Final Reaction

In my thirteen years at Gulliver I have been given a plethora of novels to read, and my final opinions of those novels have been varied. Only a handful of the literary works have had a positive effect on my life and even fewer have changed my thought process, but Atlas Shrugged is the only book that has ever made me reanalyze my perceptive on life. Atlas Shrugged hits upon so many different topics and point of views, which I had never considered before. Ayn Rand spoke about topics that range from politics to sex; all of which were are controversial, and a woman with so firm and grounded convictions must have been controversial as well. It is incredible and surprising how relevant the things she wrote about still are half a century later. I could find connections in my own life and in our current government on almost every page.  Through the 1,079 page classic, I felt frustration, excitement, anger, relief, confusion, happiness, and hope; and through this literary adventure my opinions on economy, politics, sex and love have been reconsidered, reanalyzed and in some cases completely changed.

In the realm of politics I have often considered myself illiterate. I have always put my good faith in the leaders of our country, assuming that they would make the right decision for the country and its people. Since I am not yet a tax payer and my life has never really felt directly influenced by the government until fairly recently, I have neither sought out a reason to complain nor contemplated the structures and fundamental policies of our government. My parents are both registered Independents and topics like the policies on Medicare and income taxes do not come up too often. My only knowledge of such things come from the little my parents spoke of it and the lecturing of my social science teachers and social studies text books who all seemed to preach about the perfection of our leaders. I am and have always been able to read between the lines, especially after discussing outrageous laws and avoidable conflict turning into war, but I chose not to let it bother me. Through Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand showed me the type of people that are given the chance to run our country, if we allow them access to Washington. She depicted them through outrageous characters such as Wesley Mouch and Jim Taggart. They seemed to be greatly hyperbolized but as I looked honestly at our government and the people who make decisions, I’ve realized that these “exaggerated” characters are not too far off from some real life politicians and bureaucrats.

Ayn Rand believes in a Lassie Faire economic system. That implies a completely free market with absolutely no rules or regulations on the market place. I am studying economics this year, and we have examined both the free market system and centralized planned economy. In theory and in practice the free market system is far superior to the centralized planned economy which cannot properly predict changes in demand and supply. I am not as extreme as Ayn Rand. She believes, or so she implies in her novel, that government is only in place to provide protection and regulate a justice system. In my opinion the government needs more power than that. There needs to be taxes to fund the military and to build things like highways and bridges between state lines. I believe that certain types of regulation in the market places provide safety and prosperity, but Ayn Rand did show me that extensive regulation can lead to the removal of rights, like property, and lead to the failure of the economy as a whole.

Francisco D’anconia’s speech about sex was inspiring to me. I never considered that your sexual partner could reflect how you feel about yourself? Ayn Rand explained that physical pleasure is an extension of mental capacity and pleasure. Those who are the happiest with their lives and their own personage are the people who understand the power and pleasure that sex provides. A man, who claims to love his beautiful and virtuous wife but sleeps with an immoral prostitute, is just as low and disgusting as the people he sleeps with. I also found it interesting that Ayn Rand claims that you earn the love you receive. In her novel Dagny is a symbol, to John Galt, of everything he wishes the world to be. He refused to sleep with her until they both had earned each other’s love. Love in this manner is then aligned with sex for those who earn it.                       

Final Reaction

When we were first given this book, I almost had a heart attack due to the size of it. It was thicker than any of my textbooks and I had never been much of a reader so I thought this would be a major effort to finish; and in all honesty, I slacked on my reading schedule for the first couple of weeks. 

I didn't really understand the meaning behind the book and I doubted it's purpose, thinking it was simply just a book about trains. It wasn't until we had discussions about it in class that I realized it's true meaning and I really got into it.   My parents always tell me how much they dislike the socialist reform but I never comprehended politics enough to know what they meant. All I knew, from what they told me, was that the economy in France was crumbling because of socialists. This book helped me understand. Not only do I now know what socialist actually do, I also know the reason why my parents hate it so much, and Rand did an excellent job in convincing me to hate it too. 

