Chicks On Lit discussion
Archive 08-19 GR Discussions
>
Atlas Shrugged *chunky read*
message 51:
by
Meg
(new)
Jun 24, 2010 07:03AM
Nancy don't tell me you don't have a prep period.
reply
|
flag
My prep period buts right up against lunch time. So the mornings are long. I am not next to another classroom to just ask someone to watch my kids for a minute. Being elementary music, the classes are stacked up back to back, twelve 25 min. sections a day. 7 in the AM and 5 in the PM. The whole in the middle of the day is filled with duty every other day. And it has to be that way because my schedule and the gym teacher's have to match up as we flip flop who we see every day. And she can't teach in the middle of the day because the gym is also the lunchroom. The mornings are LONG.
And back to Ayn RandI found this in cliff notes:
About Atlas Shrugged
Objectivism in Action
In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand presents, for the first time and in a dramatized form, her original philosophy of Objectivism. She exemplifies this philosophy in the lives of the heroes and in the action of the story. Objectivism holds that reason — not faith or emotionalism — is man's sole means of gaining knowledge. Her theory states that an individual has a right to his or her own life and to the pursuit of his or her own happiness, which is counter to the view that man should sacrifice himself to God or society. Objectivism is individualistic, holding that the purpose of government is to protect the sovereign rights of an individual. This philosophy opposes the collectivist notion that society as a whole is superior to the individual, who must subordinate himself to its requirements. In the political/economic realm, Objectivism upholds full laissez-faire capitalism — a system of free markets that legally prevent the government from restricting man's productive activities — as the only philosophical system that protects the freedom of man's mind, the rights of the individual, and the prosperity of man's life on earth.
Because of Ayn Rand's uncompromising defense of the mind, of the individual, and of capitalism, Atlas Shrugged created great controversy on its publication in 1957. Denounced by critics and intellectuals, the book nevertheless reached a wide audience. The book has sold millions of copies and influenced the lives of countless readers. Since 1957, Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism has gradually taken hold in American society. Today, her books and ideas are becoming widely taught in high schools and universities.
Finally able to pick up a copy at my library! I often have trouble finishing such a large book on my own so I'm happy to have other people working through it with me!
Mod
Just thought I'd post this for others who may have forgotten too.
I'm so glad y'all are reading this book...it's awesome. And it's good to talk to others because Rand's perspective is so pervasive you start to go a little crazy. I will have to see if I can grab a copy before next weekend.Also, how often are y'all doing "chunky reads" now? I've been sooooooooooo out of the loop. Have you done Moby Dick yet? Can I nominate that for the next one?
(And I love all you teachers! Mwah! *blows a kiss*)
Hi Emily!We haven't done Moby Dick. We will certainly put that on the list. We do the "chunky reads" all year long. When we finish one, we take a few weeks off before we start the next one. Hope you can join us.
It's going to be really interesting to relate it to our time with government control over the financial industry...
And a note on the bathroom issue...when I was pregnant and teaching, it was so hard! I hardly drank any water, and when I confessed to my OB that I had once gone all day without going to the bathroom, he was not happy with me!
Unfortunately all day is not such a uncommon event is it?! I can remember babies getting in the way of good control!! Now its just age. Grr Looking forward to the book. The Ann Rand Institue's website has a clip of an upcoming documentary about its' relevance to our time. It looks like it is going to be a good piece - no indications where it will play and when though. I just hope I can keep up - school starts Aug. 9 for us - in which case I will become a lurker, often in digest only! But we have some great people planning on participating so it should be good stalking! *sigh* THANKS ahead of time!
OK I am assuming we are all busy reading. I am going to start with the first two chapters. Don't feel compelled to answer these yet, I am just trying to do some guided reading as we start. Happy reading!Key people you meet are Eddie Willers, James and Dagny Taggart and Hank Reardon. Let us talk first impressions.
The first chapter is called the Theme and the second chapter is The Chain. What do the chapter titles mean and how do they relate to the characters we are introduced to?
Mod
And the main thing I have to say so far is that I am so glad I am reading this with a group. Otherwise I think I would have put this down last night and said "forget it!". :o)
I had to read parts of the introduction several times, as they were not making sense to me. It describes the first chapter "The Theme" as being "What happens to the world when the Prime Movers go on strike." Then it talks about Prime Movers, and Second-Handers, and Parasites. Huh???
