Hill Climb Racing 2 Industrial Deals HPC Oprah's Book Club Red Shoes We Love nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Stream your favorites. Amazon music Unlimited. Learn more. All-New Fire 7, starting at $49.99 Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Gift Shop Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon Thor: Ragnarok available to buy Thor: Ragnarok available to buy Thor: Ragnarok available to buy  Three new members of the Echo family Introducing All-New Fire HD 10 with Alexa hands-free $149.99 Kindle Paperwhite AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Shop now TG18_gno

on November 28, 2017
I give this book at most 3 stars. I would not really see this book as a romance because the majority of the book is full of Sam Gordon arguing about his economic perspectives with Laura. Although you can learn a few economic concepts (that keep re occurring throughout the book), I believe that it would truly be more efficient if these concepts were learned in class. But the main reason why I rated this 3 stars instead of 2 is because of the very few parts of the book in which Sam is teaching his class ( it was one of the most memorable part of the book, but there were not that many parts with this). The problem I had with this book was that the whole book was very choppy, unappealing, and a bit dry. I had to read this book for my AP Economics class and although it was not my cup of tea, I do know of a few that really enjoyed the book. If you are unfamiliar with basic economics, I think you will learn a lot from this book. But if you already have a general background and really want something interesting, this may not be for you.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on December 3, 2017
The Invisible Heart is an interesting look at economics in the real world, marred by a misdirected and cheesy story that could have been improved to better fit with the lessons that it tries to preach. Honestly, I don’t hate the Invisible Heart as much as some others might. The author, Russell Roberts, obviously knows what the free market is and how it works and is operated. The theory put out by the protagonist, Sam, make sense, and fit well in our modern world. However, sometimes a painful read is ahead in between the monologues of economic theory. This is evident in a few different ways.
    First though, I want to discuss the good things. Sam is a pretty likeable character, serving as an underdog that most people don’t understand. He’s pretty basic, mainly serving as a vessel for the economics to pour out of. Speaking of which, the economic theory is very engaging, and the examples that Sam cooks up are very simple to explain and to understand, making you think about how hard it must be to run a successful business. For many scenarios, he shows a simple scenario from the consumer and producer perspectives, as well as their interactions to get what the other one wants. It’s not super complicated or thought-provoking, but does give some context to something that most people take for granted, and how the economy works in the background. However, the economics is really the only saving grace of this book.
    I won’t give anything away, but suffice it to say that the story in the Invisible Heart is all over the place. The story switches between 4 different perspectives, telling 2 different stories during the book. The 2 different stories deal with Sam, and with a corrupt company called HealthNet. Some of the plot contain genuinely interesting scenarios that do happen in real life all the time, but the context and execution of said scenes always sucks out any drama or interest there could have been. By the end of each chapter, I was exhausted, but not in a way of being fulfilled. Every character introduced has no real purpose, and I was having trouble keeping track of them, despite the relatively small number. Each one simply exists to further Sam’s discussion of economics or to learn more about the corrupt company.
    One thing that really hurt my enjoyment of the story and its characters is the lack of interesting or believable dialogue. If the author of this book knows something about economics, then he does not know how to write a conversation. Everytime someone interacts with Sam, or when characters are thinking to themselves, you can tell it’s trying to turn the direction back into an economics discussion. This hurts the book in whole, as it fights with itself between wanting to tell a love story, and wanting to give economics lessons. This ‘interesting’ dialogue also makes the characters completely unrealistic and unlikable in their words. Their cliche lines don’t make me hate them, but just make me wish I was reading a textbook on the theory instead.
    In conclusion, The Invisible Heart is definitely not a terrible experience. If you aren’t bothered by hokey lines or stories with no big emotional payoff, then it is still worth it to get an economics lesson. However, as a student of economics myself, you would probably get the same kind of knowledge from Khan Academy, or even just asking your teacher for some explanatory scenarios. Eventually I got bored with the story and just skipped to when Sam gave his monologues to whoever he was talking to. The bias is fairly evident, leaning pro-capitalism, but too most people, that shouldn’t be an issue. And, if you don’t read the book, then you aren’t missing much in the story, so you can rest easy.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on January 26, 2018
The Invisible Heart is a novel written by Russell Roberts. In this book, Roberts offers up a debate about the morality of capitalism via the romantic sparring of protagonist, Sam Gordon, and his love interest, Laura Silver. Sam is a free-market economics teacher. Laura, who teaches English, takes a more favorable view of government regulation than of markets. Roberts uses Sam and Laura’s argumentative attitude toward one another to debunk common stereotypes of free-market economics and economists.

