»
Main Forums
»
Passions in Prose
»
Opinions on Atlas Shrugged Essay?
| Passions in Prose |
|
Opinions on Atlas Shrugged Essay? |
|
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Okay... I'm taking a whack at the Ayn Rand Institute's essay contest... I really want/need opinions on my essay but I know practically nobody who's read the book... I realize I don't post in here much, and that most of you can think of much more interesting things to read... but if anybody (Chris maybe? You're and Ayn Rand fan, aren't you?) happens to have read this book and has a few minutes and the inclination to offer me some suggestions and comments, I would be tremendously grateful... I'm not going to bother going through and italicizing with UBB code, and it's looking like my formatting might not be on par with the copy and paste... shouldn't be too bad though. My huge advance thanks to anyone who replies... Oh, right, by the way, here's the topic I chose: 'What does the title's character “Atlas” represent? Is this a positive or a negative representation and why?' --- In the novel “Atlas Shrugged”, Atlas is represented by the prime movers, a group of entrepreneurs headed by John Galt. The diversity of the group, and the concerns of each person about the world, are fitting elements to attribute to Atlas; as the man who supports the world, he must come to terms with his position. This position is one of both great subjection and immense power. Atlas remains in the former arrangement until he faces the realization that while the world depends on him, he does not depend on the world. He then finds himself endowed with the latter, free of the weight on his shoulders because he can shrug it off as one does an unnecessary concern. The prime movers must accept that since the world has nothing to offer them, they are no longer compelled to produce sustenance for it. They must all reach this realization individually; it is only when they are all bound by this common action that Atlas has truly shrugged. “Atlas Shrugged” is a double entendre. One interpretation of the phrase utilizes the word “shrugged” as a participle; the other, as a past-tense verb. In both cases, the title’s character Atlas refers to the ancient Greek myth about the Titan who holds the world upon his shoulders. The title “Atlas Shrugged” represents both the indifference of the looters and general public toward the rights of the prime movers, and the prime movers’ reciprocal disregard for humanity’s perceived needs. “Atlas Shrugged” can be viewed as part of a passive statement that would read closely along the lines of: “Atlas [was] shrugged [by the world he supported.]” Taken literally, this action is, of course, impossible. One characteristic of the members of the political group in power, though, is their insistence upon the impossible as the basis for their survival. That attribute makes this passive interpretation particularly appropriate because the members of the society that disregards the rights of the prime movers always phrase things in this manner. They would name the prime movers as the object of their action, without naming themselves as persons capable of performing such action, much less as willing to take responsibility for the illogical nature of such. In the novel, the moochers’ directives slowly cripple America’s economic system by continually thwarting the efforts of the industrialists that support its existence. Persons of ability are restricted in the use thereof, thus allowing those less competent a “fair share” of the American market. A deterioration of product and service quality ensues, leading to a nation of consumers who are unwilling to consume and unable to afford sub-standard commodities. Basic economic theory dictates that a lack of demand leads to the devaluation of the existing supply. When nobody wants what a business has to offer, the business ceases to produce. A business that no longer produces cannot continue to produce salaries for its employees, who, now unemployed, cannot find work elsewhere, either because of the poor reputation of their previous place of employment, a lack of demand for employees, or both. Soon, the nation begins to feel another shortage; the industrialists and producers are disappearing. This is the manifestation of the active interpretation of “Atlas Shrugged.” This point is clearly demonstrated in a climactic bit of dialog between Francisco D’ Anconia and Hank Rearden: Francisco: “Mr. Rearden, if you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of this strength, and the greater the effort the heavier the world bore down on his shoulders- what would you tell him to do?” Rearden: “I… don’t know. What… could he do? What would you tell him to do?” Francisco: “To shrug.” (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, pp. 424) The prime movers’ disappearance is the novel’s depiction of Atlas shrugging. Rand paints very descriptive pictures of the chaos the world is thrown into when the “greedy rich” begin refusing to serve its needs with nothing but anguish and criticism offered in return. The industrialists left in the prime movers’ stead are unable to produce enough to support the American public, and, after running at a loss due to laws that make profit practically illegal, industries collapse one after another. Despite the threat of being reported to the Unification Board after Directive 10-289 makes quitting