I guess this is going to take some deep thought. LOL
But so far in the first chapter I've just learned about the people who run the trains. I guess they are the "Prime Movers".
And then there is the "Who is John Galt?" question, which is said by several people in the first chapter, and apparently which means "Don't ask questions nobody can answer." This must have some deep meaning in the book. Apparently this whole book is a philosophical discussion? (whatever that means) LOL
The theme to me though means that Dagny is in charge and her brother isn't too smart. I think she is going to run the show throughout the book. I love books with strong women that won't take crap from anyone. I think that is what is hooking me so far. I hope she stays as strong and independent, but something tells me that isn't going to be the case. Since you only read Chapter one so far, I won't share any of my other thoughts (right or wrong)!
Hi everyone,I am listening to Atlas Shrugged on CD; I like Ed Hermann, and he narrates this...for anyone interested in the audiobook, I think its really great..I was afraid I might have trouble focusing on this one in print, and so I tried the audio..
Looking forward to joining the discussion,
Beth
I am finding Dagny's character quite the confident, zealous woman whom I admire greatly. She seems as Meg says the prime mover and shaker in the book. The brother does seem like a an ineffectual lout who is in the position he is in because of inherited money. I do like the character of Francisco though he seems like a cad but is mysterious enough to make himself intriguing.
I've been watching some youtube interviews with her and some other things related to the book. Very interesting stuff. And there is apparently a movie that will be released next year. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/ (Sorry, I have a thing for media and films of books.)I will have to say Jim Taggart and gang, plus Rearden's family are already unsettling, disturbing, annoying...
Wow! A movie! That will be so awesome. I love Dagny - she is everything you guys have said about her - strong, domineering, confident, zealous...she is one of my favorite literary characters. (And I love that name! I would so name a daughter Dagny if my husband would go for it.)Okay, I'm having a really hard time not talking about stuff you haven't read yet.
What do y'all think of Hank?
I am trying hard to keep quiet myself Emily. As you see, I did have to start talking a little early, but am trying to exercise self control here.I agree with you about Dagny though, I can't wait to see what influence and control she will have in a male dominated field. Does my heart good!
As far as Hank is concerned. It is really a dilemma. he is obviously a brilliant businessman but doesn't seem to be able to fit well into society. It was very disturbing to see his homelife and how his family mooch off of him and loathe him as well. And he knows it. He appears to be an odd duck in society, even though he has mastered his profession. I guess I see him as Dagny's male version. Does that make sense?
Very much so Meg. I think they may be opposite gender but mirror images of each other. Both articulate, creative, risk taking, intelligent, independent people and are consequently a threat to those around them. So their families manipulate them with a level of disrespect, and a lack of understanding or appreciation. By the description of this dystopian society Hank and Dagny are the minority and they are disappearing. I find it interesting that the people who are most threatened are also so inconsistent. The discussion the little foursome had indicated a fear of monopoly but also a fear of competition, which is ultimately socialism versus capitolism. So they appear afraid of anything that is going to threaten their own selfish business interests. Does that make sense??
Yes, that makes a lot of sense. It also brings forth one of my major questions and that is do you see this situation in our own political/economic situations now? This book, to me, seems so current, yet written so many years ago.
I have been coming across tons of references to the validity of her writing to our current political situation. That is potentially a LONG topic and where can you start!? This book is so heavy with implications. I finally had to take out a notebook to jot down my own reflections. *sigh* think I'm back at school already?
It raises tons of questions in my mind that I'm sure will be addressed as I read deeper. I'll put some things out there:
Capitalism vs a more socialist economy and our current bailouts. Is this really healing to the economy or are we merely protecting industry (and consumers) from their own mistakes and ineptitude? i.e. the automakers stuck in a large car rut...
Can we even make a generalization or is this a case-by-case issue?
Does capitalism grow more positive results in the long run? What is the balance to keep competition from moving into a monopoly?
I am the LAST one with answers. I don't think there are simple solutions to any of these questions or we would be able to fix our current problems!