When the world turns into mindless zombies who seek nothing but the profit of others, do you continue to endure for their needs? How much is the mind willing to sacrifice for those who don't even want to live and how strong are we to survive in a race against time? Only those who understand that they should work for their own profit will survive in the world and those who expect everything for nothing will perish. Characters like Jim Taggart who believe everything should be sacrificed for those less capable are incompetent and just as bad as the helpless. I really grew to hate the society portrayed in the book because they never believed anything was their fault and they thought it was the DUTY for the more capable to carry them on their back. This is why Atlas shrugged, because he had to carry the weight of the world. This is a lazy mentality and will only promote people to sit around and not work because they'll get payed for it in the end. This is bound to collapse over itself eventually. If I'm working to my full extent only to have my money given to those in "need", why should I work if I am not benefiting. If I'm barely working at all but receiving all of the money I need to support myself, regardless of my work ethic, why should I continue to work?

In the end, nobody has the motivation to work anymore and without people to make the world go round, the economy will eventually cease to sustain itself. The government thinks that as long as everyone is satisfied and has a sustainable life, they will continue working, regardless of the reward they get. This is their mistake. People in essence, are lazy and will try to do as little work possible to get what they need. There is only a few handful of people in the world who are strong enough to take the constant beatings and give up their profits for "the better good of the nation", but even they will buckle at some point and demand more. In the end, as cruel as it may seem, people need to understand that they must work and strive to support themselves and not live off of others.  The reason I believe why people seem dead and no longer want to live is because they lost the value of their lives. When you no longer have to work to accomplish anything, you forget the value of a dollar and it exchanges into a free rider problem. Your life comes so easily to you that you forget what it's worth. 

Overall, I thought this was an amazing book and I really got into it. Coming from someone who doesn't read often and normally doesn't have the attention span to sit with a book for more than 30 minutes, I found myself lost in it for hours. Some people found the book to be a bit excessive and could have been shortened, but I think all of the extra explanations and stories were essential to deepen the meaning and thoroughly get the point across. I might even read The Fountainhead because I enjoyed Rands writing so much. I've learned so much from this book that I actually thank Rand for teaching me politics.

Final Reaction

                Thanks to Ayn Rand, every single book I read from this moment on will be relatively short. I remember sitting in class the first day of school and thinking to myself, “Why do we need an actual Atlas for this class?” After that I did not think much of it until Mr. Shapiro said that we were going to read this entire book by the end of the first quarter. When I heard these words I immediately opened Atlas Shrugged and saw its diminutive letters and extra thin pages. Saying I was intimidated is an understatement. To be honest, I did not think I would ever finish the entire book. It just seemed like way too much, and it was. Nevertheless, I am proud of myself for actually completing it.

                The book itself caused me to feel numerous emotions. The first reading assignment, the first forty pages were not bad. It was a sort of introduction to the setting and the characters. I expected this because most books start in this way, by allowing the reader to get comfortable with the reading. However, I never expected this to last for so long.  I mean, usually this takes up no longer than a couple of pages. At this point in time, it can be said that there I had absolutely no sense of excitement towards the reading of the book. In fact, I had to force myself to read.

                It wasn’t until Rand began to talk about Dagny’s past and her childhood relationship with Francisco that I became engrossed by the book. It wasn’t like I couldn’t put the book down or anything though; I just enjoyed it when I was reading.  I did not mind reading; I took pleasure in it because it made me think. Many of the things Rand talked about we discussed in class, such as Obamacare or the real meaning of altruism. As a whole, I really enjoyed the book because it was different than anything I had read before, and although it didn’t have much action, it was always tense, suspenseful and entertaining.

