Chicks On Lit discussion
Archive 08-19 GR Discussions
>
Atlas Shrugged *chunky read*
message 401:
by
Nancy
(new)
Aug 14, 2010 04:42PM
refresh the page... I edited that it was a fan made trailer - DANG - and added the real ImBD link
reply
|
flag
DANG DANG DANG - sorry to miss lead you - and then the real one doesn't look like a cast I would be crazy about - I know a while back I suggested we should cast it... ???
I was going by looks alone, they kind of look like characters I had in my head while reading.
Oh me too - I thought the fan based one had a great feel to it.
I'm pretty sure they were using mostly the same actors the imdb link showed....except I didn't see Brad Pitt on imdb. No great loss IMO.
I don't think they are the same at all - check the characters - I could be wrong
They at least looked similar. I'm pretty tired at the moment lol
The fake one had Michelle Mohaghan as Dagny, Jeff Bridges as Hank Rearden (too much age difference now), Javier Bardem as Francisco, Pitt as Danneskjold, Patrick Dempsey as John Galt.
Oh Laura - tired I understand! That's how I made the mistake in the first place. I saw the youtube and then looked a little deeper, found Imbd, then scrolled down the fine print and realized the youtube was not a real trailer - Like I said DANG - I liked it better than the casting I saw in the actual one.
BUT I need a John Galt t-shirt or something off that site! And no one at school will "get it."
Ok folks - chapters 8 through 10 in section two. Francisco's showing up at the cabin. I was glad that Dagny finally got the straight scoop on his real behavior and feelings for her. But it only complicates things further. Wonder if she would really have been ready had the tunnel not collapsed?? Then Rearden's encounter with Danneskjold was interesting. Not a pirate afterall. Certainly not - based on that little speech earlier about Robin Hood.
Lots going on, with Quentin Daniels quitting. The real answer to "Who is John Galt?" And didn't we know that the guy who keeps showing up in the cafeteria had some bearing on people disappearing. I never could understand why WHY WHY Eddie was never weary of all the information he was giving away to this guy??
I am anxious for next week, to talk about section three!!
I am with you on that, Brenda.Nothing seemed to be fun in her life for sure.
I'm as they say ROFLOL - no she probably didn't. If you go on youtube and watch some of the actual interviews with her, it is just fascinating. I think it was also a time in our country where people were more serious - blossoming cold war etc. What I find so hard in her philosophy of objectivism is her criticism of faith. I wouldn't call myself a religious fanatic by any stretch, but she has absolutely no room for spirituality. It makes sense, but in my humble opinion it was her loss.
I am getting to the point where I loved the book to begin with, rambled on about her detailed descriptive writing and now my pendulum has swung the other direction. It is beginning to drive me NUTS. Her vision of life is too rigid, too exclusive to the best intellectuals, with no room for the truly average man.
And sex... well they are all so physically perfect and "sanction" their desires because the passion is for someone who stimulates their brain. And yes I know good sex comes from the brain too, but... Oh I'm going to shut up now. How could I have come this far the other direction??? HELP - do I need an attitude adjustment?? My new mantra = "Its only a book, its only a book..."
No I get you Nancy. It did get to the point where it became too much. And I agree, she has no room in her philosophy for religion and doing what God says - loving one another and caring for others above yourself - or for the "every day" person. There are many people who aren't as bright, or aren't physically able of doing everything, etc. How do these people survive in her perfect world?
Out of curiosity, where is everybody in this book?? chapter? section?
I was up to Part 3 but had to return it to the library. I am on reserve for it after one other person. So, I guess I am taking a break which I think is quite fortuitous since I felt the same as you.
Some questions from Reading Group Guides: Answer as you wish!According to Atlas Shrugged, selfishness is both moral and practical. What does Ayn Rand mean by "selfishness"? Compare the actions and character of James Taggart, Hank Rearden, Orren Boyle, and Francisco d’Anconia: Who is selfish and who is not? Can you present arguments for or against AR’s view of selfishness? Contrast AR’s approach with that of the ethics of Christianity.
8. Explain the meaning and wider significance of the following quote from Atlas Shrugged: "The words ‘to make money’ hold the essence of human morality." Explain what ideas underlie the maxim that "money is the root of all good."