Then the old brain ran with the idea of capitalism/competition and what effect it has in education. Sorry the teacher just doesn't shut down. Is it healthy, encouraging creativity? Or does it stifle those children who are having trouble succeeding in the first place? Or is this another situation where we can't generalize the question or answer?
I didn't think I would be sucked into this book quite the way I am. My husbands the business major, economy guy in this household. I'm the musician! So I'm probably not making sense!! I'll stop!
Brenda, I agree 100 percent with you on the educational piece. We try to make ALL kids go to college as if that would be the guarantee of a successful future. We forget to inspire within our children the nobleness of working with your hands being an electrician, a plumber, etc. I think right now, we are seeing the fallacy of that with so many of our college grads being unemployed. There are many kids in college who do not belong there but do meet a certain criteria. We have dumbed down our curriculum (at least in NY which is reported to have a good system) so that everyone passes an inane bunch of tests that even your dog can do well with.
Do we need the junk we have? Absolutely not! Yet we build things that last only a limited time and always "love" that new car smell. We want bigger and better all the time and can't seem to be content for long periods of time.
As for our gifted children, education can be bleak. I think of the gifted programs that I have been involved with as using the philosophy that children who are so bright should do more than their peers. If the parents yells loud enough the gifted criteria is waived and the child is does not belong is admitted thus weakening an already weak system. Unless the resources are available financially to send the child to private select academies, the child is left to "hang out" in regular ed until seventh grade and all those early years are if not lost certainly very wasted.
...and now too I will stop rambling!
Ah you all are why I LOVE LOVE LOVE this group...
OK so in chapter three (cliff notes summed this up well)and exactly what you are talking about:This chapter shows readers the way things work in a mixed economy that's moving toward socialism. Private property exists nominally, but the state has steadily increasing control over its use and distribution. In such a system, productive businessmen like Hank Rearden and Dan Conway have no rights; they are at the mercy of any inferior competitor with political friends. Only capitalism provides the economic freedom that great producers like Rearden and Conway require. Under a capitalist society, their productive activities would be unrestricted by government bureaucrats and envious competitors.
The men who meet at the beginning of this chapter insist that the preservation of the steel industry "as a whole" is vital to the public welfare. Therefore, Boyle's virtually bankrupt company must not be allowed to fail. It must be propped up by stripping Rearden of his ore mines and turning them over to Paul Larkin, who will please the Washington planners by giving Boyle first priority for the ore. Rearden's productive company will be sacrificed to Boyle's unproductive one, in keeping with the moral premise underlying socialism, which states that the strong must serve the weak.
As the government acquires power over an economy, the level of corruption necessarily rises. This rise in corruption occurs because, as the state gains power to dispense economic favors, it attracts power-seekers like Wesley Mouch and enables incompetent businessmen like Jim Taggart and Orren Boyle to exist parasitically off of competent men like Rearden. In a free market, where customers can choose unrestrictedly among competitors, customers select companies like Rearden's and Dan Conway's because they get the job done. In a free market, businesspeople like Boyle and Taggart go out of business. But in a state-dominated system, unprincipled businesspeople curry favor with power-seeking politicians, brokering corrupt deals that allow them to stay in business by means of legislation.
OK I found some humor in this. I was reading the NY Times this morning and came to an article about a TV show that I love, Mad Men. I feel this is a play on our book (Who is John Gault?) Anyway, it made me laugh.“WHO is Don Draper?” is the question that opens the premiere of the fourth season of “Mad Men.” And that’s an insider’s joke, a wink at viewers who have spent three years burrowing into the cryptic ad man’s buried secrets and damaged psyche.
Why do Dagny Taggart and Lillian Rearden—both highly affluent women—fight over a cheap metallic bracelet at the anniversary party? Who gets to keep the bracelet, and at what cost? Is this foreshadowing? Predictions?
Dagny understands the potential of Rearden Steel much more than Rearden's own wife. She can tell that it will revolutionize the steel industry, and she can honor the brilliance that it took to create it amidst a society that praises mediocrity and spurns genuine achievement (which is where I feel like we are headed today). It's foreshadowing, and I'll not spoil it. ;)Education is breaking down in this country. It hurts me to see the way the fire of teaching is being constrained to make sure that all students can achieve a certain score on a certain test. As adults, we are all involved in different fields and make use of different skills. I hate math, and I am glad that there are people who like math enough to figure out fabric requirements for a quilt or a skirt or ingredients for a recipe. And there are people who are grateful that I know where put a comma and where to put a semi-colon and how to write an efficient sentence. Why can't we honor that more in our kids?
