Chicks On Lit discussion

317 views
Archive 08-19 GR Discussions > Atlas Shrugged *chunky read*

Comments Showing 451-500 of 563 (563 new)    post a comment »

message 451: by Elena (new)

Elena I never liked Dagny's brother, but now, after the way he talked to his wife in part III, I really despise him. I can't wait to see what happens to him.


message 452: by Alisha (new)

Alisha Hanson Glatzel (alicat39) | 65 comments Elena, he gets even nastier. Soon you will abhor him!

I find it disgustingly ironic how the politicians always fall back on the line, "It's not my fault". This is a theme throughout the book that grates on my nerves every time I read it because it still is the predominate theme with today's politicians. But seriously, running the economy is very much like running a business - how is it that we have allowed people to run our economy who know nothing about business? Employers check my credentials to make sure I have the education and the background to handle the job. At some point, I think as a nation we lost touch with checking the credentials of who we put into power. Words are cheap.


message 453: by Elena (last edited Aug 26, 2010 09:42AM) (new)

Elena How can he become nastier?? I was repulsed when he told Dagny how he is her responsibility because she was the smart one. That was pathetic. Don't get me wrong, I would take care of any of my siblings, as long as they also help themselves. But the truth is, there are people like that. I am amazed at how this book gets to reflect on all of life's dimensions.


message 454: by Meg (new)

Meg (megvt) | 3069 comments Funny I think Dagny and Hank are male/female versions of each other. I also think the brother and Lillian are the male/female versions of each other too.

Alisha wrote At some point, I think as a nation we lost touch with checking the credentials of who we put into power. Words are cheap.
This is so true, I agree with you.


message 455: by Maureen (new)

Maureen (meg9000) | 84 comments I didn’t come away feeling that Ayn Rand said that there is only 1 “best” person – at least not so far as I’ve read (Part II, Chapter 2). What she did say in that chapter was that, when you live in an environment of fair competition, the best will win out – the best product, the best producer, the one with the best judgment.

Per the quote of Francisco’s money speech:

“And when men live by trade – with reason, not force as their final arbiter – it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability – and the degree of a man’s productiveness is the degree of his reward.”

I’m not so sure she is saying that everyone will find their perfect life’s work and excel at it. I think she is saying that whatever people choose to do, they should do it to the best of their ability, and when they do – in an environment of fair competition – they can’t help but be rewarded for it.


message 456: by Nancy (new)

Nancy Alisha thanks for your comments and insider point of view. I would tend to agree with everything you said. My problem with miltiary medicine stems from having had private care into my 30's (BCBS) and then marrying later in life. The contrast in quality of care was huge. Insane difficulty in making appointments, never seeing the same provider, limited and generic meds, refusal to write scripts for off base/out of pocket instead, delayed tests for lack of equipment. Everything you would stereotype being typical of something becoming govt. run and part of a big mechanized system of care. It seems evident that the medical professionals know they could provide better more consistent care. They are forever apologizing and making excuses. I feel bad for them because I know they take alot of abuse and complaints for limitations they can't do anything about.


message 457: by Nancy (last edited Aug 26, 2010 07:01PM) (new)

Nancy Maureen - the money speech was great wasn't it! Much of what he had to say is right on target. Rand supports the idea that the sharpest minds deserve to succeed financially in their endeavors. So how is it that our modern business instincts are to squash any company that gets too big? How are we to identify who is going to be unscrupulous versus those that simply are the best at what they do?


message 458: by Maureen (new)

Maureen (meg9000) | 84 comments Nancy – I thought the money speech was right on target also. Loved it! I think Rand supports that all people should be rewarded fairly for their efforts and a free market will reward them accordingly. Naturally the brightest will rise to the top and undoubtedly earn more, but I think she believes that all along the spectrum, those that put out their best efforts will be rewarded – “each to the extent of his ability.” At least as far as I’ve read. (I haven’t made it to the 20 page section in Part III where the philosophy of this book is laid out.)

I think she is also promoting a level playing field for competition. I don’t think there are laws in the U.S. that prevent a company from becoming too big, just laws to prevent companies from taking unfair advantage and exercising unfair business practices, because this would not create a level playing field. Some industries are natural monopolies and are thus regulated to keep them in check. We have all kinds of laws and regulations to attempt to keep trade fair.