9. Capitalism is often defended by appeal to the "public good"; that is, solely because its economic efficiency benefits society. Contrast this with AR’s defense of capitalism, as dramatized in Atlas Shrugged.
Hey all - just wanted to drop by and say I'm still here and reading. I'm a few pages shy of finishing Part I. At this rate, I don't think I'll be caught up until the end. I'm way behind on the discussion b/c I don't want to read any spoilers, so it looks like I'll miss most of reading and discussing the book 'with' you all. But at least I'm reading it! For the first few chapters of the book, I wasn't sure I liked the book very much, but it's gotten more interesting. I am very much enjoying the philosophy of achievement discussions. They ring very true. But I'm too tired to discuss them now. Pretty surprised at the nature of the relationship between Dagny & Hank. There are a few things there that are puzzling.
My personal guess is that Francisco was forced by someone to sacrifice himself for the sake of Dagny, so I'll have to see how that plays out.
I am finding the book to be extremely well-written, but we just are no longer used to such verbose descriptions anymore. It's kind of like when you watch old movies -- there is so much dialog in them that they are almost funny. They use dialog as a means to convey thoughts and emotions. We hardly find that in today's movies.
Interesting observation about the language/emotions in the book. I am glad you are reading the book, and anytime you have a questions or anything feel free to jump in. Sorry that you don't want to follow our posts, they do go in order though.Happy reading!
Mod
Maureen, I agree with you that the dialog and language in this book is very verbose. Truthfully, I have found myself skimming paragraphs and pages at times just to get through it.
But I will finish this! :o)
Glad to see you Sheila!I just watched Capitalism: A Love Story last night and made me think more and more of Atlas. An interesting combination, whether or not you like Michael Moore is kind of irrelevant.
Meg - I don't generally watch Michael Moore's stuff. What was the general crux of this one? Re the questions you posed a day or so ago - heavy stuff I either have to think really hard about, or write too long!! I've done alot of other internet cruising and reading about Ayn Rand since starting this book, probably because I have such mixed reactions. I would be better off if I could just look at it as fiction, but that was of course not the intent. I've learned alot of interesting stuff including the fact her family were Jews persecuted in Russian.
I didn't realize she had published a whole series of essays called the Virtue of Selfishness. There is a certain intellectual arrogance to her whole philosophy. After reading about her applications of objectivist concepts to her personal life and colleagues sometimes with disastrous results, I have a hard time buying any of it. I think in my definition of selfishness, both the looters and the strikers fall into that category for different reasons and with opposite results. I get what she is espousing, I can see her point... I just don't agree.
Rand's philosophy flies in the face of Christian ethics and she is an admitted atheist. Rand is considered a social Darwinist intending for the strongest in society to succeed. Individual happiness was no one else's responsibility but their own and the government has no obligation to the less fortunate regardless of the reason.
It is said that "The heroes in Atlas Shrugged all dramatize the novel's theme: The mind is mankind's tool of survival.
Do you agree or disagree with this? What are your thoughts?
In answer to Nancy's question:Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story" comes home to the issue he's been examining throughout his career: the disastrous impact of corporate dominance on the everyday lives of Americans. But this time the culprit is much bigger than General Motors, and the crime scene is far wider than Flint, Michigan.
It just reminded me somewhat of what Rand was expressing.
Yes, I wouldn't dismiss the idea of the mind being our survival tool. But the intellectual levels that Rand is celebrating are what belongs to a minority of the population. Sorry to go back to education as an example, but the very reason No Child Left Behind scares teachers is because there are too many variables we can't control and too many learning disabilities that we can only fix to a certain degree. Most of us are average citizens, of average ability. So we hope and trust that the most gifted among us are also the most moral and ethical. But is that really possible?Thanks for the answer Meg. I figured that was what Moore's movie was about. My thought is that this is where generalizing is too easy and simplistic a view. I agree that corporate dominance can be disasterous. However, this is where I feel slightly confused. In some ways I would think that would be a contradiction to Rand's philosophy and where her theories are unrealistic. In general we are afraid of allowing any one company to hold a monopoly in a given area. I interpret Rand as the opposite. She seemed to feel it was perfectly ok for businesses to compete until the best man wins. In her perfect world, the smartest, most ethical would prevail. Rearden and Wyatt could be the best metal and the best oil suppliers. So in current society how and why have the best men won in business? Sam Walton and Walmart have blown out the competition with business smarts, but many would argue at what price? Fair or not? Windows operating system has blown out the competition with business smarts, but many would also argue at what price? McDonalds, the airlines... there are positives and negatives about all these businesses. Any thoughts Meg??