one’s job illegal, workers began deserting nationwide, while the public unrest becomes unmanageable. Here, protagonist John Galt describes this action as a strike in the climactic chapter of the book, “This is John Galt Speaking.” “We are on strike against self-immolation. We are on strike against the creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. We are on strike against the dogma that the pursuit of one’s happiness is evil. We are on strike against the doctrine that life is guilt.” (Rand, Atlas Shrugged, pp. 929) The significance of this shrug is that it is done knowingly and calculatingly by the prime movers. It is not the shrug of incapability that characterizes the moochers’ political and functional practice, but rather the shrug of incapability to fight an oppressive system in any other way. The strike is the final product of a world Galt saw ten years in advance; a world that lauds need over ability and sentiment over logic. The strike is what persons of ability turn to when they realize that there is no way to function in the world without serving the looters’ system, and no way to fight that system except by removing oneself from it. In this sense, the strike is the world’s doing; Wesley Mouch’s and Jim Taggart’s, and Floyd Ferris’ doing. Galt and his agents serve only as a catalyst. In both of the above interpretations of the title, Atlas is a represented positively. Because he is represented by the prime movers as a group, individual strengths and weaknesses are apparent. As such, Atlas is not “a face that bore no mark of pain or fear or guilt,” (Rand, Atlas Shrugged, pp. 647) but rather a culmination of all the persons who choose, of their own volition, to release themselves from enslavement by the world. If each person who does such is as invulnerable as Galt, the action would signify much less achievement. However, when a group of able, but imperfect humans generates such a change, it marks the use of logic over excuses and failsafes; of perseverance over a pervading sense of defeat. Atlas is humanity at its best; humanity that produces and trades only by mutual consent, and only for mutual gain. I did not design this game, I did not name the stakes I just happen to like apples, and I am not afraid of snakes. -Ani DiFranco, "Adam and Eve" [This message has been edited by hush (09-12-2002 01:12 PM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2002 hush - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Let me see what I can add to this. I have read Atlas Shrugged over 30 times and consider it the greatest book ever written. I have Ms. Rand's entire library, including several obscure books few have heard of. When I was in the military overseas, Ayn Rand and I corresponded through mails and tapes. I was a subscriber and avid reader of the Objectivist, her newsletter. I had an open invitation to visit her in New York City which I was unfortunately unable to take advantage of. She was a genius the likes of which we may never see again, in my opinion. Ok, that's my background with her and her work. Let's look at your comments.... "The diversity of the group, and the concerns of each person about the world, are fitting elements to attribute to Atlas; as the man who supports the world..." This is partially true. In actuality, it was not their concerns about the world...it was their concerns about their own lives and careers. The fact that the world would benefit from their actions would be a by-product. Ayn Rand preached individualism, as I'm sure you know. Her ideas of individualism differ from what the popular conception normally holds. According to her, if I for example, were a manufacturer I would want to manufacture the greatest product I could...and for one reason - my profit. Of course if my product were so good that many benefitted from it, so much the better...and if the world at large became a better place because of it, great...but they are all by-products of the main reason, which would be MY benefit as the creator. How many evil or useless things in the world have you seen with the excuse of being done for the benefit of mankind? She believed that if every person put out his best effort for his own good, the world would benefit greatly. So, when you say in the above quote "the concerns of each person about the world..", that is not correct. It was their concerns about their own individual rights to produce that was their main concern. "Atlas remains in the former arrangement until he faces the realization that while the world depends on him, he does not depend on the world. He then finds himself endowed with the latter, free of the weight on his shoulders because he can shrug it off as one does an unnecessary concern. The prime movers must accept that since the world has nothing to offer them, they are no longer compelled to produce sustenance for it. They must all reach this realization individually; it is only when they are all bound by this common action that Atlas has truly shrugged." This is the lesson that John Galt uses to recruit his strikees. He showed them that they were the movers of the world, they were the people who made existence possible and they were allowing themselves to be chained, controlled and manipulated by government beaurocracies who did NOT produce, did NOT run the industries or did not do much of anything except hold positions of power....and their weapon was that