Go Emily! Good points. I think there are several educators in the this crowd, which is one of the reasons why the parallels came to mind. I have been working through a small book called Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing American Schools Back to Reality that quite eloquently argues the point, as many of you have stated, that not all kids ARE created equal in their skills. I think the bulk of it was written before the No Child Left Behind legislation. But he basically says we are doing a diservice in expecting kids to be competent in a broad range of academic categories. Back to the concept of Gardner's multiple intelligences. We need to let them figure out what kinds of skills they do have and empower them in those areas, earlier than we are currently allowing them to specialize. Which in my book isn't even in at the university level, when we are still bound to a "liberal arts" education. There is a fine line in college graduates being well balanced people with a varied exposure to culture and society BUT lacking the depth of skill and understanding in their content area because we water down the curriculum. The parallels to business in this book are certainly there. We accept mediocrity as Emily says, in the name of being fair and inclusive and all those arguments that mask the real fear of failure and what reprecussions it will have on us. Rand's Anti Dog Eat Dog rulings in the book shows the majority protecting the railroad solely for the sake of keeping the economy steady in the short term and jobs secure, whether it is ethical or not. Part of our selfish immediate gratification instead of looking at the global impact or the long term ramifications.
Well we also have to question why we stopped building and using the rails as well. Is it as Rand described?I know for me to go to NYC roundtrip on Amtrak, which is govt owned, I could be flying; driving in is a lot cheaper.
Wasn't the automobile a status symbol when it came out?If so, that would go along with the whole have to have more, bigger, better mentality that has plagued society for a long time.
I've never been to Europe, but I think about tight roads and small cars, and then I think about the humongous SUVs that are so common here. Why do we need such big cars?Also, was it the car mentality or the plane mentality that did the popular railroads in?
Good question and good points. I tend to think it is lifestyle demands. We are selfish individualists, live ever more complicated lives and are always in a hurry. We have developed mass transit in buses and trains in the largest cities, but it is only practical for those people who live close. Or tourists! My nephew lives near Wrigley Field in Chicago, keeps his car at home most of the time and rides the EL into work. My Swedish family and I have had several discussions about our differences in culture. Cars are smaller in Europe. But gas is much more expensive and parking space is a premium. Several of them don't own cars at all, They walk and take mass transit, but they live in Eskilstuna which is a smaller community. Work is close by. The ones that do own cars live in Stockholm. Mass transit is still good, but their lives demand more immediate and far-ranging travel. You don't hop a subway to get your kids to soccer practice.
Their take on our transportation systems is interesting. They comment about the fact we live in a much bigger country. Distances between things are much greater. The discussion came up more in relation to their media. I had commented that news, music, etc. is so much more international than American Tv and radio. My cousin said, of course, when they travel across country it is a couple hour drive that only takes us across one state.
I think there is another way to look at it. Not just a status symbol, but again in relation to sheer size and need. Trains got us across a continent, but they didn't help with local agricultural needs. So much of our westward expansion was developing farms and ranches. No mass transit there.
I believe it was the airlines that put a crimp in the rail industries. When Carter de regularized the airlines, he made it affordable to the masses. For good or bad, this hurt the railroads since air travel was a quicker mode of transportation. I personally, don't think he did us any favors. Now, I prefer to take AMTRAK to DC to visit my daughter. By the time you check in, are searched, and walk around barefoot you could be on the train on your way in a quiet car (no cell phone, no computers and whispering voices and ample leg room.
I think all you guys who live on the east coast look at trains differently. You have a much better developed mass transit in cities then out here. In the midwest, if you take a train, you are afraid to fly or can't afford the airfare, or don't have the time, as any place you are going to is so much farther away that you are going to take a plane just to save the time. That being said, my daughter took the train from Omaha to Salt Lake just for the experience of going through the Rockies. It was spectacular. On the other hand, I wouldn't think about taking a train home to Minneapolis - they are only just developing a light rail system.
