Non-Contradiction
If you have been able to keep up with the schedule, you should have finished Part 1 by now. And what a 300 pages it has been! So far, we've met all the major players, learned the ins and outs of the nightmare-world sister of our USA, and watched as romance, political intrigue, and business savvy simultaneously led to the downfall of some characters and the rise of others. I feel bad for the various inhabitants of the stationary bikes next to me at the gym over the past few weeks; I read while I exercise and have more than once slammed the books shut, laughed out loud in incredulity, and almost thrown that brick of a tome across the room.
To an outsider, I must look like a schizophrenic.
But that's the wonder of Rand's work: it's both completely unbelievable and horribly prophetic. The Equalization of Opportunity Bill, for example, hit a little too close to home for me. Is that not what the government did for the auto industry? Is that not the exact path on which our country is currently treading?
There's a great opinion article in the Wall Street Journal from 2009 that I highly recommend reading: "Atlas Shrugged: From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years". In it, Stephen Moore draws parallels between Atlas Shrugged and our current governmental practices. Here's an excerpt:
The current economic strategy is right out of "Atlas Shrugged": The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you. That's the justification for the $2 trillion of subsidies doled out already to keep afloat distressed insurance companies, banks, Wall Street investment houses, and auto companies -- while standing next in line for their share of the booty are real-estate developers, the steel industry, chemical companies, airlines, ethanol producers, construction firms and even catfish farmers. With each successive bailout to "calm the markets," another trillion of national wealth is subsequently lost. Yet, as "Atlas" grimly foretold, we now treat the incompetent who wreck their companies as victims, while those resourceful business owners who manage to make a profit are portrayed as recipients of illegitimate "windfalls."Mr. Lawson would LOVE our current government. After all, he said, "I can proudly say that in all my life I have never made a profit!" When it comes down to it, this book is about THEFT. Theft of ideas, of the right to sink or swim, of the right to make and keep money. Lawson says, "I must point out to you that ...the welfare of the country is my first consideration, to which I would not hesitate to sacrifice anyone's profits."
Part 1 also reminded me of the 2010 and 2008 elections. Do you remember the stigma attached to Mitt Romney, Meg Whitman, and , going back further, John Kerry, because of their wealth? We can't have a president or governor who has MONEY. It's DIRTY. The wealthy are all greedy, selfish humans with no souls, who live to suck prosperity from others to feed their own coffers. Like Midas Mulligan, these individuals, and others like them, "had committed the one unforgivable sin: [they were] proud of their wealth."
And it's this mentality that makes for an anti-self-sufficient society. After all, when the production of wealth becomes taboo, who would dare try? I absolutely loved this line about Dagny:
She could not descend to an existence where her brain would explode under the pressure of forcing itself to outdistance incompetence. She could not function to the rule of: Pipe down--keep down--slow down-- don't do your best, it is not wanted!
Plot-wise, Part 1 set up a number of important story points and left questions for parts 2 and 3:
-- Dagny and Francisco were once lovers, and something has irrevocably changed him. We don't yet know what this change means, but it caused him to lose millions without blinking an eye. Is he making a point? Is he out to destroy the fortunes of others?
--Rearden and Dagny are screwed. Thanks to Washington, and whiny businessmen who can't stand to see another succeed, legislation is choking the steel and rail world. Add to this that tremendous kamikaze act by Wyatt, and it looks as if Rearden Metal and Taggert Transcontinental are in for a slow and painful death. Oh wait! There's that Deus ex Machina motor they found in Wisconsin. I wonder what will happen with that. Even if they find a way to recreate it, the government will probably just steal it or murder it with restrictions.
--Wyatt is my hero. But where the heck is he!?
--WHO IS JOHN GALT? I swear, that dude is real.
--Who is the third student? Hm... Wonder if this question goes with my previous one.
Any thoughts about Part 1?
