"She looked at the crowd and she felt, simultaneously, astonishment that they should stare at her, when this event was so personally her own that no communication about it was possible, and a sense of fitness that they should be here, that they should want to see it, because the sight of an achievement was the greatest gift a human being could offer to others." (222)
This section stood out to me because I felt that it was the heart and soul of the message that Rand tries to convey in Atlas Shrugged. Throughtout the 1000 page book, Rand is always tying in a message in some way. One theme that is always evident throughout the story is self-achievement. Each character that Rand creates, not only in this novel, but in her other novel, The Fountainhead, she always makes the characters self-righteous and greedy for specific things. Each of her characters are extremely independent and have extreme, distorted, and unique views on how to live their lives. Dagny Taggert dealt with the skepticism from societ of the John Galt line not being able to run, but they didnt phase her. She was certain of her abilities and she was confident that the line would run and therefore she went for it. She had determination and strength that most people will never have in a lifetime. Ayn Rand made all of her characters have a sort of almost unrealistic strength. Her characters were always self-righteous and self-centered. Each normal human emotion was turned into a philisosphical idea. Up until this point, Rand made it her business to make it unclear of what Dagny wanted out of the creation of the John Galt line. Did she want to power? The money? The fame? But at this point, it becomes clear that nothing and no one is more important than achievement.
My personal reaction to the paragraph wasn't exactly positive. I felt that by saying that achievement was the greatest gift to offer was being sort of ignorant. Ayn Rand has very strong vivid view points on life but at some points I feel that she needs to learn a bit more. I feel that her viewpoints are very one-sided. She doesn't give a chance to to feel any other way about something...If that makes any sense. On the other hand, I was impressed by how she made me feel the passion that Dagny felt towards the John Galt line. She made me feel as though I had created it myself.
The book is long and very time consuming. But it'll change you as a reader.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNice dive, Syd! I must commend you on tackling a challenging work, for not everyone can endure 1000 page philosophy novels as dry and repetitive as Atlas Shrugged. While I personally would have selected John Galt's 60 page speech (For twelve years you have been asking: Who is John Galt? This is John Galt speaking. I am the man who loves his life...) or the text of Directive 10-289 (real juicy!) for this assignment, your choice is certainly a great one.
ReplyDeleteBut I must ask-on what points, exactly, do you find Ayn Rand to be ignorant or one-sided? I was a little taken aback by your comments because I've always felt that Rand was very comprehensive in all of her arguments, explaining repeatedly, in 400 different ways, how her philosophy differs from other coeval philosophies. In each of her novels I recognized a distinct line between the "producers" and the "moochers," the Hank Rearden's and John Taggart's. Or, for all you Fountainhead people out there, the Howard Roark's and Peter Keating's. Hmmm..now that I've typed that out, I just noticed: isn't it interesting that in her two most well-known novels, Rand chose the initials H.R. for her ideal men? Rand also seems to like women whose name start with the letter "D," evidenced by her two characters Dagny and Dominique. Well, I digress, that was just an interesting observation.
I also disagreed with your use of the words "greedy, unrealistic," and "distorted" when it came to describing some of Rand's characters. I see greed as the act of trying to claim all materials, both physical objects and ideas, as your own. Somebody who is greedy will eat their slice of cake then try to take yours from you. Or they will take two slices of a cake perfectly cut to one slice per person. Either way, greed is, in my mind, defined as taking, attempting to take, or hording what is not yours: a concept Rand would spit upon. All of Rand's "producers" defiantly stand against those who try to take what is not theirs, hence the creation of Galt's Gulch. They seek total control over the fruits of their own labor: that to me is not greed, but reason. Is it greedy of you, for example, not to divide your paycheck equally amongst all of your poor friends? We need the money too! Yet, it is still reasonable, not greedy, for you to keep what you produced by your own merit.
My "distorted" and "unrealistic" arguments follow the same course of logic-you keeping the entirety of your check is neither a distorted nor unrealistic view of life. Enhance the scale and exchange the nouns, and you've got both Hank Rearden's and Howard Roark's court scenes.
I don't want to sound like a dogmatist-understand that I am not without complaints of Rand's philosophy. I think the fact that none of her characters had kids, for example, is a huge flaw in a philosophy, for child rearing would turn Objectivism right on its side. I just think it's a very interesting and, in many cases, enlightening philosophy to read about, is all :-)
Just one more question..what did you mean by "It'll change you as a reader?"
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI feel like you would appreciate this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00xStn_jXKo
Once again Ayn Rand illustrates the concept of individualism and being independent of all other men. I do not agree with all of her views of philosophy of selfishness and selflessness in regard to their full extent, but most of her concepts make sense.
ReplyDeleteThis particular quote has a proud tone, and the sense that the individual has achieved something so great that she wants to cherish the moment. The moment of achievement for that being should benefit others; it will make them strive to accomplish and achieve their own goals. It seems as if the character is implying that others are lucky to witness her "moment of shine". At the same time she doesn't want to share this moment with anyone else. This is similar to Dominique not wanting to share her understanding of Howard Roark with any other person. Rand merges together two different perspectives in this quote making it more appealing. Sydney, you said that Rand's beliefs are one sided, but I think that in this little paragraph she has shown two totally opposing views. Even though I have not read this book, the character speaks as if no one could deprive her of her achievement because she has earned it herself, through her own actions and independent ways (I'm assuming). She owes nothing to them by succeeding in this goal and vice versa. Witnessing this event only concerns those whom it profits.
I love this quote, and I think I would like to read the book. I have heard that it is tremendous in length of pages—but (hey) so was The Fountainhead.
Atlas! One of these days I'm going to officially finish this book.
ReplyDeleteBut what I HAVE read of it, I totally agree with you on the change you as a reader. It really made me think about motives in life and how not to make it about satisfying others, but making your life into what YOU want and how YOU want it to be. And you're right on how the characters all seem to have this super-human air about them. Seeing the interviews we watched of Ayn Rand in comp&lit, I noticed the characters remind me of her, with their unfailing determination and their certainty of exactly what they want from life. They never question themselves.
Also, i THINK i understand what you were talking about the whole one-sided thing. She doesn't seem very open-minded at all, but I supposed that's just the conviction she has in her philosophy. She has figured out what she believes in life, and defends it to the death. For that reason, I always guessed she probably didn't have many friends xD because it just seems that nobody could ever meet the standards of her philosophy. Everyone has a little James Taggart or Keating inside of them, like it or not.