Throughout the book, the author uses the characters to describe economic concepts and even occasionally uses them in a real life situations rather than Sam just explaining it in a class. For example, when Sam and Laura are discussing government intervention, Sam brings up an idea that is, “‘Airbags or seat belts aren’t the only way to keep a kid safe in a car. There are other, cheaper ways. You can drive more slowly. You can drive less often. You can postpone travel when it rains.’” (Roberts 23) This is an example of a trade off.

This book has a lot of bias, and not a lot of plot. I found it very forced how he tried to fit economic concepts in there and try to make it a story when in reality it just didn’t work. Roberts was opinionated in his “economic stories” between Sam and Laura and I found it unenjoyable. For example, during the airbag conversation, Sam says “Deactivating it is against the law. In theory, you are allowed to install an off-on switch. You have to write a letter to an official in Washington explaining why you want to turn it off… If the official finds your reason acceptable, he sends you a letter giving you permission to turn it off. Isn’t that thoughtful? He sends you a letter giving you permissio
n to use your own car as you see fit.” (Roberts 24) This clearly shows the ideas of a Libertarian. He expresses how there should be no government intervention by passive aggressively responding.

In conclusion, overall this book was not very well put together in my opinion. While there were some valid arguments and good ideas, it was very biased and forced. I would not recommend this book to anyone.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on December 3, 2017
Throughout “The Invisible Heart” there are many important and interesting concepts/ideas; however, there are still many flaws relating to the structure and perspective of the book that make it slow and uninteresting to read especially if you are reading to learn about economics.

The Invisible Heart is a book about two teachers at a private school in Washington D.C. It follows Sam Gordon, an Economics teacher with strong liberal views, and Laura Silver, an English teacher with many opposing ideas from Sam, through roughly one school year. The story connects economic principles to real world ideas through arguments between these two characters. Oh did I forget to mention there is suppose to be a romance? It doesn't really matter anyways. I digress, throughout the book there is another story running in tandem that shows an alternative perspective on many of the economic situations discussed by Sam. The economics is probably the only compelling thing in this book.

All through the book there are many different economic concepts that are explored and explained. Most of these concepts are interesting and very thought provoking. Requiring you to reevaluate how you see certain situations. This is one of the few aspects of the book that is interesting. Most of the concepts in the book are fairly direct and show a clear point of view. These mostly come from Sam Gordon’s, not so elegant, rants and arguments. “But the more you limit people's choices, even in the name of helping them, the more responsibility you take away from them”. These often go into large rabbit holes and end with the reader questioning some aspects of the argument. Along with his arguments, sprinkled through the book there are moments where Sam talks about his perspective on larger topics like living life. “Because banning television is against the rules of the game. Not the rules of our game in here, but my rules of the game for the good life. The good life is real. It’s full of ups and downs. Success and failure”. These are also quite interesting to think about and make you ask a lot of questions about what living life really means. Setting all that aside I had several issues that made the book unpleasant and unenjoyable to read

One major thing is the bias that is very hard to look over. All through the book the reader is introduced to concepts and ideas that mostly come from the very libertarian mind of Sam Gordon. The author uses other perspectives, which initially might make you think have credibility, for the soul reason of getting turned down by the libertarian perspective given by Sam Gordon. Every time Laura tries to introduce another perspective Sam shuts it down instantly, and in not one of their arguments does Laura ever “win.” It is quite clear that the author doesn’t give the counterargument a chance which shows the clear and very present bias. As stated above I found the economics one of the few things that was interesting.

Throughout the book I found it very hard to connect with the characters. Sam is just an arrogant economics teacher that thinks that he is right and other perspectives don’t exist. It is hard to connect with him and nothing really resonated. Laura also felt very thin. Most of the time she felt too much of an opposite, and the “romantic” scenes felt very forced and stereotypical with little relevance to the story. I haven’t even gotten started on Erica and Mr. Krause. Their roles are meant to be very black and white to start with, but still came across and thin and overly black and white. Overall I felt that the story and plot were poorly executed due to paper thin characters.