they had the power to allow the producers to work or not. For Ayn Rand's characters, working was passion. Producing was everything. They were allowing themselves to be enslaved by government mandates with the threat of not being able to work at all hanging over their heads and they tolerated all of the control and choke holds and restrictions to be able to continue working.....until John Galt came along. He was able to show them that the world needed them much more than they needed the world. They were the producers - they could always produce - whereas, the governments who controlled them could produce nothing without them. He convinced them to go on "strike". Laborers go on strike, taxi drivers go on strike, every area of work known has probably at one time or another gone on strike....so what would happen if the producers, the intellectuals, the men who actually made the country work went on strike and the world was left with nothing more than day laborers, high-school educated engineers and electricians and people used to taking orders and doing their jobs but not being able to run large companies? You can force a man to dig a ditch. How do you force him to think? John Galt told them the time had come for them to say "enough..do it yourself if you can". "He then finds himself endowed with the latter, free of the weight on his shoulders because he can shrug it off as one does an unnecessary concern." I'm afraid that you have missed the point. It does not represent shrugging off at all. John Galt knew that the producers, the thinkers would always play the part of Atlas. They would always carry the world on their shoulders...that is how life must be. He was depicting a picture of Atlas holding the world as the world kept getting heavier, becoming more burdensome and difficult to handle and the harder they tried to hold it up, the heavier it kept getting. This was a representation of the government controls and restrictions, the burdens placed on them, the weight on their shoulders increasing from demands of the non-producers on them. What happens if you are carrying a sack of potatoes on your shoulders and, as you walk, some of the potatoes move and the sack becomes more difficult to handle? You take a little half-step, move your shoulder, rearrange the sack to where it is easier to handle and then move on. John Galt was telling them to do just that..shrug their shoulders - not a shrug of indifference - but a shrug of repositioning to lighten the burden. He knew that by going on strike, the government controls and restrictions chaining them would eventually fall away as the politicians came to the realization that they couldn't make it without them. That was the shrug....and when the world was repositioned and easier to hold once more they would continue to do so. "It is not the shrug of incapability that characterizes the moochers’ political and functional practice, but rather the shrug of incapability to fight an oppressive system in any other way." Again, it is neither. It is the shrug of rearranging the world. "The title “Atlas Shrugged” represents both the indifference of the looters and general public toward the rights of the prime movers, and the prime movers’ reciprocal disregard for humanity’s perceived needs" I'm afraid that the judges would stop reading right here! The prime movers have the HIGHEST regards for humanity's perceived needs. That's where their profit is!! They look for the needs of humanity...and they fill them. That's where their success comes from. Is that so wrong? If Thomas Edison had said "I want to invent the telephone for the benefit of mankind" would he have been so much better than if he had said "I want to invent a telephone because I can make a fortune from it"? In either case, humanity was benefitted. If a man dedicates himself to producing the best that he can and selling it fairly for his own benefit, who is the loser? If his product is not good, it won't be sucessful. If it's not fairly priced, people won't buy it. The characters in the book provide humanity with the best they have in a fair trade, with the highest regard for mankind's needs. Ayn Rand wrote this book 50 years ago and it applies now just as much as it did back then. Watch the newspapers. Listen to the cries against the "evil rich". When politicians want votes they damn the wealthy and the man in the street is more than eager to applaud and join in the insults. When's the last time a cashier at MacDonald's offered you a job? Try to keep track of the governmant control against business, especially entrepreneurs. The book was way ahead of it's time. One day it may come true. Hopefully I won't be around to see it. I give you loud applause for tackling such a monumental task as this book. I hope I've helped in some small way.... |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Thanks very much for the very extensive comments... I appreciate it greatly. "The diversity of the group, and the concerns of each person about the world, are fitting elements to attribute to Atlas; as the man who supports the world..." Here, I meant concerns about the world in the sense that they were concerned about the state of the world in regards to their own well-being... how many times did Eddie Willers ask Dagny what was wrong with the world, or express his disgust, or confusion? I guess I do need to state that more explicitly though, I see that I wasn't clear enough. Thanks for pointing it out. 