                One aspect of the book I disliked was that its realistic aspect, at least in my eyes, did out in the end. The creation of Project X, Dagny’s plane crash, and The Valley were in a way, too much. For starters, the book was written about fifty years ago and to my knowledge, there has never been an invention, except for a nuclear bomb that destroys everything in sight with invisible rays. Also, Dagny being the only survivor of such a terrible crash is not very believable. If the pilot or anyone else was rescued as well as her, then it would make more sense. Not to mention, why didn’t Hank’s plane crash too? He flew over the same area as her, endured the same turbulence, but nothing happened to him or his plane. Could it have been faith? Lastly, a protective undetectable shield over a large area is something only seen in movies. I understand Galt is a genius, but I just do not believe that he was that smart.  For the purpose of the story, I completely understand how these events make sense and are necessary for the development of the book, but for some reason, I would have like it better if all those things were actually possible. Although many other aspects of the book are extremely exaggerated and would not really take place, I can picture a nation being taken over by a couple of communist men. Yet, I cannot imagine a futuristic weapon capable of massive destruction or a magical protective shell over a man made city.

                Since the day Dagny found out who Galt was, the ending could have been predetermined. It was obvious that Hank, Francisco, Ragnar, and Dagny were going to team up and destroy the looters in some way.  What I did not expect was that Dagny would kill an innocent guard. Maybe if it had been Mouch, Morrison, even her own brother Jim, then I would not have been so shocked. But the fact that Dagny possessed the ability to murder an innocent person is astonishing. All of us who have read the book know that Dagny is a powerful person, but I’m pretty sure none of us expected for her to end someone else’s life. I guess the power of love and her determination to save the guy she has waited her whole life to fall in love with was enough for her to commit this act.  

If I could add one more thing to the book, I would elaborate on the ending. I would have liked to know more about what happened to Jim, Mr. Thompson and the rest as well as to how Galt was going to fix the world.  

Jose Novas

So Much for Robin Hood

Regardless of whether a person likes the book Atlas Shrugged or whether they do not like it, one has to admit that it must have taken considerable effort to write such a descriptive story infused with story upon story stamping the author Ayn Rand’s ideals page after page. This outstanding effort seems remarkably symbolic of the story as a whole and the message that the author is attempting to convey to readers. In the most simplistic of terms, I interpret Ayn Rand’s fundamental message to readers to be that everyone deserves to reap the benefits for what they have worked for, and that nobody should be permitted to restrain another person’s work regardless of necessity. 

I personally agreed with this basic principle behind Atlas Shrugged, a principle that is becoming eerily abdicated by the United States nation in harsh economic and social times like ones plaguing our nation today. I cannot even begin to recall all of the examples of this “moral” in the story. While I was reading the story, I thought it almost strange that the author felt the need to include repetition after repetition of situations that seem to demonstrate the catastrophic failure of virtually any economic policy other than Capitalism. Having survived the story, I can now see more clearly all of the stories as a whole. In my opinion, the point of her excessive repetition was to make sure that any reader, regardless of financial means, would be able to relate to the examples and begin to comprehend the potential disasters that Socialistic economic methods could cause. I enjoyed that as the author went through each problem, she did not herself, or have any character, blatantly say that one economic policy is horrendous and the other should be used. In each story, it is left up to the reader to interpret what exactly has gone wrong after seeing what has gone on. Developing a personal relationship with characters like Dagny and Reardon, people who seem to represent crusaders for the cause of Capitalism, along with a disgust that exponentially develops toward people calling for policies that call for mandatory giving like Jim Taggart and his pack of government hyenas undoubtedly helps readers understand what side the author is advocating. The only rememberable time of the blatant expression of the author’s values would be John Galt’s rant on the problems with society that have lead to the disappearance of the leaders of all of the economic powerhouse causing further financial distress.