In conclusion the most interesting point of the book was the one sided economic principles that are explained by a twig of a character. Through the book there are a few moments that are interesting but those moments are surrounded by poorly executed plot that doesn’t always make sense and characters that don’t feel natural. If I wanted to learn about the economic concepts in this book I would rather have learnt them from a real teacher not an arrogant enraged economist that has issues with people’s difference in opinions.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on December 3, 2017
In this story, each character is represented as an ideology, most clearly Sam as libertarianism. His dialogue overtakes most of the text, resulting in no opposition against his views. The characters are two dimensional and lack motivation to further the plotline. However, laid within the unsubstantial story, central economic topics were discussed. “The Invisible Heart” by Russell Roberts fails to develop characters or unbiased arguments, but presented main economic ideas.

This novel contains four main characters, two of whom are a part of a TV show. The two real characters are extremely underdeveloped, which is the main reason why this book is not an example of adequate literature. Firstly, the dialogue is completely flat and with a rehearsed tone. Sam sounds like he is reading from an opinionated scholarly article, while Laura only answers with short phrases or continually asks “why” he feels a certain way. Since these characters have no background or endeavors, except teaching in the book, the dialogue is left to reveal these character’s stories. However, because Sam seems to be just blurting basic concept after concept, he appears completely two dimensional. Just as a textbook, this book contains little to no emotion. While Sam does get agitated when his beliefs are questioned, this is supposed to be a romantic novel with passion. He rarely shows interest in Laura, and Laura spends most of the book annoyed with his inability to control his reactions to other’s judgements. Sam’s long monologues of thought, instead of acting as insightful, prove how little the author really knows about this character, as his rambling ideologies shift chapter to chapter. Laura speaks with a passive tone, merely agreeing or presenting broad, simple questions. There is no connection between the reader, characters, and plot. The characters don’t actively desire or work towards a goal, there is no climax of the story, and consequently, the reader has no reason to care for what happens to these characters.

Another issue exhibited in “The Invisible Heart” is bias laid within underdeveloped arguments. Sam agrees with libertarian views frequently, and is unchallenged by Laura. One instance of this is when Sam and Laura are discussing his father disagreeing with the government about his unsafe porch. The government wanted him to remove the porch, but his father refused to. Sam discusses how he also has issues with government intervention in the statement “...it’s bad enough for the government to keep children away from dangerous porches… Not only is there less delight in a world of little danger, but there is less humanity when we are always being treated like children.” (pg. 29). In this argument, Sam assumes that people will learn from their mistakes, and that regulation takes away from what makes us human. Laura mostly replies to his arguments with comments such as “That’s a nice line” (pg. 28), “Oh I don’t know” (pg. 30), and “You’re not easily offended” (pg. 31). Because Laura does not challenge him, they don’t discuss the positive impacts of government or the fact that not all people have the cognitive ability to learn from their mistakes or be self sufficient, a main objective of libertarianism. Another example of an insufficiently developed argument is when Laura and Sam are talking about business rights after Laura complains about how women’s dry cleaning is more expensive than men’s. He believes in business’ right to raise prices for poorly manufactured products, “Because profits help the customer. The potential for profit spurs a business to please its customers.” (pg. 66) While the business may want customer satisfaction, they also must value a large profit. This profit does not always benefit the consumer, such as when prices may heighten and wages lower. Also, compared to large firms, small businesses such as (likely family owned) dry cleaners don’t have the market power to fluctuate their costs and product quality, as their goods have greater elasticity. However, because Sam’s views weren’t challenged, this lead the reader to assume that his perspective had “won” the argument, even though it was constructed by many beliefs rather than facts; only his undisputed opinion was presented, while “Laura looked puzzled” (pg. 72).

Because most of this book was spent evaluating simple economic concepts rather than creating an actual story, it does provide theories for students to form their own opinions of. This includes subjects such as oil consumption, minimum wage jobs, and inflation. Sam discusses these in the classroom and with Laura, and usually sides with the unexpected opinion. Because of Sam’s spontaneity, readers are able to think past the conventional. However, these topics could be thoroughly discussed in a classroom setting over a much shorter time period than it takes to read this book. The lives of the characters and description of setting take up space between the economic lessons, resulting in a strange disjointed relationship between the discussion of economic ideas and the realistic aspects of the novel.