Mod
As an example, if Bill Gates were to vanish one day (like the businessmen in this story vanish), would the whole world of computers come to a crashing halt, or would someone else just step in to take his place. I find Rand's idea that there is only ONE best man in each business silly. I'm sure Steve Jobs and Apple computers would love it if Gates vanished, and I'm sure there are MANY others who are excellent with computers who could take over.
Her idea that the whole society would come crashing to a halt if just a few men vanished doesn't fly with me. I think she underestimates people.
Funny you should mention that - Gates and Jobs were on my mind as well. Perhaps that's where this book ages itself. The 1950's was such a different time and culture. Has anyone else watched some of the interviews she gave that are available on youtube??
I read this book a long time ago, loved it, and have not yet chimed in on this conversation because I was secretly hoping I could start reading it & catch up with you all. Right! :) So please excuse me if this has already been said, or if I am being too simplistic in my thoughts here. My take on this book was that Ayn created her "perfect world" and used characters as examples to "show" her complex theory. Are you all thinking, or did she say & I missed it, that she believed there is only 1 "best" person?
My thinking at the time was that her philosophy was sort of like this: people should be able to do what they want, and people should take care of their own family/community. That type of behavior will inevitably help society as a whole, because everyone would be looking out for themselves/family/community.
Does that make sense, or did I just make that up because I loved the story and didn't want to take away the message that Capitalism should be allowed to run rampant over anyone/everything? ;)
Just for kicks: I will never forget flying through this book in a state of loving every word and not being able to put the book down, then hitting about 30-40 pages of her "theory" (written as a speech by maybe Galt, if I remember correctly), and coming to a screeching halt. Having to re-read sentences,etc.
PS - I forgot to include my personal thought in the post above! Here it is. Wouldn't it be grand if society functioned like that, everyone being able to take care of their families and communities, and being able to find their "perfect life work" and then DO that work so everyone excelled? :) So obviously - Ideal World Thoughts created in my mind, to take the "bite" out of what I feel is, or could be if really Practiced, a pretty harsh everyone-take-care-of-him/herself philosophy. I remember thinking Ayn had more faith in humanity that I did, since she seemed to think people would actually take care of each other. ;)
Meg, I totally agree that that the mind is mankind's tool of survival. It's the one thing that sets us apart from other animals and that has allowed us develop this world as we know it. It is a pity when great thoughts are stifled by society.
Good point Laurie, thanks for chiming in. I think I get cynical about the world, such that Rand's ideal perfect vision sounds wonderful, I just don't think it is realistic. As you say, she may have more faith in humanity than I do. I also need to remind myself she is writing in the abstract and one person is not necessarily what she intended. Creating what is essentially a monopoly of expertise in a service/product could be the result of fierce competition and still seems contradictory to what we complain about in "big business." Maybe that's where my sense of reality is interferring with my perspective. If we could trust people not to become greedy it would indeed be a wonderful world.
Laurie - I loved what you said about "Wouldn't it be grand if society functioned like that, everyone being able to take care of their families and communities, and being able to find their "perfect life work" and then DO that work so everyone excelled? :)" - the question becomes what is to keep it from becoming the "harsh everyone-take-care-of-him/herself philosophy?"
Mod
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 down and read it. So then I am in a mood to start with, and what I interpret to be Rand's ideas and vision in the story are just really annoying. :o)
Interesting that you saw her ideal to be that people should take care of their own family and community. I am reading it as people should just take care of themselves, and everyone else be damned. But then I have not got to the 30-40 page speech that you mentioned (and now I'm DREADING it, if you enjoyed the book and that part brought you to a screeching halt). :o)
But it is seeming to me that the people who disappear are not taking care of their families and communities. I feel that so far Reardon's family has been portrayed as basically parasites that he is having to support, and Dagney has no love or support for her brother, and it seems when the business owners leave, all their workers (which I would think would be their community) are just left behind to be unemployed and rot, and who cares what happens to them.
But like I said, since I am not really enjoying the book, I might be having a bad attitude about it. :o)
Very interesting to see how everyone interprets it differently.