'I'm afraid that you have missed the point. It does not represent shrugging off at all. John Galt knew that the producers, the thinkers would always play the part of Atlas. They would always carry the world on their shoulders...that is how life must be. He was depicting a picture of Atlas holding the world as the world kept getting heavier, becoming more burdensome and difficult to handle and the harder they tried to hold it up, the heavier it kept getting. This was a representation of the government controls and restrictions, the burdens placed on them, the weight on their shoulders increasing from demands of the non-producers on them. What happens if you are carrying a sack of potatoes on your shoulders and, as you walk, some of the potatoes move and the sack becomes more difficult to handle? You take a little half-step, move your shoulder, rearrange the sack to where it is easier to handle and then move on. John Galt was telling them to do just that..shrug their shoulders - not a shrug of indifference - but a shrug of repositioning to lighten the burden. He knew that by going on strike, the government controls and restrictions chaining them would eventually fall away as the politicians came to the realization that they couldn't make it without them. That was the shrug....and when the world was repositioned and easier to hold once more they would continue to do so.' Here I must disagree, and defend my position. Galt did tell them to shrug the world off.... remember, early in the book, when Fransisco asked Dagny what she would say if he asked her to give up Taggart Transcontinental? And she replied something along the lines of "What would I say if you asked me to commit siucide?" To Dagny... Taggart Transcontinental was the world. Same with Rearden and his Mills. I think that the 'repositioning' shrug you speak of was what the prime movers did in order to function under the increasingly ridiculous and illogical and impossible directives being issued... But John Galt told them that to come to Atlantis, to live free and happy in a world set aside based on logical principles and the exchange of money freely, in accordance with their (the producers') ideals... they had to be willing to leave it all behind. They had to leave the world to its own ruin... essentially shrugging it off, because supporting it in any way whatsoever was helping to keep the looters' system afloat. Also, it is a shrug of indifference... Rearden realized he no longer cared about his mills, his place in the world, because that place wasn't truly his anymore. So... it really was a "what more can I do?" shrug... because he tried the rearranging shrugs for so long... and it just kept getting harder, and once he saw this, he quit trying. 'I'm afraid that the judges would stop reading right here! The prime movers have the HIGHEST regards for humanity's perceived needs. That's where their profit is!! They look for the needs of humanity...and they fill them.' Yes, of course... and you're right, the way I have it phrased doesn't credit that... what I meant and what I said were two different things... What I meant was that when the world kept taking and taking from the producers, claiming property that was not theirs by a right that essentially does not exist, and enforcing that 'right' by brute force, the producers eventually ceased caring about the world's needs, because serving the world's needs was no longer profitable. I think maybe I need to emphasize the cause and effect a little more there... Thanks very much again, you've been a lot of help. I did not design this game, I did not name the stakes |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thanks, hush. I'm pleased if I was able to help in any way.  I would like to re-empathize my point, however, since it is the crux of the entire issue about the "shrug". Yes, Dagny said that. Reardon felt the same, as did Wyatt, Francisco, Ragnar and every occupant of Galt's Gulch. That's why it was so hard to convince them to let it go. Do you remember Galt's pledge?....to stop the motor of the world! Does that show indifference? Does that show just letting the world go on by itself while they bow out? No, it shows that, by their going on strike, he was telling them that the world would eventually come to a stop and they, or others like them, would return to rebuild it after the moochers were out of power or had nothing left to mooch from. He told them that their inaction would make that possible but that their continuance to stay in the world would only prolong the end and they would eventually choke on the chains they were being shackled with. I cannot quote the exact words, offhand, but as the world was collapsing someone during Dagny's visit to the Gulch made the comment that they hadn't really expected to see the end but it was possible they would. You see, that was the main issue. This was to be a very long-range plan. They knew that the world would fall without them but they had no idea how long it would take. They were even resigned to the fact that it would probably not happen in their lifetime but in generations to come. After all, the world had a lot to loot. That was one of the hardest parts of the "sell" that Francisco and Galt had to offer them. He was asking them to give up the one thing they loved the most in life and the probability existed that they would