Should have read classics discussion
This topic is about
Atlas Shrugged
Buddy Reads-Completed
>
Atlas Shrugged, Discussion thread.
date
newest »
newest »
message 51:
by
Lisa, the usurper
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Jan 17, 2013 07:25AM
Mod
reply
|
flag
Lisa wrote: "I would have to agree with you Gilles about the characters. I enjoyed the book but most of the people seemed like caricatures of what a certain type of person would be. I had never thought about ..."While I think it's possible that her characters were deliberately written to reflect the extent that some people are willing to go for personal gain, I don't see them as being caricatures. To me, they're incredibly complex, multi-faceted characters. Sure, many of them are shallow and the antitheses of selflessness, but I think that Rand deliberately portrayed them as such to prove a point.
Mod
Wh..."
I have been thinking of this idea since I read the book. the characters that I enjoyed, Dagny, Eddie and Rearden, constantly had that charge leveled at them , yet I never really noticed them being cruel. What about them elicits such a response? Besides being driven and believing that everyone has the choice to make for themselves what they want. Believing in individual responsibility does not make a person callous toward others, just as believing in the collective does not make one morally superior to others either.
Great observation, Lisa. Of the three mentioned, I like and deeply admire Dagny the most. I love her character, in fact, mostly for her redeeming qualities. But as shown, she has her flaws, as well (like all GREAT characters should, IMO.) I'm also quite fond of Eddie Willers.
And Rearden is likable, despite his transgressions. I love him for his unwavering determination (which is similar to Dagny,) but so far, I don't see him as being as intense. However, when it comes to Lilian and the rest of his family, he is quite weak; complacent, even. Definitely passive-aggressive.
As for them being cruel, I'd have to agree with you. I don't perceive them that way at all!
oops! message 55 by Camille is realy mine. Camille is my daughter and I did not realize her Facebook account was open when I initialy posted my reply..Lisa wrote: "Gilles wrote: "Of course, another thing that bugs me in this book is the subtext: It`s alright not to care about the suffering of others. Live long and prosper (i.e. pursue your dream and f... the ..."
To be fair, I admit that I let my opinion of Rand's philosophy interfere with my judgement of the book. From this point I will try not to get the two mixed up. I`m only at the part where Dagny and Hank are getting ready for Jim`s wedding (2/3 left).
One does not have to be cruel to demonstrate absence of empathy for others. One only needs to stand aside and do nothing to help when others are suffereing. I`ll will try to find quotes in the book that support this view. More to come later.
Gilles wrote: "To be fair, I admit that I let my opinion of Rand's philosophy interfere with my judgement of the book. "Her philosophy is the reason the characters come off as caricatures, IMO. The Capitalists... I mean protagonists (lol) are lean mean fighting machines and their opposition, well, they're the antithesis of that. She even named one of the antagonists Mouch (mooch)!
Gilles wrote: "oops! message 55 by Camille is realy mine. Camille is my daughter and I did not realize her Facebook account was open when I initialy posted my reply..Lisa wrote: "Gilles wrote: "Of course, anoth..."
One does not have to be cruel to demonstrate absence of empathy for others. One only needs to stand aside and do nothing to help when others are suffereing. I`ll will try to find quotes in the book that support this view. More to come later.
This is fantastic point, Gilles!
Mod
Sure, the lack of empathy is a big problem. If it were more prevalent, I've no doubt that society, as a whole, would be much better off. But I don't think that's something that can be forced upon the masses. Perhaps it's learned as a child (or perhaps not,) I really do not know. One thing's for sure, though: it is a choice. We all have free will, right?As far as empathy in the government, I think it begins with one individual at a time and goes from there. It's too bad that no one's stepped to do their part, isn't it?
