<p>I wanted to give a Christmas present to a friend who has been through some tough times (her sisters were drug addicts, her father died when she was eight, she contemplated suicide). But she's incredibly smart and wants to go to Juilliard. She doesn't have any motivation. But i dont want to get her a self help book. But it has to be a book, because she really likes reading fiction. If anyone could help me with this, i would really appreciate it!</p>
<p>catcher in the rye lol</p>
<p>Could you name some of her favorite authors and/or types of fiction? It would help if we could know some of her preferences.</p>
<p>And do you necessarily want a happy book? Many of the best books, the most realistic ones, don't end happily.</p>
<p>An inspirational book? Maybe you should get her some of those Chicken Soup books; the compilation of short stories is amazing, and I find it very heartening to read.</p>
<p>A novel? Or just any book?</p>
<p>AYN RAND!</p>
<p>Well, okay. That was more pushing her books. I think the ideas are worth having an opinion about.</p>
<p>I really enjoyed E.L. Doctorow's Ragtime, and Angela's Ashes by Frank McCourt, oh, and anything by Dave Barry. That man is hilarious. On the odder side, you can also give her Fractured Fairy Tales -- she won't forget it.</p>
<p>Ayn Rand sucks. The ideas are worth having an opinion about; mine is that she knew nothing about the real world and had obviously not taken American history and learned about the Gilded Age when the robber barons worked only for their own benefit (which makes sense considering that she was Russian).</p>
<p>What? No. The "robber barons" gave you the Met and countless other institutions, saved the US (JP Morgan did, at least) from a depression, and propelled American Industry to new heights. It's fine that they worked towards their own benefit, and Rand, in fact, did know about them. Gilded Age is actually one of my favourite periods in American History. I believe, though I could be wrong, that she admired those businessmen profusely: They worked to earn money and managed to do so, spectacularly.</p>
<p>I for one love that they worked for themselves, and themselves only. It's not as if anyone else helped them. They had ability and they achieved.</p>
<p>They were philanthropists because they had money, and they had money because they held a good percentage of the Northern urban population in wage slavery so that their children couldn't break the cycle (Carnegie expected them to go to school or libraries but come on; school on top of 14 hours of work just to eat?) and essentially lied, cheated, and bribed their competition out of business. Not exactly admirable, eh? They had ability, alright - to defraud others out of their money in a very uncapitalistic way.</p>
<p>J.P. Morgan didn't save the U.S. In fact, he and Ketchum threw it into depression by moving tons of specie to Africa. Furthermore, during the Civil War, he bought a large number defective rifles from the United States (warned that they were defective) for a very low price. He proceeded to sell the same rifles back to the government for a 500% return. The government sued, and amazingly Morgan won. The court upheld his right to defraud the government.</p>
<p>catcher in the rye lol</p>
<p>ROFL I was gonna say that because I'm reading that right now and I love it.</p>
<p>That book wasn't spectacular but it was certainly not bad. I didn't like Holden, but then again, Salinger didn't quite intend for him to be likeable.</p>
<p>Of course they were philanthropists because they had the money; it's kinda hard to do if you don't have it. So what? The end goal is the same, despite them not doing it for some love of charity. Please, the people could work for anyone they pleased or go out of work. Those were the conditions, it was up to the people to accept, or go into even worse poverty.</p>
<p>
[quote]
lied, cheated, and bribed their competition out of business. Not exactly admirable, eh?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah; agreed on that point. Though that can be said only for some cases.</p>
<p>Though entirely basing their fortunes on defrauding others? I think not. There are isolated incidents, but it's not a general rule of thumb. Howe'er, I need to get back to this silly short story scholarship thing. Bad time to be formulating a thesis >.< I'll ttyl about this, maybe, preferably over Messages, because I don't want to hijack this thread.</p>
<p>Oh, and Holden was irritating.</p>
<p>And another more of my favourites: This side of Paradise, by F. Scott Fitzgerald; As I Lay Dying, by William Faulkner; The Picture of Dorian Gray, by Oscar Wilde; Ender's Game (and series), by Orson Scott Card.</p>
<p>They could work (be oppressed) by anyone they pleased - but the choices weren't that great, and the bosses didn't have to yield to any demands because of the unemployment rate. They could go out of work and starve. And they certainly couldn't buy a farm or make a business; they had no capital that could possibly be saved or scraped together to do that. Patient acceptance of poor conditions and treatment is not progress.</p>
<p>I guess I should be working too. I want to get a music composition scholarship for Blue Lake, so I should work on that.</p>