never see the results in their lifetimes....but it would come. These words are the key to the entire book...TO STOP THE MOTOR OF THE WORLD. Not indifference, not turning their backs on the world but a planned, carefully thought out tactic to cause the world to cease to be able to function without them. THAT was the shrug, the shake-up, the rearrangement of order in the world. Finally I would ask you to picture it in caricature form. The first caricature would be of Atlas trying to hold up the world, staggering, knees bent, blood and sweat pouring down his face, features showing the enormous strain of the weight of the world bearing down on him. Then we have one more picture. By my definition, it would be of Atlas getting his legs under him, straightening his back and rearranging the world on his shoulder (shaking it up, so to speak) to make the burden easier to handle. By your definition it would be of Atlas dropping the world, shrugging his shoulders in an apathetic manner and walking away. Which representation do you think Ayn Rand intended to portray? All of these main characters loved the world, loved life and loved their work. They had simply reached the point where they were unwilling to support it in its current form. Their plan was to change it, or cause it to change without them, and then go back to their job of holding it up. Their strike was a deliberate plan....action by inaction, not apathy or indifference. Anyway, the thought and work you have put into this is very applaudable. These are my opinions only and if you feel that your interpretation is the right one then by all means go for it. I would be very interested in the comments or feedback you receive from the contest. I wish you the best....... |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
'. They had simply reached the point where they were unwilling to support it in its current form.' Exaclty. I think we agree much more than we disagree here... the only conflict of opinion we really seem to have is that of the means by which 'Atlas' changes the world- or the nature of his shrug. I don't believe that he shrugs the world off apathetically and walks away- rather, he shrugs, allowing the world to fall, when he becomes unwilling to support it in its current form. Rather than walking away, however, he watches as the world collapses- and then he hoists it back up again. It's akin to working at a very difficult math problem, for a very long time, continually running into dead eands, and wrong answers. So you take a break from it. The only difference here is that instead of finding the answer while taking a break... the answer is taking the break in and of itself. Once again, I probably need to clarify that a little more. Thanks so much for your time, and I'll definitely let you know how the contest turns out- I realize how slim my chances are, but hey, it's worth a shot. I did not design this game, I did not name the stakes |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Impressive credentials, Mike! We could have used you a year or two ago when Objectivism was being discussed almost daily in Philosophy. FWIW, hush, I largely agree with most of what Mike said (except for the part where Edison invented the telephone). I'd also buy into your interpretation, though I don't think you get it across in your article and are in danger of depicting Rand as a defeatist - which she most emphatically was not. Even her darkest stories end on a positive note, and Atlas Shrugged is no exception. "The road is cleared," Galt said, stretching his hand over the Earth and mystically tracing the sign of the dollar. "We are going back to the world." I'd like to offer a third interpretation, based mostly on a sense of unease with both "repositioning" the world and with "dropping" it. Although each of those makes perfect sense, neither I think represent the simple elegance Rand so loved. Repositioning suggests far too little real change, and we rarely shrug off something just to pick it up again. Neither explanation, I think, feels quite right. Perhaps the burden that Atlas shrugged was his vision of the way the world worked? Throughout much of Part II, Rearden undergoes a series of epiphanies that are, I feel, central to the theme. The trigger is a large order of Metal from the government, a simple thing that reverberates for several chapters. First, Rearden realizes that the looters need his sanction, his pretense that he is a willing seller, and shortly after that, realizes the government wants to make him a criminal because the only power they have is to punish criminals. At a later dinner, when Lillian attacks him for being willing to stand trial, declaring he is not above reproach and will make a lousy martyr, Rearden realizes she is relying entirely on his sense of morality to make him feel immoral. He denounces his brother and, essentially, his whole family. Although he doesn't put it into words yet, and won't until Part III, Rearden is beginning to understand that the only ties that bind him are the ones he has willingly provided. The world insists that his strength and ability are crimes against the weak, and that his desire to find joy and satisfaction is a sin against the miserable, but the only thing that lends the contention any strength is his own compassion and nobility. Throughout the remainder of Part II and into the first several chapters of Part III, we see