Other than the excessive repetition, there was truly only one aspect of the book that I did not necessarily agree with, the entire concept of Atlantis. I understand that not every single person in this world is going to develop into a great titan of industry or a tycoon of the stock market, some people are destined to be people who do the leg work of these businesses. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but that does not mean that those who are capable are better than everyone else. Some are leaders, and some are followers, that is just how life works. In this story, the obvious leaders are the people that abandon the wold because they just do not like how it seems to be going, and the followers are the ones that are left behind even if it was there fault for creating the despicable economic environment. Maybe its from childhood stories, the superheroes across the globe coming to the rescue when the world is in peril, but to me, when the going gets tough, the leaders do not just abandon society and start something anew. It really bothered me that Rand included this in the story, because it seem neither remotely realistic nor does it seem remotely effective. In my mind, a leader like this really proves themselves in harsh economic times. The leader is one who defies all odds and brings success and prosperity to the world. In this story, however, the leaders virtually give up and start an exclusive club for their own success. It just seems completely unrealistic unlike most of what happens in this story and a waste of time because it does not really solve anything. 

I remember listening to stories of Robin Hood as a child. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor seemed like such a noble thing to do. What this story fails to include is the fact that, in the real world,  Robin Hood comes in the form of a government, and does not actually steel from just the rich. Instead, this “Robin Hood” takes from every socioeconomic class, he dips deeper and deeper into the pockets time after time of every single person to pay for the people that have chosen not to act on ambition. This entire book was really eye opening, especially since it rings so true in this era of increasing government control in a nation that was originally branded as a society run by a weak government. I enjoyed the book not because it was an argument for the privileged or wealthy, but because it was an argument for the ambitious and dedicated, a principle that is rewarded less and less in this faltering nation. 

Final Blog Post

         The greatest novels a person can read are not those that force a reevaluation on the way the reader views life. In Atlas Shrugged, considered to be her best novel, Ayn Rand does exactly that. The novel caused me to reevaluate the way I view certain things because of the relevance that I was able to find within it. Despite that fact that Atlas Shrugged was published in 1957, its teachings remain one of the most accurate things that pertain to the American, if not all societies today.

            A great part of why Atlas Shrugged seemed to get “underneath my skin” was that it attacked the ideas that most people have been exposed to since infancy. Though I mentioned Peter Pan in a previous blog post, I wish to mention the Disney movies again because of how relevant I found them to the story. The Disney Classics have become some of the most widely known tales and some of the most widely watched animated films. Great deals of these are targeted towards smaller children; two of the bigger Disney movies are “Robin Hood” and “Peter Pan”.  Through the animated “Robin Hood” tale I learned that the amount of money that the rich had was not correct. It was not fair for the rich to have so much and the poor to have so little. Robin Hood became one of the most fascinating characters because he was able to partake in criminal activity for a good cause. Taking from the rich to give to the poor seemed like the brightest idea I could have heard of at the time; then again I was a young child. As I matured I was able to realize the error in the tale of Robin Hood; it is not right to take the fruits of someone’s labor and just hand it over to another individual that has nothing. Though I had realized the error in the tale, I had failed to internalize the concept. It was not until Hank and Ragnar’s first interaction that I really understood how wrong it was. Ragnar was a Robin Hood of his own sort; he helped the rich by stealing from the looters. Ragnar made clear to me that the rich are typically wealthy for the reason that they have put in the effort, the intellect, the strength to get to where the are. To take from those who have worked and to hand it over to those who have done nothing is one of the greatest wrongs that could possible be committed. If I worked to get something then I deserve that something, whether it is higher quality healthcare, money, a house, etc.      

Through “Peter Pan”, the Disney Company has fantasized the idea of being a child forever. To a certain extent this fantasy is completely OK, but on another level it is not. I myself often times envy my five-year-old brother because he lacks all of the responsibilities I have at this age. I wish that I could go back and be his age once more, even if it was only for a moment. Nonetheless, the “forever young” concept displayed in Peter Pan is flawed. The terrible economic and social conditions displayed in the novel display the gravity of the situation. In the case of the railroad, no one chooses to take conditions for any sort of action. This lack of responsibility is connected with a failure to have matured into adulthood, to some extent. Again, this lack of responsibility is one of the very things that Peter Pan glorifies. Atlas Shrugged demonstrates to us that a lack of responsibility will take us nowhere but the depths of hell.