Just think though, Nancy, that if people weren't flying at such cheap rates that those revenues would have gone into railroads and the railroad transportation systems country wide would have improved. I think that foreign countries have it all over us in their rail transportation systems.
Oh yes- I think you're right! We're just in these wide open spaces where distances are greater from one place to another. When I took the train from Goteburg Sweden across to Stockholm on the other coast it was only a matter of a couple hours.
I have to chime in here,hoping I don't offend someone as I am pretty opinionated. Europe may have a much better mass transit system, I have been to the UK, Russia, Japan, and Taiwan and their systems are great. However, it should also be noted that their systems are government owned and operated, and their governments are not necessarily democratic or capitalistic. This is reflected in the individual rights of the people in those countries. Isn't Rand saying that the individual's rights are too quickly and thoroughly usurped (sp?) by government in an effort to make everything fair? When capitalism is taken away, the basic human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness suffer. This eventually leads to the loss of individual and national sovereignty. We can extrapolate this to education as well. Obtaining an education is a privelege- not a right. We in the US have forgotten this and have bought into the notion that no one can be flunked out or not get a prize for participation because their feelings might get hurt. And that leads to dependence on the state for food and healthcare, instead of encouraging a great work ethic. Rand is saying much more, I think, than it appears at first glance. America has become a socialist society, and is on a headlong tumble to communism. What I am getting from AS is that when we bend over backwards to make life easier for certain groups, that others have to suffer for the first group's weaknesses. We are not placing enough emphasis the importance of the individual, and the individual's contribution to society. Instead, we reward laziness with free food, rent, and cash. Living in the rural PNW, I frequently hear that "no one will take those jobs, so the illegal immigrants may as well be working them". I think that if we didn't reward poor behavior with an easier option, those jobs would be taken by Americans. Ok, off my soapbox now.
Amen to that, Vicki. I so totally agree. ...and we refuse to buy higher priced AMERICAN products and then wonder why our industries are all moving off shore and to foreign soil. We need to purchase only American products or our country will continue the downward spiral we are now on. There will be no need to be an individual competitor when everyone and everything is the same. Socialism is the word for our government and our social structure. I personally think it is pretty scary.My husband and I just bought a Ford Eclipse and yes, it was more expensive than the foreign versions but it is made in America!
Oh yes. Well stated Vicki. I agree. AS really is about socialism and we've wandered off into some related aspects. I think we're pretty much on the same soap box, and you are probably steering us back to the original point. Mass transit may be more responsible environmentally, but of course as you say, who owns and operates it? Good point. AS shows a gradual loss of individuality and we are certainly seeing that in our country. I can hope this is just a pendelum swing but I think most of us worry that it isn't. I think the people that aren't worried are going to be the ones who obviously are benefiting from the changes. We do bend over backwards sometimes. Plus there are the welfare issues. There is a fine line between caring for people in poverty, immigrants, etc. and empowering them to be the best they can be. There are no clear answers and legislation that attempts to fix all problems with a generalized bandaide just doesn't work. I think that's part of the problem with, as you say, trying to be fair. Life has never been fair. Its one of those hard lessons to teach kids. I smile at your reference to rewarding participation so we don't hurt feelings!
PS - I'm getting all my yakking in now - school starts in three weeks! And I'll be a lurker... you guys back as early as we are??
Nancy you are allowed to yak and teach! I start back on 8/23
Do you think it would be cost effective to maintain rails today? I'm not sure what steel costs...and what do trains use as fuel? Would it be better for the earth than auto emissions?
I think it's important to note that rails are still pretty important. I think they are how the majority of food and stuff gets across the country, aren't they? I think what we would need to do is develop more systems of people transport.
Meg - I wish - found out today we are doing a smaller musical right away in the fall. Usually late Dec. to early April. Rehearsals usually go 3:30 to 6:30 M-F and I have other music rehearsals 7- 9 PM M & W. And two church jobs. Once summer is done, I don't have a life. Probably won't be able to keep up.
Chicks On Lit
Books mentioned in this topic
A Dog's Purpose (other topics)The Art of Racing in the Rain (other topics)
A Dog's Purpose (other topics)
The Art of Racing in the Rain (other topics)
A Dog's Purpose (other topics)
More...
