atlas shrugged (rand)

After six weeks--which included starting a new job, moving, and a reader's block--I have finished Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. I really should have finished this AT LEAST three weeks ago, but such is life.

Now, I have a lot to say about this novel, so bear with me.

I'll start out with the plot. Ayn Rand classifies it herself as a mystery--"not about the murder of a man's body, but about the murder--and rebirth--of man's spirit." It's about John Galt, the man who stopped the motor of the world by going on strike with all the industrialists, the producers, and the creatives in the world. They wanted who they called the "looters" (the people who wouldn't think for themselves, who depended on the industrialists to provide for them) to understand what their world would be without those that produce. The men who threw up their hands at every question and said, "how should I know?" It is her philosophy exemplified by a story.

It's the story of Dagny Taggart, the VP of Taggart Transcontinental, the greatest railroad in the country, and her struggles to save a dying economy and her railroad. She is a brilliant businesswoman, a strong woman, and a force to be recokened with. She is surrounded (on most sides) by incompetent businessmen who rely on others and who commit to nothing. When something goes wrong, they turn their back on the problem and say, "it wasn't my fault! You fix it!" She finds relief in a few scattered businessmen who are across all industries--Hank Rearden in steel, Franscio d'Anconia in copper, Ellis Wyatt in oil, etc. As these men leech off the work and innovation of these industrial giants more and more, the "heroes" of Atlas Shrugged begin to disappear abruptly--leaving their business empty and rotting. Thus, throwing the country into even more of an economic crises.

The men who are seen as leeching off the industrialists are socialists (to put it simply). They believe that things should be shared, everyone should be equal, and men of means (i.e. Dagny and the rest) should provide for the weaker. This novel is first and foremost an expression of Ayn Rand's philosophy: objectivism. Using her words, objectivism is: "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

Let me make it clear, I do not agree with this philosophy in the least. However, this novel made my sympathize with Dagny and the other industrialists. Why? (And this is where I believe Ayn Rand's brilliance comes into play).

These men (and women) are just trying to live their lives and do what they love, but the incompetent people surrounding them are ruining it--even, at times, asking too much of the industrialists. However, to understand why these people are so opposed to the idea of helping the less fortunate and able, you have to understand the type of people Ayn Rand paints. They take socialism to the extreme--the absolute extreme, to the point where it feels ridiculous at times. Most notably, at a party, a writer says with absolute certainty that they should extend fairness to all aspects of life and industry--including novels. He goes on to explain that he believes that the printing of any one novel should be capped at 5,000 or so, so that no author will be more popular than another. Now, I understand this is the idea of "share the wealth" just applied to something it's not normally applied to, but SERIOUSLY? As I said, a little too ridiculous at times to be believable in an intelligent society. (Which is fine--she paints such a picture of the economy and the stupidity of the people that I can believe they would be so desperate (and.. well, stupid) to result to such ridiculous measures).

And here's where my fascination with this novel is realized. I got into multiple arguments with other readers about the question of whether or not you can--and should--enjoy a book that clashes with your own personal belief system. I think it's very possible--as I just proved with the reading of Atlas Shrugged. I could still recognize Ayn Rand's brilliance at character-building, writing, and narrative genius. I could still enjoy the book as a simple narrative. However, I was surprised at some of the (what I viewed) complete close-mindedness of some people. One coworker said that he refused to read anything of hers because of the people that read her works.

Now, let me digress a moment. In recent years, Atlas Shrugged has been touted by conservatives as a warning against social progress as a reaction to the financial crisis (Neal Boortz, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh among them). As such, sales have increased, and I have a feeling men who want to look smart have been carrying around the book just to announce their political views--but without actually reading it (and I'll admit, after hearing some of this feedback I was self-conscious on the subway more often than not of what I was reading).

However, it's my personal belief that if Ayn Rand could see the type of men that are promoting her book today she would be disgusted. Those people that have made it so popular are the people that do not think, as we so often see on videos of far-right rallys and whatnot. They are--when asked questions pertaining to why they believe certain things--more often than not completely ignorant as to why they hold the beliefs they do. They say something inane like "Well Glenn Beck said it was right so it must be." Lines like that were reserved to the "socialists" in Rand's novel.

So, my personal belief is that instead of a warning against social progress and communal awareness, I think Atlas Shrugged is more a warning against stagnancy, ignorance, incompetence, and blind belief. She lived in a MUCH different time than we do.

Regardless of what I believe, anything that will make you think is worth reading. And that is the whole point of this challenge, right?

"G" is for Gordimer

And thus, with Ben Franklin tossed to the wayside (returned to the UWM library) I moved onto G, with Nadine Gordimer. Nadine Gordimer is a pretty famous author of South African literature. I don't know that much about the genre but I decided I wanted to try something new and I had also read Coetzee who is also South African I believe and I like African studies in general so I went with it.

So far, its an up and down book for me. At times I find it difficult to stay engaged, the characters, for me are still developing, I am not wedded (yet) to finding out yet what happens to these characters.

The main character is a Dutch, jewish businessman who buys a farm in the country to entertain himself on the weekends. At first I was very lukewarm with him, he didn't give you a lot to go on, didn't find out much about how he felt about what was going on in his life. Now, Im starting to dislike him because I just read a chapter with a rather, I feel, pervy scene in it. I do though, like that I feel he respects the Africans working on his farm MORE than the other farmers, not to say that he treats them with the utmost respect but he definitely spends time with more different kind of people than the men he works with and farms with.

Jacobus, the African who is in charge of the main guy's (can't remember his name at the moment) farm is interesting. He has to balance between making his boss happy and try to do the best he can for the rest of his community, who needs him to set them up with jobs etc.

There is also an interesting plot developing with the Indian community who is very insular and isolated and a bit adversarial with both the whites and the Africans.

But again, the book is I guess I would say minimalist so far. I couldn't describe a whole lot what has happened plot wise, even though Im like halfway through the book or why its called the "Conservationist". Hopefully next post I can connect these things together.

F- Is for Ben Franklin

So yeah, for my "F" book I chose the Autobiography of Ben Franklin. I chose this because generally I love the memoir/biography genre, I just find it really interesting to read about people's lives, the events, and how they make meaning of all that. Probably related to why I like psychology and chose that as my profession.

However, I will admit now, I only got about a third of the way through this book.

I found it boring.

It wasn't the most boring thing I ever read, certainly it was NOT THAT BAD. But I really couldn't keep with it. I was stuck about a third of the way through the book for about two months. So I finally abandoned ship.

I did not find this book stimulating because rather than a true autobiography I feel like it was more of an "accounting" of his days. It was very much lacking much emotion or interpretation to the events. I thought it would be fascinating - Ben Franklin was an interesting dude! But alas, no.

So I moved on a couple weeks ago to my "G" book.

NO MORE FAIL

AND LITTLE R SAYETH,

"THIS FAILING SHALL END. REGULAR POSTS SHALL COMMENCE AGAIN".