“The Invisible Heart” does explore core economic concepts, but does not effectively portray contrasting opinions or a basic plot line with three dimensional characters. This is proven through the one sided, flat dialogue, which feels forced and unnatural. The author analyzes a somewhat atypical viewpoint of economic ideas, but only voices this though one character, between the otherwise simple, cliche writing style. Economic novels should not be written with evident bias or especially romance.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on December 3, 2017
Russell Roberts, a well qualified economist with a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago, sat down one day in the late 90’s to begin work on what I’m sure he thought would become a great tool for the average person to get a basic grasp of economics. This piece would eventually become a book entitled the Invisible heart: an economic romance. This story follows Sam Gordon and Laura Silver as they debate and expand one another's political, economic, and social beliefs. Sam, being a libertarian and believing that people ought to be able to be responsible for themselves, is often at ends with his coworker and “friend” Laura Silver who believes that any problem can be fixed by the government. This book may be good for those few who are interested in economics but don't have the time or ability to take a course on economics either in person or online. While the Invisible Heart leaves much to be desired when read for entertainment purposes it is a fine tool for learning basic economic ideals.

This book contains awkward dialog and plots that are seemingly held together with nothing better than duct tape left over from the 80’s. The literature style in this book is not great but what else is to be expected from someone without a single qualification for fiction writing. This book just seems to drag on and on. Neither the plots with Laura and Sam, nor Erica and Charles, seem to go anywhere. There's no sense of time passing nor any semblance of character development. Setting is nowhere to be seen, I think it takes place in DC but I have no clue what the Edwards school looks like or any the characters for that matter. Laura seems overall underdeveloped and a bit weak of a character to pair with Sam’s strong arguments and boisterous personality. This pairing is so mismatched to the point that due to Laura's failure as a debater Sam begins to argue with himself more than he does with Laura. Overall this book is not a world class novel and while it's not the worst thing I've ever read, it really is a close call.

This book as a learning tool for economics really isn't that bad. The caveat here being that you do have to sit through chapter upon chapter of a terrible romance to learn anything. I think that the economics in this book are solid, but a bit one sided. Sam does seem to be a good economics teacher and I really do feel that this book would have been better if it had focused more on Sam’s arguments. Russell Roberts is a brilliant economist and that shows in his examples, which are both entertaining and informative. They really paint a picture of a sound economic philosophy. The downside being that the philosophy included in this book is very one sided with very few of the faults being explored when they could have been relatively easily since the premise of most of the book is Sam and Laura arguing.