Of course there will always be those that are unscrupulous. We must rely on our laws to prevent this as much as they are able. In the case of recent events, (Enron, Goldman-Sachs, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac), it certainly came to light that further regulation is needed in some industries to prevent such things from happening again.


message 459: by Nancy (last edited Aug 27, 2010 04:25AM) (new)

Nancy I agree - the laws and regulations are what make us a mixed capitalistic economy. Rand supported pure capitalism not what we have now. But her philosophy has inspired some of our greatest business entrepeneurs and economists. Interesting article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/bus...


message 460: by Elena (last edited Aug 27, 2010 04:54AM) (new)

Elena Nancy wrote: "I agree - the laws and regulations are what make us a mixed capitalistic economy. Rand supported pure capitalism not what we have now. But her philosophy has inspired some of our greatest business ..."

Thanks for the article. Is it recent? I had never heard of this book before (love GR!). When I mentioned to my 28 years old son I was reading it, he did know about it. I was surprised.

I just came back from Colorado and I saw a train go by with the name "Rio Grande" in big white letters on the first car. Wasn't that one of the railroad companies in the book? It was great.


message 461: by Nancy (new)

Nancy article was 2007 I believe - not surprised your son is familiar with it because it is becoming popular again. The Youtube series of interviews of Rand with Tom Snyder are interesting because they were also in relation to the recession.


message 462: by Maureen (new)

Maureen (meg9000) | 84 comments Nancy wrote: "I agree - the laws and regulations are what make us a mixed capitalistic economy. Rand supported pure capitalism not what we have now. But her philosophy has inspired some of our greatest business ..."

Nancy - thanks for the link to the article. It was great. So far I've been rushing to catch up to everyone so I've been doing nothing but reading the book. Now is a good time to read what others are saying about the book and to learn a little more about her philosophy, as I still haven't grasped that from what I've read so far.
Time to get back to reading. Wonder if I can make it to Part 3 by Monday? Probably not -- too much to do! :)


message 463: by Meg (new)

Meg (megvt) | 3069 comments Take your time Maureen, we aren't going anywhere!


message 464: by Maureen (new)

Maureen (meg9000) | 84 comments Sheila wrote: "Annie Laurie, thank you for chiming in!

I think part of my problem is that I am struggling with reading this book. It is just not keeping me that interested, and I have to force myself to sit do..."


Sheila - Hang in there if you can. To me, Part I really dragged and I felt the same way. There were interesting spots, but I had to slog through a lot to get there. I started to really enjoy the book when I got to Part 2, Chapter 2, with the money speech. A lot of things start coming together around then, and I could start to see where a lot of this was going. Hopefully it will be similar for you


message 465: by Elena (new)

Elena The book drags on some thing here and there. For me it has not been a book that can be read in one seating. I have been reading 200 to 300 pages and then switching to something else, then coming back to it again.


message 466: by Nancy (new)

Nancy Yes take your time. I wasn't reading anything else, but have hit the Part III speech... probably enough said! Any words of wisdom about getting through that???

My problem is that school started - third week with kids already. We are working on a one act production right away and the exhaustion is dragging me down. 12 - 14 hour days where I sneak in some reading here and there. I can't pop in and out of this book - I need to concentrate.

Elena you mentioned the Rio Grande railroad line - I was as usual reading some other stuff about Atlas Shrugged and came across an article analyzing the book that said she patterned her character after James J Hill and the Great Northern trasncontinental railroad - based in Minnesota. Having grown up in the Twin Cities, I found it even more interesting.


message 467: by Meg (new)

Meg (megvt) | 3069 comments You always come up with interesting tidbits. Thank you Nancy!
Book 3 was difficult for me, I struggled to get through it. it is interesting how we all find different parts of the book more interesting than others. I liked Book 1 the best.


message 468: by Nancy (last edited Aug 29, 2010 06:20AM) (new)

Nancy I was struggling with whether or not to post a link to the article. After reading it, I had to take it in context as it is obviously not supportive of Rand's philosophies. On the other hand, some of the more factual information was quite interesting. I didn't have time to read that much about the website which would probably be fascinating in itself as it is promotes the teachings of among others, the philosopher Kant, whom Rand absolutely hates.
http://www.friesian.com/rand.htm


message 469: by Emily (new)

Emily (ejfalke) | 576 comments Saw a FB post today that this is Atlas Shrugged day! The novel begins on Sept. 2.


message 470: by Nancy (new)

Nancy How funny! Happy Shrugging!


message 471: by Meg (new)

Meg (megvt) | 3069 comments That is very funny Emily. I love Happy shrugging!


message 472: by Meg (new)

Meg (megvt) | 3069 comments I keep going back to how I think so many characters are male/female versions of each other (like Dagny/Hank) Do you think this is how the author was dealing with her own sexuality?


message 473: by Nancy (last edited Sep 03, 2010 03:50PM) (new)

Nancy I don't know Meg - from the things I have read, her own sexuality was interesting. According to two articles that I came across, plus Wikipedia (which I don't always believe but this seemed to be well documented and matches up to other sources), she had an affair with Nathaniel Branden - a much younger man, student, fan, objectivist follower for whom she eventually engineered his first marriage. The affair was embarked upon with the full knowledge of both their spouses. Rand considered him her soulmate. She wrote Atlas Shrugged during this relationship and was reputed to have given a nod to Branden by naming the Nathaniel Taggart character for him. To me this is just another extention of what was wrong with her philosophy of egoist bordering on selfish entitlement. Anyway, Rand eventually discovered he was having an affair with a third woman and cut things off. Branden went on to have four marriages while retaining a friendship with his first wife Barbara. Barbara wrote a book about it called the "Passion of Ayn Rand" which was made into a movie starring Helen Mirren as Rand. Interesting!!


message 474: by Meg (new)

Meg (megvt) | 3069 comments Wow Nancy, that is pretty interesting. I thought I had read somewhere, could be totally wrong, that she was bisexual. Maybe I dreamed this!


message 475: by Nancy (new)

Nancy I don't recall if I saw anything to that effect, but frankly it wouldn't surprise me.


message 476: by Sheila , Supporting Chick (new)

Sheila  | 3485 comments Mod
Okay, I'm not quite up to schedule, but I'm in chapter 7, and got up to the start of John Galt's radio speech last night. When I realized this was "the speech" that had been mentioned, I flipped ahead, and saw it lasted for 56 pages. So I took a break from it last night, and will start to tackle "the speech" tonight. :o)

Since I can only usually take about 20 pages of this book at a time, it might take me a few days to read through and digest this. :o)


message 477: by Nancy (new)

Nancy Sheila - I have to admit that when I got to the speech, it was so redundant and repetitive that I skipped ahead to the actual plot. And then went back and read small pieces of it at a time. That was the only way I could tolerate it. I loved the beginning of this book, but as it went on I lost enthusiasm.


message 478: by Meg (new)

Meg (megvt) | 3069 comments Take your time, we aren't going anywhere!


message 479: by Julie (new)

Julie S. The speech is a bit much. In the edition that I was reading, it was probably 50+ pages. Every couple pages, I would look at the table of contents longingly to see how close I was to being done with the speech.

The book was OK, but I think she should have saved John Galt's speech for a separate essay.


message 480: by Sheila , Supporting Chick (last edited Sep 06, 2010 08:51AM) (new)

Sheila  | 3485 comments Mod
Well, I got about half way through the speech last night. No way I could do the whole thing in one sitting.

And truthfully, the whole time I was reading it, I was thinking that Ayn Rand really could have come up with a better way to share her ideas than a long, long, long, rambling, speech.

I imagine the people of the world who were listening to this on the radio in the story just tuning out and turning it off after a couple minutes. In the story all the "movers" and smart people have left, and all the takers and losers and lazy people and exploiters are the only ones left and listening to this radio speech. If the stupid, lazy people couldn't figure out how to keep a single thing in their world running, then they certainly would not understand this radio speech. :o)

And Julie, I am just like you. I actually counted at the beginning of the speech, to see it lasted 56 pages in my copy of the book. So then I noted the page I was on when I started, and every so often I would count and see how far I had made it, and how many pages I had left to go. Makes it a bit easier to slog through if you know exactly when the end it coming, and how close you are to the finish. :o)


message 481: by Meg (new)

Meg (megvt) | 3069 comments I found the speech way too long also. In fact the last third of the book was difficult for me. The speech could definitely have been shortened.


message 482: by Nancy (new)

Nancy That is a great suggestion Julie! I agree. I kept wanting to say "Ok Ok! I get it!"


message 483: by Alisha (new)

Alisha Hanson Glatzel (alicat39) | 65 comments I agree that the speech was a bit much. It doesn't help that you had warning about the painful tirade of Galt's, and were probably dreading it before you even reached it.

I really enjoyed the book overall and I walked away with 3 main ideas/thoughts/questions.

1) I think that the role of the looters could symbolize the rise of Communism. I think this book is Rand's attempt to show American's (and the world) how it could start here. In the 50's it was the railroads that were the most vulnerable; today I think it's our dependence on oil. Can you image if our diesel trucks and boats couldn't transport goods? How many American's have enough land to grow their own food? Let alone, have the knowledge and skills of how to do it. Today our nation is so dependent on oil, a finite resource - some day the world will run out of oil. Will places like Africa and Ethopia be the only ones to survive since they know how to exist without oil? Who will be the ones chosen to parish first?