3 comments:
I looked and you hadn't put up a new post, I wrote some stuff to send you and when I came back you had a new post. I'm going to post my comments and I may comment later about what you actually wrote about.
Here are a few thoughts of this past week’s reading.
The first thing is the opposites that Rand employs to distinguish sides. I’ve already mentioned visual factors, there are the fit and trim to contrast the fat, slouchy and loose skinned. One other set she uses is that of light and dark. When Taggart, Mouch, Boyle, and those boys meet they always seem to do so in dark bars or restaurants. The weather also reflects darkness. It is always at night or it is overcast and gloomy. On the other hand you have events like the first run on the John Galt line. There is nothing but light. The clear sky and bright sun shining, the reflection off of the engine that bears the initials TT, the rail that seems to shine regardless of ambient light, the eyes and faces of the producers.
Rand also uses the same contrast with Rearden and his mills. The metal is always producing light, though it is often in reds, yellows and oranges. There are times when the light is white hot. The light of the mills is typically muted. Hank and Dagny often look at the mills at night, from afar or from hank’s office. There is a sea of darkness in which the light of production shines.
As I think about it now, even in the abandoned motor factory where D & H find the motor remnant there is light. In this instance Rand uses a ray of light that shines in through the skylight. I think the significance there is that only a ray (out of all of the sun’s light) is able to penetrate and illuminate.
The second is the philosophy that one can make reality by creating a façade. We see this with Jim and his friends. They use the media to spew ideas in an attempt to make them true by repetition. They say things and try to believe them. They act a certain way, even, to fool themselves. Even when they know something to be false they will pretend. Here is a fragment from ch. 7 (in my book page 195) it is a conversation between Dagny and Jim right before she decides on the name for the John Galt line. Dagny tells Jim that Eddie will be her replacement as Operations V.P.
“All right. Only…only we must be careful about it….We don’t want people to suspect that it’s you who’re still running Taggart Transcontinental. Nobody must know.”
“Everybody will know it Jim. But since nobody will admit it openly, everybody will be satisfied.”
“But we must preserve appearances.”
This attitude of façades reminds me of the oak tree that Eddie describes at the very beginning of the novel. The tree stands for solidity. But it eventually is destroyed when it splits open because its innards have all rotted out. That is the only possibility for Jim and his friends, destruction because of rotted innards.
The next thought is about Dagny. This is a something she said, but I don’t think she fully understands it, which is sad. Ch. 10 (p. 300 in mine),
“If you kill Colorado, what is there going to be left for your damn looters to survive on?”
Jim says something stupid
“Because I saved you, you rotten fools! I won’t be able to save you this time!” He had shrugged, not looking at her. “And if I don’t save you, who will?” He had not answered.
The last quote is one I simply like and wanted to mention without comment. Still chapter 10, (p.331 I don’t know why I keep telling you my page numbers. I’m going to stop.) This is Hugh Akston speaking.
“By the essence and nature of existence, contradictions cannot exist. If you find it inconceivable that an invention of genius should be abandoned among ruins, and that a philosopher should wish to work as a cook in a diner—check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.”
That is all for now. I am not going to go back and proof read anything, so you get it in its raw state. Hope you are enjoying your reading.
My thought is that john gault is chuck norris and that I'm going to have to read this book.
As good as this book is, there are glaring holes in its logic: this utopian world Mr. Galt is trying to create lacks any semblance of God or religion. I can't imagine enlightened self-interest not evolving into unalloyed greed within a generation from Galt's proposed revolution without a religious backbone. How long will children hear the "But will it a make you a profit?" question from their parents before it becomes a mantra preceding every single act of their existence? Why would anyone even bother BUILDING a church, let alone entering it to worship, if the only indicator of success is the size of their bank account?
As much as Ayn Rand dismisses the argument, we ARE our brother's keeper, not because he's lazy and stupid (though he usually is) but because it behooves us to keep him educated about the consequences of his choices because those choices affect us, too.
Post a Comment