Just Finished Reading Atlas Shrugged
So I just finished reading Atlas Shrugged which has been on my "to read" list since I made such a list. I've seen meme after meme and article and post for years damning the book and slamming Rand. So I went into weary but interested. I'm a little mentally exhausted right now both from the content and that it's 3am my time.
So I wanted to finish the book before I watched the movies which means this week I'll try watch the movies in order to keep the content fresh in my brain.
Now onto the book. Some of the dialogue got to me insofar as I found myself thinking, during long diatribes such as the hobo on the train talking to Dagny, that people don't talk like that and didn't when the book was written as far as I can tell. It was very essay-tastic in that regard. Likewise I felt like Galt's speech, while good, was long in the tooth.
That's the whole of my problems with the book's content.
The "however" is that now I'm a little perplexed by the culture surrounding the book and by that I mean the vitriol and animosity against it. The main character is a strong, sexually self-aware female who doesn't take grief from anybody and is in love of what she does and her own ability to do it. She's an equal partner with men whether they like it or not and if not treated as such she has the intelligence to make them regret that decision. Ultimately she's what feminists claim to want in a "womyn" archetype and yet every liberal (progressive?) woman I know hates this book even, if not mostly, having not read it. Dagny is a strong character and yet she is ignored by the masses at large when discussing strong female role models in literature.
When I think of Dagny I think of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Here me out. I'm not a fan of either of theirs or a hater but both of those women are the antithesis of what the feminist movement has become, they are women who don't follow the party line and adhere to the group-think of the women as victim movement. While Gloria Allred is clamoring to go down on a serial monogamist the likes of which hadn't been seen in the white house since JFK, the Palins of the world are vilified for not being in lockstep about abortion or gun rights of whatever issue pops up. They can't be accepted as strong women because they're the wrong type of women all the while intellectual frauds like Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Fienstein are held in high regard for being the right kind of ideologue. This is what I liked and had a hard time with while reading this book. I knew that Dagny should be respected and liked and yet know she isn't for no other reason than that she holds the wrong ideas and that the notion of being a free thinking woman isn't the right notion.
Which brings me the main thing that kept jumping out at me while reading this book: people mock the moochers are caricatures all the while they're saying the same things as the moochers in Washington today.
At one point one of the moocher's claims, essentially, that "you didn't build that" and I immediately shot in my mind to Obama saying the same thing. Towards the end Mr. Thompson claims that they can't repeal taxes or get out the way and my brain jumped to GWB claiming that he had to abandon the free market to save it. Time and time again I read something that could be construed as over the top and unrealistic and then bounce to some asshattedness in real life that mimicked the book be it the elastic nature of words (that depends on what the definition of "is" is) or the premise that we're all in this together (it takes a village or more recently that your kids are not your own). I read the news pretty frequently and constantly kept finding myself seeing direct parallels between the moochers and the likes of our past and current social elite and it was frustrating. Not frustrating because I was seeing the lies and distortions in practice even though this book was written generations ago but rather because others refuse to see them and yet bemoan the book's lack of reality.
I remember reading the Orwell quote "The best books... are those that tell you what you know already." and it applied tenfold whilst reading Atlas Shrugged.
That's all I have to say about it at this late hour but I wanted to share my immediate thoughts upon completing the book so there we have it. Once I finish the first two movies I'll be sure to prattle on about those thoughts as well.
So I wanted to finish the book before I watched the movies which means this week I'll try watch the movies in order to keep the content fresh in my brain.
Now onto the book. Some of the dialogue got to me insofar as I found myself thinking, during long diatribes such as the hobo on the train talking to Dagny, that people don't talk like that and didn't when the book was written as far as I can tell. It was very essay-tastic in that regard. Likewise I felt like Galt's speech, while good, was long in the tooth.
That's the whole of my problems with the book's content.
The "however" is that now I'm a little perplexed by the culture surrounding the book and by that I mean the vitriol and animosity against it. The main character is a strong, sexually self-aware female who doesn't take grief from anybody and is in love of what she does and her own ability to do it. She's an equal partner with men whether they like it or not and if not treated as such she has the intelligence to make them regret that decision. Ultimately she's what feminists claim to want in a "womyn" archetype and yet every liberal (progressive?) woman I know hates this book even, if not mostly, having not read it. Dagny is a strong character and yet she is ignored by the masses at large when discussing strong female role models in literature.
When I think of Dagny I think of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Here me out. I'm not a fan of either of theirs or a hater but both of those women are the antithesis of what the feminist movement has become, they are women who don't follow the party line and adhere to the group-think of the women as victim movement. While Gloria Allred is clamoring to go down on a serial monogamist the likes of which hadn't been seen in the white house since JFK, the Palins of the world are vilified for not being in lockstep about abortion or gun rights of whatever issue pops up. They can't be accepted as strong women because they're the wrong type of women all the while intellectual frauds like Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Fienstein are held in high regard for being the right kind of ideologue. This is what I liked and had a hard time with while reading this book. I knew that Dagny should be respected and liked and yet know she isn't for no other reason than that she holds the wrong ideas and that the notion of being a free thinking woman isn't the right notion.
