony, she was copying their tactics. She started to write her first novel, We the Living (1936), and in the early drafts her central character—a crude proxy for Rand herself—says to a Bolshevik: "I loathe your ideals. I admire your methods. If one believes one's right, one shouldn't wait to convince millions of fools, one might just as well force them."She poured these beliefs into a series of deeply odd novels. She takes the flabby staples of romantic fiction and peppers them with political ravings and rapes for the audience to cheer on. All have the same core message: Anything that pleases the Superman's ego is good; anything that blocks it is bad. In The Fountainhead, published in 1943, a heroic architect called Howard Roark designs a housing project for the poor—not out of compassion but because he wants to build something mighty. When his plans are slightly altered, he blows up the housing project, saying the purity of his vision has been contaminated by evil government bureaucrats. He orders the jury to acquit him, saying: "The only good which men can do to one another and the only statement of their proper relationship is—Hands off!"
For her longest novel, Atlas Shrugged (1957), Rand returned to a moment from her childhood. Just as her father once went on strike to protest against Bolshevism, she imagined the super-rich in America going on strike against progressive taxation—and said the United States would swiftly regress to an apocalyptic hellhole if the Donald Trumps and Ted Turners ceased their toil. The abandoned masses are described variously as "savages," "refuse," "inanimate objects," and "imitations of living beings," picking through rubbish. One of the strikers deliberately causes a train crash, and Rand makes it clear she thinks the murder victims deserved it, describing in horror how they all supported the higher taxes that made the attack necessary.
Her heroes are a cocktail of extreme self-love and extreme self-pity: They insist they need no one, yet they spend all their time fuming that the masses don't bow down before their manifest superiority.
As her books became mega-sellers, Rand surrounded herself with a tightly policed cult of young people who believed she had found the One Objective Truth about the world. They were required to memorize her novels and slapped down as "imbecilic" and "anti-life" by Rand if they asked questions. One student said: "There was a right kind of music, a right kind of art, a right kind of interior design, a right kind of dancing. There were wrong books which we should not buy."
Rand had become addicted to amphetamines while writing The Fountainhead, and her natural paranoia and aggression were becoming more extreme as they pumped though her veins. Anybody in her circle who disagreed with her was subjected to a show trial in front of the whole group in which they would be required to repent or face expulsion. Her secretary, Barbara Weiss, said: "I came to look on her as a killer of people." The workings of her cult exposed the hollowness of Rand's claims to venerate free thinking and individualism. Her message was, think freely, as long as it leads you into total agreement with me.
In the end, Rand was destroyed by her own dogmas. She fell in love with a young follower called Nathaniel Branden and had a decades-long affair with him. He became the cult's No. 2, and she named him as her "intellectual heir"—until he admitted he had fallen in love with a 23-year-old woman. As Burns explains, Rand's philosophy "taught that sex was never physical; it was always inspired by a deeper recognition of shared values, a sense that the other embodied the highest human achievement." So to be sexually rejected by Branden meant he was rejecting her ideas, her philosophy, her entire person. She screamed: "You have rejected me? You have dared to reject me? Me, your highest value?"
She never really recovered. We all become weak at some point in our lives, so a thinker who despises weakness will end up despising herself. In her 70s Rand found herself dying of lung cancer, after insisting that her followers smoke because it symbolized "man's victory over fire" and the studies showing it caused lung cancer were Communist propaganda. By then she had driven almost everyone away. In 1982, she died alone in her apartment with only a hired nurse at her side. If her philosophy is right—if the only human relationships worth having are based on the exchange of dollars—this was a happy and victorious death. Did even she believe it in the end?
Rand was broken by the Bolsheviks as a girl, and she never left their bootprint behind. She believed her philosophy was Bolshevism's opposite, when in reality it was its twin. Both she and the Soviets insisted a small revolutionary elite in possession of absolute rationality must seize power and impose its vision on a malleable, imbecilic mass. The only difference was that Lenin thought the parasites to be stomped on were the rich, while Rand thought they were the poor.
I don't find it hard to understand why this happened to Rand: I feel sympathy for her, even as I know she would have spat it back into my face. What I do find incomprehensible is that there are people—large numbers of people—who see her writing not as psychopathy but as philosophy, and urge us to follow her. Why? What in American culture did she drill into? Unfortunately, neither of these equally thorough, readable books can offer much of an answer to this, the only great question about her.
Rand expresses, with a certain pithy crudeness, an instinct that courses through us all sometimes: I'm the only one who matters! I'm not going to care about any of you any more! She then absolutizes it in an amphetamine Benzedrine-charged reductio ad absurdum by insisting it is the only feeling worth entertaining, ever.
This urge exists everywhere, but why is it supercharged on the American right, where Rand is regarded as something more than a bad, bizarre joke? In a country where almost everyone believes—wrongly, on the whole—that they are self-made, perhaps it is easier to have contempt for people who didn't make much of themselves. And Rand taps into something deeper still. The founding myth of America is that the nation was built out of nothing, using only reason and willpower. Rand applies this myth to the individual American: You made yourself. You need nobody and nothing except your reason to rise and dominate. You can be America, in one body, in one mind.
She said the United States should be a "democracy of superiors only," with superiority defined by being rich. Well, we got it. As the health care crisis has shown, today, the rich have the real power: The vote that matters is expressed with a checkbook and a lobbyist. We get to vote only for the candidates they have pre-funded and receive the legislation they have preapproved. It's useful—if daunting—to know that there is a substantial slice of the American public who believe this is not a problem to be put right, but morally admirable.
We all live every day with the victory of this fifth-rate Nietzsche of the mini-malls. Alan Greenspan was one of her strongest cult followers and even invited her to the Oval Office to witness his swearing-in when he joined the Ford administration. You can see how he carried this philosophy into the 1990s: Why should the Supermen of Wall Street be regulated to protected the lice of Main Street?
The figure Ayn Rand most resembles in American life is L. Ron Hubbard, another crazed, pitiable charlatan who used trashy potboilers to whip up a cult. Unfortunately, Rand's cult isn't confined to Tom Cruise and a rash of Hollywood dimwits. No, its ideas and its impulses have, by drilling into the basest human instincts, captured one of America's major poltical parties.