I just finished Chapter 7 and up until this part I have been devouring this book. John Galt's rant was hard to get through and actually pay attention to. Did it have to be so long? My goodness! However, this book is pure genius. I am amazed at how relevant this is today.I think Rand hit the nail on the head when she sheds lights on the idea that our politicians are the ones who are making the rules that businesses have to follow, however, the same people making these rules tend to have no idea how to run a business.
I am in the medical field and I see the great need for structure within the billing/collections/payment sector. I have been pro-socialized medicine for a long time. I believe that health care should be a right, not a privilege. I think San Francisco would be a very different city if the homeless had access to the medications they needed. I think access would allow many of the crazy, homeless people to get off the streets and become a productive part of society. However, the tit-for-tat games our politicians have to play to survive will probably corrupt the program more than it will help.
This whole story line makes me wonder about the health of our great nation. I think we are acting like Rome and we just might have to fall like Rome in order to fix our corrupt system.
Its so good to see more people jumping in! Alisha, I understand what you are saying about socialized medicine and our homeless population. I have a 25 yr old son who has no insurance for various reasons. My gut reaction however is I wish there were a different way. I feel like I have been living socialized medicine for the last 27 years as a Air Force wife. Military medicine leaves much to be desired. Good doctors, terrible system. My assumption however is that socialized medicine would be government run which is what we are trying to get away from. You are in the field - any thoughts on this??
BTW - regarding my son - the new law supposedly says that insurance companies should now cover dependent children who are full-time students up to age 25 or 26?? How come the govt. doesn't seem to be applying that to themselves and our Tricare yet??
Sheila wrote: "Nancy, I am having some issues with Rand's ideas and philosphy too.As an example, if Bill Gates were to vanish one day (like the businessmen in this story vanish), would the whole world of comp..."
Many will be take over in the country as we know it now, but they won't, if they would not own the rights to it.
I have been reading on and off. I don't know if I am already to part III. Dagny crashed her plane. Everything is coming together now.
Oh great!! More people talking! If she's crashed Elena, then you are probably starting part III. Have fun!
Interesting thoughts here. I think that the idea of one man being the best is a sign that the book was written so long ago. With technology we are more aware of the geniuses in their fields.I also think that the use of hyperboles in writing or film is what makes people open their eyes and start thinking. If you think about it, the idea of art (albeit writing/books/movies) is to open people's eyes and question or think about their surroundings. If Rand is able to do that in Atlas then she has succeeded. What do you think about this?
I don't think the book presents one man being the best. Each industry had its competition at the beginning.I agree art opens peoples eyes to ideas and places. We all had gone places through our books, and films. Knowledge is power.
Defintely Meg - she has certainly gotten a response from readers to all her books. I have not personally interpreted her business outlook as one man holding the power. Her characters I think are symbolic and abstract in that sense. But I do think she meant that one company, or conglomerate of a companies could hold that much power. I'm not sure if I'm explaining the contradiction I see. I think she felt it was OK to hold that power, IF they held it from the perspective of earning that right by their intellect. But its not ok for looters to hold that much power for obvious reasons - they didn't work to get there. But can you really have it both ways? Either you don't want big business because you can't trust peoples' greed, or you allow it because occasionally it actually is run by ethical people. She seemed to say it was ok in the hands of people who earned it, but then who decides that?? I am making any sense, or am I missing something??
Nancy wrote: "Its so good to see more people jumping in! Alisha, I understand what you are saying about socialized medicine and our homeless population. I have a 25 yr old son who has no insurance for vario..."
Government run or government regulated, I think it's all the same, but I think it still needs to happen. The first thing I would do if fix all prices. Medicare is an amazing system and is run efficiently. Every service has a code and a price. Currently, a patient without insurance is usually charged 4-10 times what Medicare would pay. The price charged is at the sole discretion of the billing department management. This same group of people can place a lien on your house, or ruin your credit. There are no regulations or guidelines to follow regarding the uninsured.
Medicare is a proven system with a lot of data available to efficiently be able to judge costs of providing medical care. This program would be cheaper than anything Blue Cross, Aetna, or Cigna could offer because they are all for profit.