            Atlas Shrugged forced me to see that no matter what point of time society is in, the same problems seem to strike because no one is learning from prior mistakes or warnings brought forth in literature such as Atlas Shrugged.  Rand provides this clear warning: losing the intellectuals and the leaders will cause society to come to a halt. Without these people the society will remain stagnant. With out people like Galt, Wyatt, Mulligan, etc. the country has become a wreck. The only direction they move in is backwards, and at an alarming rate at that. The cause for their departure was their inability to communicate in the society the government is creating. Today, the inability to communicate is literally causing our government to shut down. The lack of agreeing on something like healthcare is stunting the progress the government could be making. Instead, of going forward we are remaining stagnant because two damn political parties cannot agree on what they want. The longer they squabble the graver our lack of progression will get.  
            A great part of what caused Atlas Shrugged to cause me to reevaluate the way I think was due to a simple question, “Who is John Galt?” It was not the answer that John Galt is a person that made me reevaluate; it was the development of its meaning. Where in the beginning it was only some phrase that people muttered when they could not understand something, or when something was not going their way, the phrase came to mean much more. It ended up representing a struggle to prove what is right to others, to defy everyone in the midst of believing, and to triumph even though the world was quite literally against you. Who is John Galt, could be represented by one image only, the image of Atlas. Atlas hunched over, bearing the weight of the entire world and its messes on his shoulders, struggling to do so, yet somehow still trying and not giving up. Despite knowing the evil, it seems that Atlas remains and that is what made me rethink my views. I am not one to give up, but I am not one to continue if I think the battle has been lost. Atlas, John Galt, and Dagny continue in their attempt to try to carry the parts of the world that they want very well knowing the evil within it. Rand has permitted me to internalize the idea of the battle being worth it even if it is lost because in the end it is the cause that was important.    

- Talia Akerman (sorry I know it's a lot I just had a lot to say)

Final Reaction: Its all over for the looters

Wendell Pfeffer

Final Reaction: Atlas Shrugged

10/15/20

I remember the first day I opened Atlas Shrugged. I was quite intimidated by its size and small letters. But right when I began to read, businesses and problems associated with expansion, profit and an increase in production were introduced. Businesses flourished in the beginning of the book, until the government decided to intervene which created chaos in the economy. The United States government known as the “looters,” was every successful business man/woman’s and inventors worst nightmare. They would impose many rules that would affect them directly. Thus leaving the successful business people and inventors to question why they would ever do such a thing? The government would simply reply that it was only for “the common good.” But as I began to reach the culminating stages in the novel it becomes clear that the only reason the “looters” were creating all of those rules was to only assert their power and acquire “unearned love, unearned admiration and unearned greatness.” The looters accomplished this by stealing brilliant ideas, innovations and money from the countries brightest men. Through this process they covered up their atrocious acts by flooding the public’s ears with a monotonous amount of bullshit, more specifically information that talks about the benefits of such a discovery. They need the public’s support, without their support they will have no one to reconcile with, which will eventually cause their demise. This novel was published in 1957, what I find significant about this date is that even though this novel was created eighty years ago much of what Ayn Rand wrote relates to what is happening today in the United States: Obama care, the democrats, Chrysler and GMC motors going out of business and the government shutdown. Obama and the democrats are the true looters in our society, all of their regulations and bills help support the lower class and middle class families, but it constricts the true potential of the United States to thrive in the economy and the world markets today. Before I read this book I had no clue to what was happening in the government, in the economy or politics in general. Honestly, I did not take any interest in what was going on in the United States, I only cared about school and college, but now I have my own opinion on today’s government and I have somewhat an idea of what the government is trying to do all because of Atlas Shrugged.

