Atlas Shrugged
Jul. 9th, 2004 11:09 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ceebeegeeTracy is reading Atlas Shrugged backstage. I first noticed her reading it a few weeks ago--on the day of the Reagan funeral, appropriately--and we were talking about it, and again a couple of days ago. I read it the summer of '99--Peter sent me a copy, with a note saying "You're my Dagny Taggart," which tells you something about both of us and our relationship. (I will say, after reading it, I was quite flattered by the comparison.) There I was lying topless on the beaches of Spain in my coral-red bathing suit, plowing through Ayn Rand's looooong manifesto--there's a speech in it that runs 100+ pages ("This is John Galt..."). Who says beach fiction needs to be mindless?
Peter was not a hardcore Objectivist however--he never brought it up except to ask if I'd read it. After reading it, I decided I didn't really care for it, and Tracy seems to feel the same way. My reaction is based partly in how poorly Rand writes--Atlas Shrugged is not a very good novel, because it's really a manifesto disguised as a novel. There's no shading, no subtlety--the characters with whom you're supposed to sympathize are all brilliant, staggeringly gorgeous, and GOOD. Conversely, you never forget who the villains are--they're all stupid, unattractive, and base. I got really impatient with the characterizations of Hank's wife and Dagny's brother, James--they were so predictably vicious and stupid in every scene, it got old. You never had any moments of understanding or even weariness between Hank and his wife, or admissions of inadequacy from Dagny's brother. And please don't get me started on the puke-inducing scene when Dagny and Hank first have sex--IIRC, Dagny spouts some shit about "take me and use me--I won't ask for anything more from you." Apparently Rand had some hangup about strong women finding surrender in release (which is all well and good--certainly Catherine the Great as well as other men and women in leadership positions have embodied that construct, but you have to present that in a more psychologically sophisticated context, which AS does not).
But I also disagree--to some extent--with the basic argument. Okay, yes, of course I agree that a free market system, is better, more moral even, than collectivism. I agree that the beauty of capitalism is that it corrals people's self-interest to improve everyone's lives. However. Not everyone can sell something to support themselves, can sustain themselves without help, and we can't just throw them to the wolves. Old people? Children? Handicapped people? Or to expand--what about the arts? Artistic value is not always immediately evident, and I firmly believe in public support for the arts. As Miller once said, you can't name a shoemaker from ancient Greece. But you can sure name Euripides and what he wrote--because his work still speaks to us after almost 3,000 years.
The title, by the way, refers to all the talented people who create jobs and innovate, who hold up the world for everyone else, and go on strike--thus "shrugging" and laying down their burden.
Peter was not a hardcore Objectivist however--he never brought it up except to ask if I'd read it. After reading it, I decided I didn't really care for it, and Tracy seems to feel the same way. My reaction is based partly in how poorly Rand writes--Atlas Shrugged is not a very good novel, because it's really a manifesto disguised as a novel. There's no shading, no subtlety--the characters with whom you're supposed to sympathize are all brilliant, staggeringly gorgeous, and GOOD. Conversely, you never forget who the villains are--they're all stupid, unattractive, and base. I got really impatient with the characterizations of Hank's wife and Dagny's brother, James--they were so predictably vicious and stupid in every scene, it got old. You never had any moments of understanding or even weariness between Hank and his wife, or admissions of inadequacy from Dagny's brother. And please don't get me started on the puke-inducing scene when Dagny and Hank first have sex--IIRC, Dagny spouts some shit about "take me and use me--I won't ask for anything more from you." Apparently Rand had some hangup about strong women finding surrender in release (which is all well and good--certainly Catherine the Great as well as other men and women in leadership positions have embodied that construct, but you have to present that in a more psychologically sophisticated context, which AS does not).
But I also disagree--to some extent--with the basic argument. Okay, yes, of course I agree that a free market system, is better, more moral even, than collectivism. I agree that the beauty of capitalism is that it corrals people's self-interest to improve everyone's lives. However. Not everyone can sell something to support themselves, can sustain themselves without help, and we can't just throw them to the wolves. Old people? Children? Handicapped people? Or to expand--what about the arts? Artistic value is not always immediately evident, and I firmly believe in public support for the arts. As Miller once said, you can't name a shoemaker from ancient Greece. But you can sure name Euripides and what he wrote--because his work still speaks to us after almost 3,000 years.
The title, by the way, refers to all the talented people who create jobs and innovate, who hold up the world for everyone else, and go on strike--thus "shrugging" and laying down their burden.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
That's it?
Date: 2004-07-09 10:25 am (UTC)