Overall this book is for a very specific audience and I’m just not it. This book does go by fast at only two hundred and fifty pages it’s not quite the Same torture as reading William Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury when Quentin rides around on a trolley for fifty pages discussing his own depression and twisted crush on his sister. But I digress, this book has very little substance and can best be described as a marshmallow. Light and airy with just enough substance that you could, if you really wanted to, walk away having learned a thing or two. I recommend this book to the average consumer who may want a light feathering of economic knowledge without committing to a new wealth of knowledge.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on December 3, 2017
Reading a novel for a class is always tricky. Even a fantastic book can be ruined by forced speed-reading, agonizing annotations, and boring class discussions. Of course, said novels are a necessity in many classrooms. However, negative reactions are often unavoidable. In the case of The Invisible Heart: An Economic Romance by Russell Roberts, I don’t think I would have enjoyed this book even if I had read it outside of the classroom. I would not recommend this book because it was poorly written, the characters were contrived, and the story barely develops.
Russell Roberts is a relatively famous economist. Throughout the book, he makes it clear he knows a lot about economic principles. The same can’t be said for his fiction writing skills. Everything about the writing felt incredibly unnatural. The way the main characters, Sam and Laura, talked was very fake. This novel’s purpose was to teach economics, but no one argues about economics while talking about bagels. I think the idea of making a fiction story that was intended to teach economics in a “fun” way was just a bad and unachievable idea, especially for an untrained fiction author.
Another facet of lousy writing is terrible characters. The characters of Sam and Laura felt one-dimensional. They didn’t feel like real people I could meet on the street. Ultimately, they were stereotypes. Laura was the typical liberal English teacher who was characterized as having a bit of a bleeding heart. Sam was a strict libertarian with a stubborn, argumentative streak. These characters just spend their time arguing. Neither ever concede, especially Sam, or try to see the other person’s POV. The two never seem to change and grow over the course of this story. In real life, they would never fall in love. It’s simply unrealistic.
Speaking of the story, it’s underdeveloped. The same thing happens over and over and over again. Sam and Laura just argue in different venues around Washington D.C. for the entire book. Sam always “wins” these arguments, strictly because he is unwilling to even consider seeing someone else’s side. It’s painstakingly frustrating. It feels like a repetitive rhythm, like you’re stuck in a washing machine cycle. As a reader, you can start to predict what’s going to happen with the supposed lovebirds. When the book ends, it feels unfinished and like nothing developed. Sam and Laura do get a happy ending, but it seems random. Neither of the characters evolve, and they aggravate each other to no end, so how do they end up together?
All in all, this book was clearly not my favorite read. Personally, I don’t even feel like I learned much economics because I only got to hear from the libertarian POV and Sam’s arguments were so long winded and confusing. This novel was not worth reading for education or pleasure. I would’ve much rather done assignments out of a textbook, and that’s saying something.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on December 3, 2017
The book The Invisible Heart is biased towards libertarianism, because it only does a good job at explaining basic libertarian principles, but doesn’t provide a strong alternate perspective, and also tries to make the main character overly benevolent.
The book provides great explanations and examples for libertarian principles. The reader is taught through the main character, Sam Gordon (who is an economics teacher), via his in class lectures or his many debates with a fellow colleague, Laura Silver, who ties to provide a different perspective as an English teacher. Sam explains to Laura why teachers aren’t paid that much compared to basketball players by explaining,“We educate between 30 and 150 kids per year. A great athlete will entertain millions… But the artistry of a basketball player is only frivolous in your eyes. To others, he’s a genius. Would you admit that he should make at least as much money as a psychiatrist? They both help people forget their troubles.” (pg. 43). Sam argues that teachers aren’t paid much, because they aren’t valued to individuals as highly, and there are more of them when compared to professional athletes.
The book fails to provide a strong opponent or even merely another perspective that we can use to compare and contrast with Sam’s strongly libertarian perspective. Part of the time we are taught economic concepts in Sam’s classroom, which is oddly devoid of many questions--especially thought provoking ones--from students. For the rest of the book Sam ‘debates’ with Laura, which consist of chapter of half page rants broken up by Laura’s often naive questions, and never her thought out opinions. In the middle of Sam’s explanation of the free market and how it causes teacher’s salaries to be so low in comparison to those of professional athletes, Laura interjects by saying, “I don’t see how you can praise a system that makes CEO’s and basketball players the lords of the manor and makes us serfs.”(pg. 45). Instead of saying precisely why she doesn't like the system of a free market, Laura argues that she doesn’t like her specific outcome, which is that she isn’t paid as much as she wants. Also, Laura fails to provide an alternative system that she would prefer or argue why a free market is a flawed system. The alternative the book uses to respond to a long-winded argument on the free market system, is merely ‘I want more money’.
The main character, and and preacher of libertarian views, is made to be a near perfect and benevolent character, while those with opposing views are made to either be naive, or incredibly unlikable characters. Again, during Sam and Laura’s discussion on teacher’s wages Sam says, “It’s why I teach high school rather than do something else with my economics degree that pays more,” (pg. 43). The book tries to sell to the reader that Sam gave up the opportunity to have a hugely successful career in economics, to help shape and mold the young minds of future generations. While this sacrifice is used as a statement to try and make Sam’s character more benevolent than others, then wouldn’t all teachers be hailed for their heroism in this regard? Also, in response to Laura’s displeasure in her current income Sam comments, “I find it striking how many people resent their economic condition when it’s so much more pleasant to be content with what you have.” (pg. 42). This comment is meant to accurately represent Sam’s exact thoughts, but it’s unrealistically infallible. While many people seem greedy in that they wish they made more money even though they make much more than those in most of the world, others who are content with their earnings aren’t opposed or adverse to more money. Instead Sam is shown to be so positive and perfect, that he would be happy with any amount of money.
The book feels like a half-baked libertarian essay. Even though the book supports a libertarian view with thought out and well-supported arguments, it fails to be convincing, because it’s debates are so one sided, and the reader’s questions and challenges of libertarianism aren’t represented.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on December 3, 2017
After reading The Invisible Heart by Russell Roberts over the past few weeks, I do not think the book is worth the money I spent. The only reason I purchased the book and also read it was because it was an assignment in class for a AP Economics class.

I’ll be honest with this part. I did learn new things about Economics in this book. The book centered around these two main characters, Sam Gordon and Laura Silver. With Laura being an obviously a democrat/liberal and Sam being a libertarian. Also with Sam being in favor of a non-government society and Laura being in favor of a government based social. The book also talked about real life examples and situations that anyone could go through in their life-time, which I now know my options if I do run into these conflicts later in life.