            Right now the financial problem of the United States is critical, not only is it affecting American citizens but many countries all over the world. I hold relatively the same thoughts as John Galt, Dagny, Francisco and Ragnar. The only way this economy and political system is going to improve is by promoting capitalism or Laissez Faire Economics. These rules and bills are decreasing people’s motivation to improve their industries/businesses and create new ideas. Francisco serves as a perfect example; in the beginning of the book Francisco was the top producer of metal in the United States. He was leaving his competitors like Orren Boyle no chance to survive, especially when he created a new revolutionary metal that deemed to outperform and outlast regular metal. The government sponsored group known as the “Science State Institute” intervened and at first turned the public against Rearden metal by inventing some nonsense that his metal was unsafe to use, people listened and believed what the government sponsored group was telling them. But Hank ignored and continued with the production of his metal. Then the government decided to take even more drastic measures, they used Lillian to help blackmail Hank into giving them and Orren Boyle his metal. Unfortunately there was nothing he could have done at that time and was forced to sign his metal over. His most prized possession and achievement, what he worked so hard for is gone. On top of that the government imposed new rules that limited the production of his metal, they even devised a scheme known as the “the steel unification plan” to trick Hank Rearden into helping Orren Boyle be the new primary producer of metal. The same with Dagny, the government created new rules that limited her transportation and speed of her trains in order to assert their power and give other people a chance. Based on these examples you can see that the looters contradict themselves, they keep repeating to the people of the United States that they will work to improve the economy and solve all the financial problems. How can you be able to fix the economy or solve any financial problem when your methods are based off deceiving, stealing, limiting and hurting others for your own personnel benefit? The looters are a cancer; they need to be removed in order to insure a more successful future. Other than John Galt, Dagny and Hank are the strongest out of all the other business leaders, they continued with their companies even when things looked dark, if I were them I would have disappeared to Galts Gulch a long time ago.

            The ending of the book turned out to be no surprise at all; the business owners were all getting tired of the looters. They knew that without them they would not survive and so they began to quit one by one all because of John Galt. Galt – the man, the myth and the legend is what made the impossible happen. The combination of his perfect speech to turn the public against the looters and his creation and use of Galts Gulch are what ultimately defeated the looters. There were other factors associated with their defeat but other than that I’m a glad thing turned out the way they were supposed to.

Response to Max's Comment

I completely disagree with Max. I do not find the character of John Galt to be unbelievable or impractical. In fact, I find it to be one of the most practical things that Rand could have chosen to done with the novel. There was an air of uncertainty at any mention of Galt's name before he was officially introduced as a character. Who is John Galt? People hated hearing those very words because of the uncertainty it brought. Dagny even chose to name her line John Galt because of that uncertainty. His introduction as a human being and not as a simple idea made the story much more tangible. The fact that Dagny was able to meet the man whom she named her line after, without even knowing he existed was fascinating. She was literally able to put a face to the name that she had no clue about for so long.
     Galt's presence, I believe, allows Dagny and even the reader to believe that there is a sense of hope left. Though he may not be the hope Dagny was looking for his existence- his creation of the motor- allows the reader to feel as if they can grasp the hope that is left in the palm of their hands. Before, where the hope was s far away, it felt as if it was time to give up. I do agree with Max on the point that this whole terrain he has with people that believe his ideals is slightly unrealistic. Can someone really get away with owning so much land and having no unwanted human discovering it? I do not think so. This concept of a land protected by unreachable grounds and some reflected image seem too fake for no one to discover it. The way in which they live also seems to utopian to be true. In twelve years there have been no disagrees when there are about 20 something people there. There is no way 20 people could not argue gravely once in twenty years. Nonetheless, the utopia is beautiful to read about. It is nice to read about these pleasure the characters are experiencing.
- Talia Akerman