While I agree with every word that came from this book, I thought of it as dry literature. He kept using his book as a lecture post and prevented letting his characters move along in the story. While I enjoy books on economics, I felt he tried too hard to make a point. It is my general understanding of fictional literature that the story is more about the characters than anything else.
The parts I did enjoy were the struggles Peter was going through fighting against the socialist including his main rival. However, the author just let that struggle stay i limbo.
I believe Ann Rand was much better at keeping her stories moving. Her characters were always struggling against the “moochers” and demagogues of her books.I thought Hazzlit should have taken clues from her work, however, I hear those Rand people are vehement about IP .
Maybe I’m being too hard but I believe that Hazzlit should have focused on making the book non fiction as he is good at explaining things clearly. However, what makes him and Rand different is the way they incorporated their philosophies in their literature.
I critique this book because I believe fictional works play an important part of spreading the message and we should learn how to do so in a way that will keep readers captivated in ways that non-fiction may not be able to do.
I hope to hear some feed back.