Hey guys, new to the group. I read this a long time ago, but it might be time to revisit. It was the lack of empathy comment that inspired me to join. This is a tricky thing because it would go against the entire principle of the book for Dagny or Reardon to empathize with people who epitomize everything they're fighting. Why would they feel for people who expect to always be pulled up by others coat tails? In their minds, that doesn't truly help anyone involved. As I recall though Dagny at least does express great empathy in at least one big scene. So an not to spoil it for anyone not there yet, I'll just say the man on the train who worked for the Starnes family.
I see them both of the mentality that they'll help those who are first willing to help themselves.
Hi, Susan! Welcome to the group and discussion. It's great to have you here with us.:)I see that you gave it 5 stars. That's definitely reassuring, thank you!
I agree about their empathy (or lack thereof) being a tricky thing. And you're exactly right: why WOULD Dagny and Reardon empathize with the individuals they're hell-bent on fighting? Excellent point, I say. But I think the deeper question is, why isn't the government more empathetic towards the world? Is it as simple as greed? Or does it go deeper than that?
Mod
Dustin, I'm confused by your question. Did you mean the government in the book or current governments? Sorry, I might just be slow on the reading tonight!
Lisa wrote: "That is a great point Gilles! Cruelness and lack of empathy do not have to go together. In individuals, most of us can probably agree that lack of empathy is a big problem. In the larger context..."I think, and this is debatable, that History has shown that it is never enough to rely on voluntary philantropy alone to ensure the under priviledged can have decent lives. The market consistenly fails to provide affordable housing to the under priviledged (most municipal governments have to step in).
I happen to live in a democracy where people accept to pay taxes so other people struck by fate can get some relief. Anyone, except maybe the ultra rich, may potentialy run into a series of unfortunate events that will throw them on the street. Our social safety net is there to safeguard us against such calamity. There are always abusers of the system but I believe they are a very small group and research supports my views. Of course, we all have heard anecdotal evidence to the contrary but it is anecdotal.
There are right wing political parties where I live. When people will consider that the government is too generous with the needy, we can always elect those who prone cutting back social programs.
One issue I have with philantropy is that it tends to be spotty and leaves gaps. I prefer a democratically elected government to make decisions about where relief should go. Philantropy can complement by filling gaps.
Anyway, I digress again from the book but you asked, so I indulged. I appreciate the oppotunity to exchange views on these important matters. ;-)
I had a thought today. Did anyone notice or wonder that if Dagny and Hank look and sound so good, does it have anything to do with the fact that they are surrounded by complete morons?Did Rand have to go this far? : make everyone else an idiot so her two heroes would stand out as saints.
If normal and average decent people were surrounding Dagny and Hank, I bet their characters would not seem as likeable.
Lisa wrote: "Hello and welcome to the group Susan! Your comment was exactly what I was trying to say. I think that is why Dagny and Reardon are viewed like they are. Such as when Reardon's brother wanted a ..."I think it can be applied to both, actually. The novel is still very relevant in today's society (sad but true,) and much of that is what's so appealing to me.. you know?
Gilles wrote: "I had a thought today. Did anyone notice or wonder that if Dagny and Hank look and sound so good, does it have anything to do with the fact that they are surrounded by complete morons?Did Rand ha..."
I hadn't thought about it until now, and I think it's a good aspect to contemplate. Thank you, Gilles.
I'm not sold on the fact that Hank and Dagny are, in fact, "surrounded by complete morons." I think that some of them aren't the most intelligent, while others are probably very smart, cunning, conniving, and deceitful. Their greed completely blinds them, though. It's almost like they're ignorant of the consequences of their actions. I don't think they're foolish enough to be apathetic. I don't think that's the case at all..
Perhaps Rand did take it a little too far. But I think that's her point. They HAVE to go to such extremes. Anything else would be out of character for these greedy individuals..
I think Rand also begs the question: what is normal? How does it fit into our definition of the word? What is moral, immoral, righteous, unrighteous, good, evil..?