The main story line was between Sam and Laura like I said earlier. To society, Laura is correct because we live in a country built around this power government. But Sam thinks differently, he thinks there should be no government, everyone doing their own thing but still respecting others decisions. Even though I like Sam as a person, I think Laura is correct in this situation, I think the government is a good thing for a big society like the US. Government keeps society mostly peaceful. Also another difference between Sam and Laura was the ways they taught their classes. Sam taught his classes with real-life situations and with his personal opinions. While Laura taught her class straight from textbooks and without opinions. Which I like when teachers to teach with their own opinions like Sam and the teachers that do leave a lasting impression. Lastly, the book is titled “The Invisible Heart, an Economic Romance”, the romance in this book sucked, it was pointless to the story-line. I think the author Russell Roberts only added the “romance” to make it “more interesting” so more people would buy the book.

In my AP Economics class we had to have a discussion about the chapters we were assigned that week. There were good discussion/debate topics throughout the book. There was topics around welfare, oversea labor, charity, just to name a few. These topics made reading the book kinda interesting because I got to share my opinion about the topics, while also hearing my classmates side. Even though everyone taking the class hated these discussions.

From everything I’ve talked about, I do not think The Invisible Heart is worth reading due to the joke of a romance and the little gained knowledge Economics in the book. Overall, I think the book is a horrible read from the Romance aspect but an ok read for a Economical aspect.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on December 4, 2017
Combining the principles of economics with romance was an interesting writing choice in “The Invisible Heart,” written by Russ Roberts. However, after reading this novel, I would not recommend it for many readers. I believe there are many fundamental flaws in how this book was written: it does not represent a healthy political discussion, does not demonstrate in-depth lessons on economics, and the novel definitely pushes a strong political opinion on its readers. It is for these reasons that I would not recommend any readers to choose this novel.
First of all, I do not believe that “Invisible Heart” represents a healthy, mature, respectful political discussion. The two main characters, Sam and Laura, tirelessly argue about their economic and political differences of opinion. For example, Sam was talking about Laura, and stated- “We run into each other at school and we argue. Sometimes we have dinner together. We argue some more,” (page 187). This quote accurately expresses how difficult it was to get through this novel because I felt it was mainly constant arguing with no purpose. I believe a reliable book about economics should demonstrate a mature, healthy, respectful method of debating politics and opinions. This book clearly does not reflect that. If any reader is looking for a novel that accurately represents this important skill, I would not recommend this novel.
Secondly, the author claims that economic topics are the main point of the novel. However, after reading, I found that the author’s main focus was the opposite. Though this was subtitled an ‘economic romance,’ I felt the majority of the novel was ‘romance’ over ‘economics.’ For example, the author states, “Laura lay in bed, struggling to fall asleep… She wasn’t sure if she was eager for romance with Sam...She wasn’t sure how she felt. But she knew she didn’t want him to leave,” (page 212). This one quote represents the relationship between Sam and Laura, which was portrayed in the majority of the book. There were very few valid lessons about economics to be learned in this novel. I truly feel more enlightened on the romantic relationship between two fictional characters than on important economic principles after reading this novel.
Finally, the author is clearly pushing a strong political agenda in this book. The main character, Sam, an economics teacher, has a strong libertarian perspective. For example, the author demonstrates Sam’s viewpoint by stating: ““Under capitalism, man oppresses man. But under socialism, it's the other way around… No such thing as free lunch,”” (page 198). Although I feel it is a great thing to enlighten readers on an alternate political viewpoint, the author strategically omitted any valid counterarguments in order to promote Sam’s viewpoint on libertarianism. It is very clear to see the author’s bias. This is a major reason that I do not recommend this book. The author should show an equal representation of many political viewpoints to be compared and contrasted. Instead, he shows a dominating perspective that he clearly agrees with and ‘crushes’ any opposing views. Instead of learning about economic principles, I felt like libertarianism was being forced upon my political perspective.
In conclusion, I would not recommend the novel “The Invisible Heart,” for many reasons. I did not feel that the novel represented great lessons about economics. Instead, it was centered around immature arguments, pointless romance, and an outstanding author bias. If you are looking for a novel that enlightens you about economic principles, I would look elsewhere.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse