Chicks On Lit discussion

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

Comments Showing 501-550 of 563 (563 new)    post a comment »

message 501: by Sheila , Supporting Chick (new)

Sheila  | 3485 comments Mod
How funny Alisha. I am the exact oposite. :o)

I don't see the world as black or white, right or wrong, left or right, democrat or republican. I am definately more a "middle ground" person, who can see the points on both sides of issues.

On any political or religious issue today I can see points on both sides. And I think the people who are so adamantly sure that only their side is right, only their view is correct, only their answer is the best, are the ones who cause the blood to be spilled in the world.

And it is not that I don't make decisions, or take the time to study and learn about issues so I can form opinions or judgements. I think in fact the more I study and read about and learn about any issue, the more I see there are no absolutes.


message 502: by Alisha (new)

Alisha Hanson Glatzel (alicat39) | 65 comments Sheila wrote: "How funny Alisha. I am the exact oposite. :o)

I don't see the world as black or white, right or wrong, left or right, democrat or republican. I am definately more a "middle ground" person, wh..."


I didn't mean to come off black or white, right or wrong. I guess I took this line and ran with it: "who declares that there are no absolutes and believes that he escapes responsibility"

I am tolerant of other views that don't agree with mine. I think by taking stand and voicing opinion allows for a dialog to begin and this is where progress is made. When people don't simply care to educate themselves about what is going on around them - that is where they become harmful, not neutral like they are intending.

When people don't care, either by lack of education, lack of heart and empathy towards those who are being affected - or whatever reason...I think this is when people like Hitler (as an example) make their appearance on the stage and do irreparable damage.

Just as people who won't take the time to learn and get involved hurt the world, so do people that are intolerant of other opinions.


message 503: by Nancy (last edited Sep 14, 2010 06:38PM) (new)

Nancy Sheila, well put!! I like your comments about the more you learn, the more you don't believe in absolute. I'm done, but the speech about did me in. There were parts I was thinking ok yeah, you're right and other times I'm scratching my head. The quote you mentioned is kind of in the latter category for me. I understand what she is getting at, in the context of her fictional, extreme world. I try to keep in mind she is writing in response to communist or socialist government as opposed to capitalism. I would like to think she is fundamentally getting at more the issue of people not being informed and not taking a stand on their beliefs. I also think my problems with her writing stem from Rand's use of terms or vocabulary that reflect her own personal extended definitions, and not the standard meanings i.e. 'value' - towards the end of the book it was hanging me up worse.


The part of her philosophy I have problems with, is her attitude about not living your life for anyone but yourself. I don't believe in absolutes there. For many people that is interpreted as not taking care of others. I personally believe we DO have a level of responsibility to those that are unable to function. In reality we can't abandon or escape that element of our society. The complaints against welfare arise because we can't separate those that truly need help, i.e. the mentally ill, the disabled, the PTSD, whatever - from those that are taking advantage of the system. We have fixed rules and guidelines. You are bound to have those mooders. Too bad we couldn't determine welfare and immigration and all those social issues on a case by case basis, although I don't think it would be any more fair. In my ideal world, one could judge recipients according to true need, who is deserving, who has good intentions. IF ONLY that were realistic. We are capable of mistakes in judgment because of that human element. So we are forced to have gualifications that, although attempting fairness, still allow in those scammers as well. On the other hand I don't think you can generalize, stereotype and thus deny everyone services because of those who are lying and cheating the system.

I would imagine Rand doesn't support welfare or social charity, although I don't think she is AS hard core as her writing is interpreted. I think what she has hinted at in some of the videos I have watched, is getting away from governmental involvement. Our previous administration would suggest we could more fairly distribute charity when it is privatized and locally controlled - that allows for a more case by case identification.

There are pros and cons to privatized and regionalized charity/ One historical example comes to mind - the immigration of the Hmongs from the northern mountains of Laos at the end of the war. They were promised protection by the Americans for their support against No. Vietnam. Our government tried to forget about it, but was forced to make good on their promise. Having grown up in the Twin Cities, I know that as a culture they follow their "clan" leader. Many of them came to Minnesota and Wisconsin, not only because the leadership moved there, but because MN and WI have always been known for generous, easily accessible welfare money and churches who supported war refugees back in the 70's and 80's. We've seen some of same with various African refugee groups. They immigrate to certain parts of the US not only to take advantages of staying together as a community, but also because of economic support is better in certain regions. So then what is fair when an area provides more assistance than others? Is that fair from the standpoint of the care-takers or the recipients?? Does a national policy on either mental health, homeless or refugee care make anything more equitable for both the giver and the reciever?

And honestly, from a Christian standpoint, I would of course tend to disagree. And I am one of those personalities that sees both sides of issues and believe in a grey zone, that life is not black and white, in the box.

SORRY I'm on a ramble... probably not making any sense - I quit!!


message 504: by Nancy (last edited Sep 14, 2010 06:43PM) (new)

Nancy Sorry - I started my ramble, left the house for dinner with my son, and came home and finished rambling! HA HA by then you two lovely ladies had posted a great conversation I didn't see!! So I started to edit and gave up! I see NO absolutes LOL and hear both of your sides of the discussion!!!!

What I worry about is all those people who are convinced they have all the info and are radically dug in to their opinion, never to contemplate the other perspectives...????? PLUS - most of our education sources are so media based or partisan sourrces that I don't trust anything anymore.


message 505: by Alisha (new)

Alisha Hanson Glatzel (alicat39) | 65 comments Nancy wrote: "Sorry - I started my ramble, left the house for dinner with my son, and came home and finished rambling! HA HA by then you two lovely ladies had posted a great conversation I didn't see!! So I st..."

Hi Nancy :)

Re: "I worry about is all those people who are convinced they have all the info and are radically dug in to their opinion, never to contemplate the other perspectives"

I might be totally wrong, but I feel like we will see progress if dialog is established and then majority rules. In theory, I think this will rule out the radicals, but it this only works toward the betterment of the people if the people actually participate. However, if the discussion never gets started government is allowed is make decisions for us with their own agenda in mind which might not line up with what the people want.

Through my rant, lol, I guess what I was trying to say is that through activism we can make great changes. By doing nothing and allowing others to chose your fate, that person is not being neutral like they are intending, I think they are hurting the common good of the people.


message 506: by Emily (new)

Emily (ejfalke) | 576 comments For me, the "middle ground" represents people that don't really do anything. In this democracy, we need people to inform themselves responsibly (not just by listening to pundits and paraphernalia) and then ACT. Voltaire said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." We can disagree, but majority should rule and we should respect the will of the majority.


message 507: by Sheila , Supporting Chick (last edited Sep 15, 2010 09:29AM) (new)

Sheila  | 3485 comments Mod
Emily wrote: "For me, the "middle ground" represents people that don't really do anything. In this democracy, we need people to inform themselves responsibly (not just by listening to pundits and paraphernalia)..."

Interesting Emily. But what if the "middle ground" represents people who look at all the facts on both sides of an issue, and say to both sides "I can see valid points in your arguement, let's work off of that, come to a compromise, and meet in the middle."?

That is how I see myself as being "middle ground". Like Rodney King said, "Can't we all just get along?":o)

I think that is why I thought "what the heck" on the two quotes I posted from the book. One says directly "the middle is always evil" and the other says "the man who declares there are no absolutes...is the man responsible for all the blood now spilled in the world."

I picture "the blood now spilled in the world" as wars and violence, actual blood spilling, and wonder how trying to be middle ground causes this? I see wars and violence as being caused by two opposite views fighting with each other to decide who is right.

Am I totally out of it with my thoughts? :o)


message 508: by Sheila , Supporting Chick (new)

Sheila  | 3485 comments Mod
Maybe part of my problem is that I just don't understand Ayn Rand's Objectivism Philosophy. In my opinion, her views (as represented in "the speech") are just all over the place.

Honestly, the speech was so long and boring that I may have missed certain key points. But I do recall reading statements that Galt made that seemed to contradict other things Galt said.

And Objectivism doesn't seem to be a huge part of politics today. Was this just a fad of her time? Has anyone studied more of her philosophy?

Another interesting thing is that while this book is not doing it at all for me, I remember reading her book Anthem in high school (20+ years ago) and I remember really enjoying it. I may have to go back and reread Anthem, since I don't remember all the details of that book, and see how I feel about it now. :o)


message 509: by Nancy (new)

Nancy Alisha, I've always agreed with what you are saying. Politically etc. I don't think we are ultimately very far off. You've stated it well and it is a good hope to hold on to. An optimal world. I would certainly hope that the radicals are ruled out and an intelligent, informed majority would be in control. I didn't used to be as negative sounding as I have become - I think - no I KNOW its an age thing! I'm your mother's generation! Definitely not young anymore. Is it living through the peace and love of the sixties and seeing what evolved or more like didn't evolve from that movement?! I probably would have been classified a "hippie" idealist back then. LOL I see the pendulum swinging from one extreme to the other as the decades go. The optimism changed to realism, and on to a level of pessimism as I watch the cycles of history. I see such distrust, which is healthy, but not alot of sense of direction or hope. I know somewhere down the line that will change with another generation. Following the Vietnam war there was a different era. The level of complacency seemed to go with the comfortable economic times and peaceful global events. We aren't in that swing anymore. We back in a time of war and individual struggles. The forms of cultural revolution are different this time. In an information age that didn't exist the last time. I don't know where to turn for real facts that isn't tainted by personal perspectives, having seen the hidden agendas of my generation and how much the media manipulated what we saw and heard.


message 510: by Nancy (last edited Sep 15, 2010 10:35AM) (new)

Nancy I think you two are not that far off. Emily - I am probably with you on being "middle ground." I prefer compromise. I agree with Alisha in her saying we would benefit from dialogue/listening to the opposing sides. I see the two of you ultimately talking about similar ends, maybe different means. I think in general, we are such opinionated people that compromise is a difficult if not unrealistic goal in our present climate.


message 511: by Emily (new)

Emily (ejfalke) | 576 comments It totally goes both ways - my thought was just something that occurred to me that the middle ground could represent, and it reminded me of some experiences when I was working as an intern in the UT legislature many moons ago. They were trying to pass a law that would hold credit unions responsible for certain franchise taxes that banks are responsible for - there was a huge propaganda campaign against it and a lot of people were upset and writing in about it. However, if you actually looked at the situation, you would have understood that the proposed law was closing a loophole that was allowing credit unions to do things they shouldn't have been allowed to do (such as granting too big of loans or working outside a set area). The tax would make it more fair for banks who were paying the tax to do the same things. It just really made me realize how much we don't see and how hard we need to work to be truly educated on the issues.


message 512: by Elena (last edited Sep 17, 2010 05:17AM) (new)

Elena Emily, I see where you are coming from, it doesn't mean the people opposed to it where not educated on the issue. I think Rand's point of view was that everyman is capable of knowing what is too big for their business and what they can or can't get into. If they make a bad decision, they will pay for it. They will lose money, people won't seek their business,etc. For me, that is what they were living for when they create their own town/civilization in Colorado.


message 513: by Nancy (last edited Sep 17, 2010 08:11AM) (new)

Nancy Yes, one of Rand's messages that did make sense to me = Truly good, intelligent, rational people learn from their mistakes and dont let other people make those decisions/mistakes for them. (And that's why corrupt people embrace a corrupt system, because it means they don't have to take any responsibility for anything.)


message 514: by Meg (new)

Meg (megvt) | 3069 comments I think if you look at the sociology of change, you have radicals on both sides and then find the middle ground.

I love this discussion!


message 515: by Nancy (last edited Sep 18, 2010 03:27PM) (new)

Nancy Good point Meg. Sociology of change. I'm probably going to not make sense, but here I go... I do think our discussion of middle ground was hung up because Rand doesn't define that concept the way we do now. I believe she as a writer, whether it was a personal, conscious thing, or a function her Russian background, linguistics, the age of the book or what?? - but she had her own little means for words that we don't have anymore. We're talking about middle ground as compromise, listening to both sides respectfully. Ultimately what we believe is a good thing. I don't believe she means that and wasn't judging compromise so much. I think she was talking about people who were in the middle between the good versus evil and behaving impotently, not making any decisions or taking any responsibility for choices made. Don't bother to get involved, period.

I'm not sure I'm going to pose this thought or question clearly, but I'll put it out there anyway. Atlas Shrugged to me was obviously about communism versus capitalism, individual rights versus the good of the society. Her characters were one extreme or the other - no middle ground there either. So they seemed to be either the 'good guys' or the 'bad guys' - truth or lies. I would have the impression that Rand herself was also SO entrenched in her own philosophy that she didn't have much time for opposing opinions. I doubt there would have been compromise with her regarding her objectivist philosophy. In several of those youtube things I watched, the implication to me was that you were plain stupid if you don't believe in the rational individual rights. Also plain stupid for having faith in a higher power - that wasn't rational. I really wonder if she had lived into this era what her views would be - if she would have mellowed at all? I doubt she would have mellowed on religion, but politically I wonder where she would have been.

Talk about sociology of change - whole other subject in some ways, but interesting to look historically at where the Republican versus Democratic party philosophies have gone in cycles of who was actually considered to be liberals versus the conservative party and on what issues. That hasn't been historically stable either!


message 516: by Elena (last edited Sep 19, 2010 05:03AM) (new)

Elena Nancy (sorry, the italics thing doesn't seems to work, you said: "I would have the impression that Rand herself was also SO entrenched in her own philosophy that she didn't have much time for opposing opinions".

They way I see it, she LIVED in the opposing world of capitalism, which was communist Russia, so anything that others would said, in theory, since they had not lived it and to whom it was then a philosophy of living, had little meaning for her. And I don't think she would had mellow today....

I also believe that middle ground for her meant not making decisions.


message 517: by Nancy (new)

Nancy I guess I was referring more to the difficulties in her personal life and relationships, which is where she took the most flak from critics. I wish she could have mellowed on her thoughts on religion or more precisely her thoughts on social welfare - but probably not. Religious extremists are what have gotten us in trouble and conflicts historically down through the centuries! I know she wouldn't be changing philosophies where economics are concerned. I agree with her objectivism in terms capitalism.


message 518: by Sheila , Supporting Chick (new)

Sheila  | 3485 comments Mod
I'm done! I finished it! Hallelujah! I made it! Thank you to Meg and the Chunky Read's for helping me get through this monster! :o)


message 519: by Nancy (new)

Nancy Sheila - YIPPEE - I wish we could all go have some blended peach margaritas and celebrate! Funny you should use the word monster - that's exactly what I said to Brenda in a message yesterday.

I am so grateful to all of you. This was my first chunky. I am so pleased to have gotten through it, genuinely glad to say it has been conquered. It was very very good in lots of ways. So now I'll apologize - I probably drove everybody nuts with my repetitious, not always on the subject rambling. Thanks for not ragging on me and putting up with it! This was such a tough book. Remind me next time I volunteer to do a chunky I should pick something less intellectual and/or controversial - or use some duct tape on the mouth and just lurk.


message 520: by Elena (last edited Sep 19, 2010 04:14PM) (new)

Elena I think we all deserve a round of applause, it wasn't an easy reading! The discussion was great!


message 521: by Meg (new)

Meg (megvt) | 3069 comments Yay us! Nancy your comments were wonderful, you have nothing to apologize for. We all deserve a round of applause this was a huge, difficult book to get through. We all had great insight and great things to say. Great group. I hope you are willing to tackle GWTW and/or Moby Dick next.

After that will be Fall of Giants.


message 522: by Meg (new)

Meg (megvt) | 3069 comments our theme song is : Look's Like We Made It!


message 523: by Sheila , Supporting Chick (new)

Sheila  | 3485 comments Mod
I've read both GWTW and Moby Dick already, and don't think I will be doing a re-read on either. Moby Dick was a rough one for me to get through too!

So I will be getting a break from the chunky reads reading schedule, but I will be following the discussion on both books to see what everyone thinks of them. :o)

And CONGRATULATIONS and a big round of applause (CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP) to everyone who made it through Atlas Shrugged! :o)


message 524: by Elena (new)

Elena Meg wrote: "our theme song is : Look's Like We Made It!"

LOL, sure it is!


message 525: by Krys (new)

Krys (incognerdo) | 140 comments I was so excited to see what you guys were saying about this book. I picked it up over my Christmas break last year because it seemed to be one of those books you *HAD* to read at some point in your life. So yes... a huge round of applause to you guys for finishing!

I'm also really excited to see that I wasn't the only one quite overwhelmed by her style. The long speech, I have to admit, I didn't finish. There wasn't a better way she could get her points across? They were all previously stated in the novel many times. Did she really have to "put it all out there" like that?

Honestly, the only thing that really kept me reading was to see what happened with romance. I wanted to know if they ended up together. Can two people with such strong drives and work ethic end up happy together?

And I'm with Nancy on the middle ground issue. There really was not middle ground in the book. It was almost as if Rand had no time for people who could see the good in both. Or at least no positive opinion of them. *lol*


message 526: by Elena (new)

Elena Kristin, I also kept reading for the romance. I did skinned through much of the speeches and I didn't read it all at once. I read a couple of books in between.


message 527: by Nancy (new)

Nancy Fellow Atlas Shrugged survivors! This book, while I really liked it and at the same time strongly disliked things about the author, just sucked me IN. So wandering around Borders yesterday, off the shelf jumps Ayn Rand and the World She Made by Anne C. Heller and I just had to have it. I wandered the store but it kept shouting at me. I want to know more about her. I'll let you all know how it is.


message 528: by Sheila , Supporting Chick (new)

Sheila  | 3485 comments Mod
After you have read it Nancy, please do share if you learn anything new or interesting about Ayn. :o)


message 529: by Meg (new)

Meg (megvt) | 3069 comments I want to know too, good find!


message 530: by Marialyce (new)

Marialyce I do want to finish this book as I only got half way and then life took over! (so I am kind of like a half survivor!) I would like to know about Ayn as well.


message 531: by Meg (new)

Meg (megvt) | 3069 comments You can do it Marialyce, I have faith in you!


message 532: by Julie (new)

Julie S. I'm a student, so I entered the Ayn Rand Foundation essay contest on this book. I got an email back from them saying that my entry did not win but that they would send me a free book by Rand. They'll send me We the Living.

Does anyone else find this very strange? Her entire belief system is about being selfish but yet they are going to send me a free book that I did not "earn."

This is an odd situation. :)


message 533: by Nancy (new)

Nancy Interesting Julie! I'm not familiar with the book you are getting. Pushing their propoganda?? I'll retract that - it was a little mean. It is nice to be acknowledged in some way.


message 534: by Sandra (new)

Sandra (sandee) | 328 comments The Ayn Rand Foundation will send free copies of all her books, I just received free class sets. I didn't earn them either...but if they are free I'll take them.


message 535: by Nancy (last edited Jan 05, 2011 12:50PM) (new)

Nancy That's actually pretty cool. Rand is a part of our socio-economic culture and history. While I have mixed feelings about her philosophy, everyone should have the freedom to read and make up their own minds. Free copies of such epic writing is great.


message 536: by Julie (new)

Julie S. I was talking to my mom about it, and she said tongue-in-cheek, "Well, giving out the books keeps them in print."

But anyway, I would never complain about a free book. I'm kind of looking forward to getting it in the mail.


message 537: by Nancy (last edited Apr 17, 2011 08:06PM) (new)

Nancy You should actually enjoy it - I did better when I kept separating the story from the politics behind it. It is a good story. I hear they were finally attempting to make a movie, but I can't imagine how they could begin to condense this adequately. It would have to be a made for TV in many segements to do it all justice.


message 538: by Liz (new)

Liz Fichera (lizfichera) Oh, this is a heavy read. And not just in weight of the book!


message 539: by Julie (new)

Julie S. So I see that the movie is coming out in three parts, and the first part hit theaters on none other than the day to turn in income taxes.

I watched the trailer on YouTube, and it actually looks like they did a good job of translating it to the big screen.


message 540: by Nancy (last edited Apr 17, 2011 08:07PM) (new)

Nancy Very good- I do want to see this - will have to check and see when and where it's coming here. How are they going to split up the sections?


message 541: by Allison (new)

Allison (thebookwheel) I missed out on this group chat, but this is one of my favorite books of all time!


message 542: by Meg (new)

Meg (megvt) | 3069 comments It was a great chat and a great read!


message 543: by Jessica (new)

Jessica | 68 comments Allison wrote: "I missed out on this group chat, but this is one of my favorite books of all time!"

I missed it too. I don't know how I missed the memo. Maybe next time.


message 544: by Nancy (new)

Nancy Jessica, you didn't miss any memo - it was a chunky read before you joined! And I have to say I never did get to see the movie. It was here for such a short time and the reviews were awful. Nevertheless, I'm still disappointed.


message 545: by Jessica (new)

Jessica | 68 comments Oh! Thanks Nancy. I was starting to feel like a bad Lit Chick.


message 546: by Meg (last edited Jul 11, 2011 02:31PM) (new)

Meg (megvt) | 3069 comments You are not a bad LitChick! that is so funny. The threads remain forever so if you feel like opening the discussion I am sure that many of us would be glad to open the chat.

About a month ago there was an article in USA Today about Jesus and Atlas Shrugged. I wish I saved the article, it was pretty interesting. If I find it I will post it.


message 548: by Sheila , Supporting Chick (new)

Sheila  | 3485 comments Mod
Great article Meg! Thanks for posting it.


message 549: by Kristen (new)

Kristen Atlas Shrugged has been on my to-read list for years. I would be interested in reopening the discussion if there are any takers out there.


message 550: by Dee-Ann (new)

Dee-Ann | 3215 comments I am interested in reopening the discussion. I started reading it at the beginning of June and have still only read about 200 pages (approx one-fifth of the way through). It is slow going for me, but am keen to be part of any discussions of the book.


back to top