Dustin, I think you accurately described many of the "morons", but I don't think greed is their entire motive, at least not consciously. A lot of their actions are justified by altruistic motives. They claim, and I think often truly believe, they are doing what they do for the greater good. I think this theme ties into the empathy question. Gilles made a comment earlier that the subtext of this book is that it's ok to not care about the suffering of others. One's interpretation of what it means to care for fellow man is made very clear by which characters you identify with. Either you think that providing the "less fortunate" with unearned handouts is the best way to show you care, or you think that ensuring the opportunity to work and support oneself through a healthy economy is.
I suppose it would be obnoxiously obvious to say, give a man a fish...
Moron was a wrong generalization on my part. I should have said that practically all the characters have one or many major flaws, pushed to extreme, to which Dadny and Hank are confronted. Compared to these people, D&H obviously always appear smarter, wiser, virtuous, etc.I`m about halfway through the book now. I feel that one way Rand is intellectually dishonnect is that she postrays so many of the bad guys as simply totally ignorant of basic economics. They`re not evil, they`re just plain stupid about economics. It`s not realictic to have so many people with influence in running the country who do not undertsnad that an organization (private or public) cannot continu to produce if the cost of production consistently exceeds its revenues. At Taggart InterContinenat, that means increasing wages, reduce tarif, reduce the profitability of each train by limiting its length, reduce the revenues by reducing the frequency of trains when demand woud support it and maintaining service when demand does not support it, and it goes on and on. There are too many characrters in the book who don`t understand these basic notions for it to be realistic and they go on insisting for production as a public service. 5th graders know better.
Hey, everyone!I good friend of mine recently sent me the link to the Mike Wallace interview. It's really quite eye-opening, to say the least. Since we're discussing the book, I thought I'd share.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ooKsv...
Dustin wrote: "Hey, everyone!I good friend of mine recently sent me the link to the Mike Wallace interview. It's really quite eye-opening, to say the least. Since we're discussing the book, I thought I'd share..."
Fantastic interview. I saw this for the first time several years ago.
Dustin wrote: "Hey, everyone!I good friend of mine recently sent me the link to the Mike Wallace interview. It's really quite eye-opening, to say the least. Since we're discussing the book, I thought I'd share..."
Dustin, I have seen many youtube videos of Ayn Rand and of both her supporters and critics. It's the reason why I find it difficult now to read Atlas Shrugged and assess it independently of what I know of Rand's philosophy.
Susan wrote: "Dustin wrote: "Hey, everyone!I good friend of mine recently sent me the link to the Mike Wallace interview. It's really quite eye-opening, to say the least. Since we're discussing the book, I th..."
Thank you, Susan:) I really enjoyed it, this being my first Rand interview.
Gilles wrote: "Dustin wrote: "Hey, everyone!I good friend of mine recently sent me the link to the Mike Wallace interview. It's really quite eye-opening, to say the least. Since we're discussing the book, I th..."
I'm beginning to see what you mean. Her words/beliefs have been running through my head since watching it yesterday. Especially during the reading, you can definitely see them shining through.
Mod
I found this article today while messing around on the internet and it struck me that it fit into your comment perfectly. The idea that the company is great because it does not turn a profit? Interesting idea.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2...
Mod
Oh, you are so very welcome, Lisa! I'm enjoying the discussions very much. Thank YOU for having us!I'll be sure to check out your link. And I've just read it: VERY interesting!
I'm now 70% complete. The suspense is killing me, I cannot wait to find out how everything ends! I simply MUST know!!At the start of Chapter III, Anti-greed. I'm really hoping to learn what, exactly, is Project X. I'm thinking that the overall story's about to progress significantly. A turning-point, if you will.
Now 74%, six chapters remaining! YAY!!
Mod
Lisa wrote: "Way to hang in there Dustin!"Aw, thank you so very much, Lisa!!:) I'm getting there! I'm now at the start of Chapter V: Their Brothers' Keeper.
I've reached 81%, and Their Brothers' Keeper is INSANE!!
I am proud to say that I should finally be done in a day or two, depending on time. With only 65 pages left, I'd love to wrap it up today, but we shall see..:)