Which brings me the main thing that kept jumping out at me while reading this book: people mock the moochers are caricatures all the while they're saying the same things as the moochers in Washington today.
At one point one of the moocher's claims, essentially, that "you didn't build that" and I immediately shot in my mind to Obama saying the same thing. Towards the end Mr. Thompson claims that they can't repeal taxes or get out the way and my brain jumped to GWB claiming that he had to abandon the free market to save it. Time and time again I read something that could be construed as over the top and unrealistic and then bounce to some asshattedness in real life that mimicked the book be it the elastic nature of words (that depends on what the definition of "is" is) or the premise that we're all in this together (it takes a village or more recently that your kids are not your own). I read the news pretty frequently and constantly kept finding myself seeing direct parallels between the moochers and the likes of our past and current social elite and it was frustrating. Not frustrating because I was seeing the lies and distortions in practice even though this book was written generations ago but rather because others refuse to see them and yet bemoan the book's lack of reality.
I remember reading the Orwell quote "The best books... are those that tell you what you know already." and it applied tenfold whilst reading Atlas Shrugged.
That's all I have to say about it at this late hour but I wanted to share my immediate thoughts upon completing the book so there we have it. Once I finish the first two movies I'll be sure to prattle on about those thoughts as well.
As a youth of 18, I assisted in the campaign of George McGovern. However, in the campaign of 1980 (at the learned age of 26), I was able to educate my German neighbors to not fear a Reagan Presidency. I was in my 4th year of living in Germany, and my German was quite good at that point.
I did not read AS until I was in my mid-40s. Fifteeen years later, I proudly wear my Atlas themed polos to work. The resulting conversations prompted over a dozen co-workers to see AS2.
Enjoy the movies...BTW, you'll find my son, grandson, and me at the 23:08 (+/-) mark of the "I am John Galt" bonus section.
Enjoy the movies.
None the less, a bit of wear on your dogs will allow you to understand and appreciate the mantra espoused in Ayn Rand's masterpiece.
I work in retail, part time. I do it because I enjoy where I work and it allows me the freedom to spend time with my kids. My wife works part time as well so we split our days. I used to work for a multinational that didn't value brain power and when I found myself out of a job I was only disheartened by my debt-to-income ratio and empowered by the notion of not having to work for fools I could not longer suffer in good conscience.
This is where it gets tricky for me. My grandmother used to argue with me that I was wasting potential and it was a damned shame. She would regale me with stories of her friend's son who was a triple threat (singer, actor, dancer) who gave up scholarships and career options to be a bum (her words). She resented that he didn't do his part for mankind (even though she was a Republican which in and of itself is a funny story for another day).
Now I was all of 15 when she first had this talk with me and the last time was not long before she died 3 years ago. Every time I heard the story I would contend that he made the right choice for him and he was under no obligation to offer his talents to others. The one place we agreed was that he was in the wrong if and when he ended up on the public dole for not saving for his own future or working to sustain himself.
This is where that Orwell quote I mentioned before really comes into play. I don't really consider myself one of the men of the mind simply because I've not applied my mind to any application to justify that personal dignity. I do, however, often think of myself as on strike and this was the first time that notion was put into terms I could understand. I enjoy my menial job and the photography I do in my spare time and that is probably the single biggest part of the book that resonated with me.
If I thought there was a John Galt or Hank Rearden or Dagny Taggart with whom I could work and apply my mind I would jump at the chance but every place I have attempted to do so much, be it college or Kinkos, I have been slapped down for thinking the wrong things or the wrong way and right now that isn't a concern for me.
This isn't to mean that I feel justified in my choices all of the time, especially not when it comes time to pay the bills but knowing that somebody else was espousing these beliefs generations ago certainly makes my brain hurt a little less.
Excellent review and perspective. The lengthy nature of some of the passages is a common criticism. It is subjective and a matter of taste. For many who get the point immediately it can be a bit tedious, but there are many who need the repetition and in depth examination beat into their heads to combat their preconceptions. Some, like discussions and examinations that get into the weeds, so to speak, while others like to keep it more general... To each his own.
Your comments regarding the misunderstandings/ misrepresentations by the haters is spot on. The particulars regarding a strong female character like Dagny and many of the feminists' hypocrisy or ignorance is on display as well as the distortion spread by misogynist male critics.
I believe the critics have not truly read the book, they did not understand the book, or they benefit from the crony system and do not want it exposed.
There is a constant characterization of the material of being anti working man/woman and government in general. In fact it is a criticism of the same big bankers/businessmen and politicians who practice cronyism at the expense of productive workers of all fields from flipping burgers to nuclear scientists that the same critics would criticize if they could see past their own predilections. If they can grasp that, then you may have a convert.
Enjoy the movies and spread the word.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I wanted to respond to your points regarding stilted dialogue and long monologues. First, AS at that point was not an introduction to Objectivism, it was all the Objectivism. She wrote her non-fiction later. So, she was taking on a variety of specific philosophical positions and answering them in the novel. To most of us, that seemed repetitive, even stilted. But for Rand, it had to be precise. For the rest of us, we needed the foundations and proof that had not (until this novel) been fully articulated.