2) I see many of my friends not voting because they don't think that their vote actually counts. In Atlas Shrugged, this is how it all starts. People giving up their individual rights and power to politicians because THEY should know better. What qualifies them, the politicians, to know what's best for my family? Besides being good with words, most politicians don't know the first thing about how it feels to be struggling in the middle class today. As a nation the people (the workers and the thinkers) need look up and around. I imagine most Americans walking around staring at their feet...not paying attention to what is going on around them - and this is a mistake. As a society, we don't want to get involved - we want other people to tackle the hard issues and guess what America, that could be the fatal blow!

3) The light Rand casts on the role of a politician is fascinating to me! I had never examined that role in society and what kind of people hold that role. This book has forever changed the way I evaluate the people I elect to office. A great example is George W Bush. We allowed a man who has a massive ego, a poor business track record, and who was only a C student to run and make poignant decisions affecting the worlds largest economy. We are still feeling ripples from his decisions today, with programs like No Child Left Behind that he failed to fund.

As a country and a pretty amazing one at that; we need to start caring again. We need to be able to have civil debates on issues. It can't be one party against another, we need to evolve. I love my country and I believe that we can do so much better. The only way that is going to happen is if we all tackle issues that are important to us. Together, the peoples united power and love for our country and each other will prevail.


message 484: by Nancy (new)

Nancy Good points Alisha. I appreciate your thoughts on getting informed and taking the responsibility to vote. I agree that the railroad was the mode of transportation in that era and we are dependent on whatever method we move goods by. In our current circumstances that certainly makes us dependent on oil. We have become such a complex society with extravagant tastes. It's difficult for people to aim for a more sustainable lifestyle, back to living regionally and seasonally among other things.

I am also probably too old and jaded to have your wonderful sense of hope. I have come to hate partisan politics and don't clearly fall into any one agenda in my beliefs. I think we all hold basically some of the same values, but obviously can't agree on how to accomplish those ends, no matter how informed we think we are.


message 485: by Alisha (last edited Sep 06, 2010 10:35AM) (new)

Alisha Hanson Glatzel (alicat39) | 65 comments Nancy wrote: "Good points Alisha. I appreciate your thoughts on getting informed and taking the responsibility to vote. I agree that the railroad was the mode of transportation in that era and we are dependent o..."

I don't really fit into any single party and I yes, I am still hopeful and I desperately want to be politically active even though, amongst my friends, I tend to stand alone on this issue. I hate feeling like I have side with one side or another, it would much more productive if it was issue based. I feel like Jim's politics in AS is how exactly how it still works today. I'll give you my support on this issue if you give me your support against this issue. No business could ever thrive in a situation like this, and it's not surprising that this system of getting things done is failing us now.

I worry about what will happen if we don't start changing how things are done. Will our society have to collapse in order to be reborn? I think so...and that is terrifying.


message 486: by Nancy (new)

Nancy I totally understand what you are saying. I wish it was issue based too and people didn't feel like they had to endorse this or that just because that is the "party line." Drives me crazy. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.


message 487: by Maureen (new)

Maureen (meg9000) | 84 comments I finally finished the book! Yeah!!! Actually, I got the 2nd half of the book on CD from the library, and let it read to me. Pretty sure that was the only way I could have finished it, since at times, it just took too much energy to read. I did skip Galt's speech in its entirety. Even with the book being read to me, I just didn't care to sit through it. Maybe some of that has to do with being sick this weekend and feeling miserable, I don't know. I will go back and reread that part this coming week.

Overall, I did like the book and am glad that I read it. Yes, I felt that she was beating a dead horse with her philosophies. I found her writing to be extremely descriptive and tedious, and I found myself laughing during the last couple of chapters. It was so corny! It felt to me like the old 1950's TV episodes of Superman, or some of the old sci-fi movies of the 50's like "The Day the Earth Stood Still", etc.