________________________________________________________________

An enlightening trip into the conservative soul, this article helps me understand those who regard Ayn as some kind of hero.
 
What are you proposing out of this?

That Ayn Rand was an unhappy paranoid nasty loathsome self centered person who lived in her own extreme fantasy world, and her writings should be treated as musing fiction and not prophecy.
 
That Ayn Rand was an unhappy paranoid nasty loathsome self centered person who lived in her own extreme fantasy world, and her writings should be treated as fiction and not prophecy.

Perhaps, but to be self centered and live in our own world (beyond fantasy connotations) is not a bad thing, regardless of contemporary opinion. If we are to live for someone else, who will live for us? Whether subconscious or conscious, every decision we make is self interested. It is natural, it is not evil. Self interest is the driving force behind all progress, whether self interest be personal or community. Something will always be exploited, a utopian society where everyone is truely equal cannot exist. It is not the responsibility of the community or individual to compensate for the disadvantages of people, and it is not possible either. Human nature does not coincide with sharing, it is survival of the fittest, as any other species. Equal rights is one thing, but pure equality is just nonsense. If an intelligent man who can achieve so much in life in terms of breakthrough and progress cannot climb to a higher social status than a normal person (monetary,respect, etc.), what is the point in trying? How does this impact progress? This is all reasoning behind why it is GOOD for a person/society to be rationally self interested, rather than labeled primitive or uncivilized human by doing so.
 
That Ayn Rand was an unhappy paranoid nasty loathsome self centered person who lived in her own extreme fantasy world, and her writings should be treated as musing fiction and not prophecy.

Smear:To stain or attempt to destroy the reputation of; vilify

"Ad hominem abusive usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions."

What you have posted is nothing more then character assassination and a dishonest and deceptive attempt to marginalize the ideas of Rand (which, in the article you presented are overly simplistic straw man mischaracterizations of what she actually argues, BTW) by attacking Rand, the person.

The whole claim that her ideas simply tap into base emotions (and are thus without any intellectual depth) is a) distortive of the truth, b) dismissive of her arguments and c) in itself an argument without substance. Your claim that some view her writings as a "prophecy" is even more absurd.

In fact, most all the specious and rhetorical arguments the hit piece you propagate raise against Rand's ideas could more accurately and substantively be applied to Karl Marx' ideas. Marxist rhetoric is based in a lot of appeals to emotion ("class warfare" specifically appeals to envy, jealousy, anger, etc.) and appeals to vague, unrealistic and emotion driven ideals ("social justice", etc.).

However, you (and the hit piece you are perpetuating) are primarily arguing that because Rand was a flawed individual, her ideas should be treated as fantasy and ignored. That is simplistic, childish ad hominem reasoning; playground logic, basically.

If you are going to ignore someones ideas due to the character flaws in their person then you can write off any ideas you want. Dismissing someone's ideas do to flaws in their person is an inadequate and dangerous substitute for critical thought.

You seem to be engaging in a lot of character assassination recently on this forum. How about, instead of looking for an excuse to hate and ignore the person you critically examine the arguments and ideas they raise (not the obvious misrepresentations and lies presented by their opponents about their ideas and them personally)?

To try and claim that her ideas are purely based on emotional appeals and without any intellectual depth is to perpetuate a LIE. To characterize those who agree with her as a cult and equate them to believers of Scientology is dishonest and insulting. I would hope you would have more class then that.
 
That Ayn Rand was an unhappy paranoid nasty loathsome self centered person who lived in her own extreme fantasy world, and her writings should be treated as musing fiction and not prophecy.
Did you read Atlas Shrugged?
 
Did you read Atlas Shrugged?

It was such a dreary tedious slog I gave up on it after a few pages.

This article is more about her the person, flaws and all and what shaped her.
As a product of her life and times I find her more interesting than her works.
I understand her disdain for the ignorant masses but she takes it personally.
Her support of a child murderer as being truly free(freedom taken to absurdity) is the height of selfish repugnance.
Very dark.
Her views have obvious merit but are as idealistic and unrealistic as the communism she grew up under.

The ignorant masses will always be ignorant.
One has to accept this as part of the human condition and not refer to people as insects and such.
 
Your claim that some view her writings as a "prophecy" is even more absurd.
I believe Rush himself has called her a Prophetess
 
However, you (and the hit piece you are perpetuating) are primarily arguing that because Rand was a flawed individual, her ideas should be treated as fantasy and ignored. That is simplistic, childish ad hominem reasoning; playground logic, basically.

We're all flawed as are our ideas.
A person's set and setting are the basis for their thinking.
Knowing of the person with the ideas gives one context and better understanding.
 
You seem to be engaging in a lot of character assassination recently on this forum.

I don't personally attack anyone on this board.
It's not "civilized"
We're all a little crazy in our own ways.
Public figures are fair game.
I've posted cartoons lampooning both Obama and Rush which you found very entertaining.
 
I believe Rush himself has called her a Prophetess

Can you cite proof?

Considering the amount of distortion and misinformation in this article, it is hardly a reliable source. And considering the fact that most quotes of Limbaugh out there are either taken out of context or completely fabricated, you would be wise to track it back to a direct, primary source before claiming it as justification for your characterization.

We're all flawed as are our ideas.
A person's set and setting are the basis for their thinking.
Knowing of the person with the ideas gives one context and better understanding.

That doesn't counter my point.

A person's background does not determine the validity and/or credibility of their argument. Yet that is precisely what you were arguing post #3 and what this article is arguing. That is a fallacious argument.

A person's background has an influence on their ideas, but to cherry pick the negative traits in ones background and emphasize those inherently distorts that background.

How do you know that the negative aspects of her background cited in this hit piece are the most influential parts of her background on her ideas and not merely tangential, incidental and/or minor things with little influence? Do you know what she read that might have influenced her thoughts? Can you show that other events in her past not discussed in this article were not more influential on her ideas?

Also, how do you know precisely how those events influenced her ideas? You can accurately say that the political views of someone's parents influence that person's political views. But that could happen in any number of ways. They could rebel against their parents and their parents political views, they could agree with their parents political views, etc.

And how do you know that the author of this article is accurately characterizing those events and not distorting them (intentionally or not) to fit into their own preconceived notions of her? That first paragraph of the article alone is full of editorializing that smears, distorts and exaggerates. And the last paragraph, equating her to L. Ron Hubbard and calling her fans cultist is smear, nothing more.

The best example of how someone's background influences their ideas is...their ideas. Not some smear piece that is cherry picking, distorting, simplifying, etc. in order to discredit the argument through the messenger.

I don't personally attack anyone on this board.

I never said you did. I said you were engaging in character assassination. Like in posting this hit piece on Rand.

Again, instead of looking for an excuse to hate and ignore the person why don't you critically examine the arguments and ideas they raise?
 
Ok
I haven't been able to find an exact quote of Rush calling her a prophetess(Oh Truthiness) :D however

http://www.passionateamerica.com/rush-agrees-with-me-read-atlas-shrugged/

Here is what Rush had to say, Read Atlas Shrugged, Again:

RUSH: How many of you have read the book​
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand? I read the book and The Fountainhead, a number of them. Atlas Shrugged for those of you who haven’t read it, I’ll give you the basic book report summary. It is basically about the achievers of life quitting, because they’re tired of being 1% of the population pulling the other 99% in the cart. They’re tired of everything they earned being taxed; they’re tired of everything they earn being taken from them and given to everybody else, and they quit, and when they quit, nobody has anything. They just throw up their hands in frustration and say, “Screw it.”​
The book is also a guide on how to defeat socialism and liberalism. I will go so far as to say most of Rush’s philosophy is derived from Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand. Rush goes on to read some quotes from the book that you can listen to here.



And once again Rush is right,
Wow. The whole book is like this, by the way. It’s one of these things that if you haven’t read it, get it. It’s a long book, but you’re not going to be able to put it down.​
If you are intimidated by the size of Atlas Shrugged then you are not really one of the 1% of achievers in this world. I am telling you Rush and I are not just blowing smoke about this book. If you ever wondered why some people just don’t get it you’ll know after you read Atlas Shrugged.
________________________________________________________________

Sure looks like Ayn is Rush's prophet.

Funny though, I'm one of the 1% of the achievers in this world and I don't recall being tired of having "everything" taken away from me by government stooges and taxes.
Why would I want to quit if I get to keep more than half the money I make.
As if I'd be getting together with other peers to strike the government.
Prepostorous!
We're too busy in our own Kingdoms of Money :cool:

This whole super achievers collectively quitting and screwing the government premise of the book is a critical feel good flaw that would make it ok as a movie where we have a good time if we just overlook the big hole in the plot.
 
I never said you did. I said you were engaging in character assassination. Like in posting this hit piece on Rand.

Again, instead of looking for an excuse to hate and ignore the person why don't you critically examine the arguments and ideas they raise?

That wouldn't be as much fun as tossing in a juicy piece.
I read somewhere Beethoven was an SOB.
I don't hate Ayn nor do I love her.
I do admire that as an athiest she wrote up a code of moral conduct not based on religious faith.
She obviously left her mark with her books and philosophy.
I think I'll pick up these 2 books on Ayn as I do find her a fascinating person in her set and setting.
She was certainly larger than life.
 
Do you really think that the philosophy behind modern Conservatism and Libertarianism stem primarily from a fiction novel?

I will go so far as to say most of Rush’s philosophy is derived from Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand.

Most people who follow politics as closely as Limbaugh (who's livelihood depends on that) do not derive there philosophical views from works of fiction. They study the actual philosophical writings.

Rand can be considered a secondary influence, but hardly the source from where "most of [his] philosophy is derived". You should look at the library section of his website, specifically the section titled "Rush and Political Theory" to see what have influenced his philosophical views. He has referred to Nobel Prize winner Friedrich A. Hayek's brilliant work The Road To Serfdom (1944) as a perception changer. I am reading it currently and don't consider that claim to be an exaggeration. In fact, the intellectual roots of modern conservatism as well as libertarianism in the area of economics and government (among other things) stem more from that work then from Rand's.

The Federalist Papers also serve as a HUGE influence on modern Conservative thought as well as Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater and and the writings of William F. Buckley jr. Limbaugh has spoken highly of all those works as well.

Sure looks like Ayn is Rush's prophet.

You really should know the history of modern Conservative political thought and be familiar with Limbaugh's views before you claim that.

Funny though, I'm one of the 1% of the achievers in this world and I don't recall being tired of having "everything" taken away from me by government stooges and taxes.

Maybe you should be more familiar the philosophical ideas behind Atlas Shrugged before you start demeaning and dismissing those views. Weather or not you are "tired" of encroaching collectivism is not really relevant to the argument.

Rand's fiction is great at imperfectly and idealistically illustrating those philosophical ideas in a story, but, as most works of fiction, they don't do as good a job of thoroughly explaining the thoughts behind those principles as the non-fiction writings from where those ideas stem.

Frankly, looking primarily to works of fiction to develop your social and/or political views is foolish, IMO. Fiction works can tailor the story to show the superiority of whatever views they want, just look at Star Trek. Fiction is good at illustrating ideas, but can be deceptive in making naive and/or dangerous ideas seem reasonable and without negative consequences. Your best bet is to read the non-fiction writings and philosophical ideas that influenced the work of fiction and critically analyze those ideas against the evidence of history.

It seems that you don't think there is much intellectual depth behind conservative thought. That is more then a little intellectually insulting and a highly ignorant view.
 
It was such a dreary tedious slog I gave up on it after a few pages.
Then you have no credibility to speak on the book.

I gave up reading the rest of your lame, dreary, tedious post after the first line.

FWIW, I read the entire book and it was anything but tedious. Of course, you have to be willing to put away the comic book mentality when you read it. It's not for the faint of mind.

Have you ever listened to Rush's show, say, more than 6 hours worth?
 
Then you have no credibility to speak on the book.

I gave up reading the rest of your lame, dreary, tedious post after the first line.

FWIW, I read the entire book and it was anything but tedious. Of course, you have to be willing to put away the comic book mentality when you read it. It's not for the faint of mind.

Have you ever listened to Rush's show, say, more than 6 hours worth?

No I can only criticise it and it's premise second hand but I can speak about Ayn Rand and her life without having read her books.
After reading some biographies on her I may peruse Atlass Shrugged again.

I have never listened to Rush's show.
Or any other talk radio show.
I confess to the Rand virtue of selfishness so things outside my own selfish interests don't have a lot of importance to me.
 
No I can only criticise it and it's premise second hand but I can speak about Ayn Rand and her life without having read her books.

But you can't critique her ideas through her life, especially if you haven't read her ideas.
 
I have never listened to Rush's show.
Then you also have zero credibility to comment on his show.

By the way, I've listened to Rush regularly since 1992. I definitely have the credibility to comment on his show. So if you have a question about it, instead of popping off like a fool, ask somebody who knows.
 
Then you also have zero credibility to comment on his show.

But Rush is a public personality who is bigger than just his show.
My comments have been about him and what I read, not so much about his show.

You have seemed a bit reserved and short of recent so by your offer it's good to see you returning to your old self.
It's not as much fun having shag carry most of the arguments
 
But Rush is a public personality who is bigger than just his show.
My comments have been about him and what I read, not so much about his show.

Secondary sources that, as history shows almost always mischaracterize him (intentionally or not). When he is quoted in the media, or something is written about him in the media, it is always a good idea to wait, check the actually unedited record and compare his narrative to the narrative in the mainstream media to see which one lines up more with the facts and with his past (not past misrepresentations of him in the media).

BTW, I am curious, do you think there is little intellectual depth to conservatism and libertarianism? If so, why?
 
But Rush is a public personality who is bigger than just his show.
My comments have been about him and what I read, not so much about his show.

You have seemed a bit reserved and short of recent so by your offer it's good to see you returning to your old self.
It's not as much fun having shag carry most of the arguments
No, you tried to claim that he called Ayn Rand a prophetess, presumably on his show. If you ever listened to his show, you wouldn't pop off like that.

And I agree, it's no fun getting your arguments shredded by Shag. The best solution I can offer to that is - don't be wrong, and don't use flawed arguments. ;)
 
I bought it, but with 300 pages a week in reading for classes amongst other things, it stares at me from the book shelf.
I finished it over three months by reading myself to sleep at night. It's deep stuff; you can't slurp it through a straw. You need your knife and fork.
 
I finished it over three months by reading myself to sleep at night. It's deep stuff; you can't slurp it through a straw. You need your knife and fork.

I just pictured you under a blanket with a flashlight.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top