The problem lies in what happens to these businesses if the US does convert to socialized medicine? I'm in favor of providing a base line for everyone and people who want more, different, better coverage can opt to pay for Blue Cross, Aetna, or Cigna for that plan. I know this isn't a good solution, I just can't see a better way.
As far as Military medicine goes, I think everyone feels the way you feel weather it be private insurance or government run. The private sector has a hard time knowing what is covered and isn't covered before the service is rendered. Often leaving the patient with unexpected medical bills afterwards. If there was 1 set of rules like Medicare - it would be clear what options the patient had, giving the patient more decision making power.
As it stands now, an Emergency Room can not turn anyone away. So we (the local county taxpayers) are paying for the poor uninsured anyway, the only difference is that we are paying a premium because it is emergent care. These practices is what is draining our local economies and hurting our schools. Funds are going to care the local hospitals are providing at a premium rather than going to educate our children.
Oh, I could talk about this forever. It's amazing how one issue blends and affects so many other issues. It's all connected, these are not separate issues. :D
Nancy wrote: "Good point Laurie, thanks for chiming in. I think I get cynical about the world, such that Rand's ideal perfect vision sounds wonderful, I just don't think it is realistic. As you say, she may have..."Yes, Nancy, if only we could trust people to not become greedy...whether it be greedy for money, or greedy for power/control. Or greedy for success. I agree...sadly, it's just not a realistic expectation.
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..."
Hi Sheila! I laughed (sort of:) at how you are now dreading the "speech" part. Sorry to spoil that for you! :)
Seriously, it's probably not really 40 pages. It's just that the book I was reading had such small print, and I had been so into the story, and I was just in *love*love*love* with Francisco (who had no part in this speech:), that getting through her philosophy was a real struggle for me. Let me know how it goes for you!
Meg wrote: "Interesting thoughts here. I think that the idea of one man being the best is a sign that the book was written so long ago. With technology we are more aware of the geniuses in their fields.I..."
Meg, I completely agree with you about the arts being able to get people thinking about/taking various perspectives of/questioning their world. In my opinion, that is their power (although it may be lost on some): to get people in that kind of state-of-mind means, to me, to get people thinking about their connections to each other. Or lack thereof. And maybe that will motivate some to make a change. Or inspire others to keep on going. :) Of course, I can be an idealist, so maybe I'm wrong:) I forget - you all don't know that about me yet. Give it time - I'm sure it will come through in the emails sooner or later. ;)
Hi everybody! Well, I finally made it to the end of Part I, and I just finished Chapter 2 of Part 2. This is the chapter with Franciso's great speech about money. I loved that part. So far all through the book, the mentions of an individual's achievement have resonated with me. Basically they have been saying that people need to strive to work hard and achieve something as a product of their efforts. And that when they do, they are energized and come alive, and that there is no greater feeling in the world.
I find her philosophy to be almost akin to a religion. And, if anyone here knows anything about Religious Science, or Science of Mind, it is! The basic premise there is that our purpose on earth is to think of the best things we can and do them, create them, cause them to happen. And that when you do, you draw upon the creative intelligence, which works through you to accomplish things.
Anyway... yes, great line of Dagny's about being the man in the family!
And Lillian Reardon... don't underestimate her! After the anniversary party, I have been thinking about her. For a woman who claims not the slightest interest in her husband's business, she sure had to know a lot about it in order to compile that guest list and to know exactly how to zing each one there. The same goes for the wedding. She knew what everyone was up to, along with their weaknesses and flaws. She is an operator. Where she is getting her information, I don't know, but she knows exactly what she is doing!
I also wanted to post my favorite quotes from Francisco's money speech.“Money is made—before it can be looted or mooched—made by the efforts of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability.”
“Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort.”
“Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men’s stupidity, but your talent to their reason.”
“Only the man who does not need it is fit to inherit wealth – the man who would make his own fortune, no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him.”
“Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours, and you would have done no better with it.”
“Money is a living power that dies without its root.”
“Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause.”
“Money is the product of virtue.”
“To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men.”
“Let me give you a tip or a clue to men’s characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.”
“As long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another – their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.”
“When force is the standard , the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then, that society vanishes in a spread of ruin and slaughter.”
“But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it.”
“Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue.
Ah Maureen, you are hooked like the rest of us!Great quotes and I am glad you are into the book.
I did not know about Religious Science and will be reading up on it
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...