I liked the philosphies on money, love and sex, thought some of her story lines were wrapped up rather too tidily. Found her writing to be very stark and bleak. Glad I'm done, but also glad to have read it and been exposed to her thoughts.


message 488: by Meg (new)

Meg (megvt) | 3069 comments I think I would have loved the book if it were shorter. The length of the book made it so winded to me that it was exhausting! I am also glad that I read it though.


message 489: by Nancy (new)

Nancy Maureen and Meg, I am so glad for your comments. I had begun to feel very guilty about my thoughts on this book. I am so glad I read it, but it was overwhelming. Yes shorter would have been better. Funny you should mention the old sci-fi movies - that was my exact thought as I was reading the ending. Some old black and white film - I could picture the screen and the rays. If you take her philosophy in the context of communism and the cold war it makes a lot more sense. There is much to recommend, but for me, much that isn't feasible or realistic in our complex world.


message 490: by Julie (new)

Julie S. Shelia mentioned in post #501 that most people would have not listened to JG's radio rant anyway. That's a good point. I don't konw how it would translate into a timed speech, but my edition had his speech at a little over 50 pages. I don't know many people who would have listened to a random guy on the radio for an entire hour. Especially if this guy is contradicting everything their government has ever told them, what they have been brainwashed (for lack of a better word) to believe.


message 491: by Nancy (last edited Sep 07, 2010 03:05PM) (new)

Nancy Julie - I certainly think if the general public in AS was that ambivalent, unresponsive and out of touch with their rational selves, they wouldn't have suddenly seen the truth in his speech. Again, this is fiction - abstract, symbolic in nature. But the only way I can imagine this would be rebellion from small pockets of resistance scattered through out the country. Just not 'hidden' away like Galt's group of intellectuals. Is there anything reflected in Russian history as to underground resistance against the communist take over? A foreshadowing of current events considering they now operate under a free market system?


message 492: by Meg (new)

Meg (megvt) | 3069 comments How long would a 50 page speech be?


message 493: by Elena (last edited Sep 07, 2010 03:22PM) (new)

Elena I think the book would have had a greater impact if it wasn't that long. I read a couple of lines of each paragraph of Galt's speech. It too much.


message 494: by Nancy (new)

Nancy Can't remember where I heard this, but somewhere it said the speech would effectively take three hours!!


message 495: by Nancy (new)

Nancy Ok - did my usual investigating and came across this reference - the short version is great!! And the introductory paragraph says it was a three hour speech that took her two years to write.
http://www.whoisjohngalt.com/2009/02/...


message 496: by Meg (new)

Meg (megvt) | 3069 comments Yea, I definitely wouldn't listen to a 3 hour speech. My mind wonders way too much.


message 497: by Julie (new)

Julie S. Nancy, I was surpised at first to hear three hours, but now that I think about it, that would make sense.

I guess that I had two issues with the speech
1. The length. It lessened the impact because I felt like I was more focused on thoughts of when it will be over. I think that Rand was never told that some good things come in small packages.

2. I felt like Rand was trying to cover too many things in it. There were few things that she did not criticize. I don't agree with her at all on her views on religion.


I feel sorry for her because it seems like she did not have a close family/friend support group. This was probably discussed earlier, but was she married? It just seems that the couples that are actually married are never happy. (Rearden and his wife, Jim and his wife).


message 498: by Nancy (last edited Sep 08, 2010 04:27AM) (new)

Nancy She was married to Frank O'Connor, but had an affair with Nathaniel Branden. Both informed their respective spouses that they were going to embark on this relationship. somewhere in my evil mind I imagine them telling their spouses they deserved this sexual liason because they were intellectually attracted to each other by reason...


message 499: by Sheila , Supporting Chick (new)

Sheila  | 3485 comments Mod
Okay, I'm still plugging along on this book. Is anyone else still reading?
I finally finished "the speech" today, and have moved on to the next chapter.

A couple of statements from the speech made me say "what??" today though. Curious what others thought of these(these are both from page 965 of my mass market paperback copy, and are in paragraphs that immediately follow each other.):

"The man who refuses to judge, who neither agrees nor disagrees, who declares that there are no absolutes and believes that he escapes responsibility, is the man responsible or all the blood that is now spilled in the world."

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil."


message 500: by Alisha (new)

Alisha Hanson Glatzel (alicat39) | 65 comments Sheila wrote: "Okay, I'm still plugging along on this book. Is anyone else still reading?
I finally finished "the speech" today, and have moved on to the next chapter.

A couple of statements from the speech ..."


I actually really liked these lines! haha

I think it's so true. There are so many people that are scared to make decisions and scared to take responsibility, so they chose to hang back in the wings and allow someone else to make decisions for them. These people are just as guilty for the failures because they chose not to form an opinion by learning what is involved. They are the weakest of society and without taking the time to form a judgement, their lack of action is a detriment to the society they exist within.


back to top