True story. I was in a comic store and saw a statue of a character I loved as a kid. He wasn't an action figure when I was young, so technically I'd never wanted it as a kid. Anyway, I saw it and wasn't going to get it, but then I realized if I didn't buy it I'd be kicking myself for years.
I brouhgt it and it sits on my shelf. I seldom think about it, but when I do I'm happy i have it.
[off topic?]
Back when the Americans were debating the Constitution, one delegate got up in the morning and spent hours explaining why America needed a King. He put forth every argument and defended them. That afternoon he got up and spent the rest of his time explaining why they shouldn't have a King.
Showing you understand both sides is a good idea.
tl, dr
You've given up on your original point, because I showed that it was an incorrect assumption on your part. I'll repeat. A person's subjective tastes can be viewed objectively. If a person says they want to watch a musical right now, anyone can objectively judge if a movie is a musical or not.
Now you're upset because I read the original commnet, and suggested that the person might like to read some books I'd enjoyed.
As far as I can tell, you've never read any of the books involved.
The only thing I'm confused about is why you're in such a lather.
Personal enjoyment is not something you can quantify in a way that allows for objectivity.
That completely ignores what the original poster wrote, and I never said it did.
They wanted books without Right Wing ideology. I gave them some examples of books without Right Wing ideology.
If a person says they want a musical and I give them a documentary with no music at all, I'd be objectively wrong.
Are you still confused?
The books I cited are superior because they are not full of hard Right ideology.
Objectively means that any disinterested person can pick out the quality. If OP were looking for red shoes, black shoes would be objectively the wrong choice.
It doesn't matter if you like ice fishing or not, objectively the Sahara Desert is not a good place to go ice fishing.
I noted the difference between my subjective enjoyment of the authors, and the objective fact that the books weren't right wing.
Are you still confused?
I quite enjoy the Tom Clancy books, and some of the film adaptations, but know he is right wing and it comes through in the books.
That's the original comment I was responding to.
The books I cited are superior because they are not full of hard Right ideology.
They are also, in my opinion, much better written and far more enjoyable.
If you'd bothered to try and understand what I was saying, you wouldn't have wasted all our time.
The books are better for the person who posted. Objectively better because they aren't right wing screeds.
It's apples and oranges. No one expects to get accurate scientific data in a pop song, and no one expects a comic book movie to be realistic.
People accept a lot of inaccuracies in a James Bond movie, but they'd feel cheated if Bond suddenly had the power to time travel or turn into a lion.
Since you never read the book I have nothing to add.
TIL.
Thanks.
Back in the day, I started 'The Hunt For Red October' and noped out when the Soviet submarine commander wrote the KGB a litter telling them that he was stealing the most powerful weapon on Earth. It was so colossally stupid that I refused to read another line.
Unless you're telling me that you actually listen to Guitar 101 students making all sorts of errors.
Here's Ray Charles singing The Alphabet Song. Superior talent can take simple things and vastly improve them. Untalented people can take good ingredients and make an inedible mess.
Bwah-ha-ha!! Suffer! Suffer!