Rearden finally impose the same strict criteria in his personal life that has always dominated his professional life. His final and most revealing epiphany results from the meeting where the Steel Unification Plan is revealed and Taggart tells Rearden, in spite of the impossibility of their demands, "he will find a way to make it work because he always does." And Rearden, of course, finally realizes that is exactly what they have always depended on. He is a willing victim. (On a more literate note, this is later cleverly mirrored when Galt is captured and shows us the role of an unwilling victim. He will do anything they ask, but nothing they don't ask, and refuses to think for them.) Atlas, in the guise of Hank Rearden, shrugs off not the world, but the mistaken attitudes that have shaped his role in the world. Obviously, the title of the book is subject to interpretation, and I honestly don't think it matters which you choose to explore. More important, I think, is to use the exploration to demonstrate an understanding of the philosophy and, to do that in 1,200 words, you're going to have to actively avoid discussions of plot and even character as much as possible. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
ROFL!!! Well, Edison WOULD have invented it if Bell hadn't beaten him to it! Why does it not surprise me, Ron, that you can quote verse from Atlas Shrugged?  I would like to agree with you, and do in some ways, but I think we have different ideas about the identity of Atlas. You use the example of Reardon being Atlas, for example. I feel that Atlas was a combination. First of all, it was Galt. He was the moving force, the one who would open the eyes of the others. Second, it was all the others combined.....Dagny, Reardon, Francisco, Mulligan...all of those who maintained the prosperity of the world by their intellect and actions....but these people only became part of the Atlas who shrugged after they had been shown the light. Galt showed them that they were giving their enemies the one thing they needed to be able to continue....a moral sanction. They, and people in general, don't realize how devastating a moral sanction is. If you give it to the undeserved, you are the loser. Reardon underestimated the power of his enemies....actually did not even understand that they were enemies. He allowed his family to make him feel a small amount of guilt because he was so successful and they had little to show for their lives. He felt he could give them this sanction because he was strong and they were weak and needy and it was so easy for him to do. That was his mistake. He allowed the government controls to progress so far because he felt that they were so ridiculous that people would realize that and stop it. He was wrong there, too. He allowed himself to be destroyed by giving them a moral sanction to do so, without knowing it. Reardon made me madder than any character in the book. When he allowed his brother to take his million dollar donation as from an anonymous source, I cringed. When he allowed the writer Scudder to attend the party at his house by his wife's invitation, I cursed. He misunderstood his enemies and their goals. His goal was life. He couldn't comprehend that others goals might be death. Dagny was not much better. She knew that her brother was a loser as well as the group he ran with but she did not stand up against them. She did not take them seriously but ignored them instead. That was HER mistake. Her silence and dismissal of them gave them the moral sanction to continue. She felt she could beat them at their own game which was an impossibility for they were masters of that game and she didn't even know the rules. She simply wanted to be left alone to run her railroad and felt that, logically, they would fail. She did not understand that logic did not play a part in their game. Well, that's not entirely true. Logic always plays a part. She did not understand that their goal was also death and their actions were logical with someone trying to reach that goal. Both of these characters were blind to the power of moral sanction. Ayn Rand's philosophy accepted no compromise, which has always been hard for people to swallow. In her words, "Black is black and white is white and gray is evil." She felt that if you allow bad to be mixed with good for the sake of compromise, the result was evil...in the same way as adding one ounce of poison to one gallon of water. The result is still deadly. John Galt showed them, finally, that there could be no compromise, no mixing of the bad with the good. They had to openly denounce evil instead of ignoring it and giving it the moral sanction to continue. Their form of denouncement was to refuse to participate and withdraw...to say NO when told to perform. So, when you say you feel what Atlas shrugged was his vision of the way the world worked, I must respectfully tend to disagree. Atlas knew the way the world worked. John Galt knew it immediately. The others came to know it as they were recruited and became part of Atlas. I contend that the action of the shrug was to lighten the load, make the weight endurable by changing the status of society. I'm reminded of a character in Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, if you ever saw that movie with Mel Gibson. There was a dwarf who sat on the shoulders of a giant, muscular fellow. The dwarf was an evil little guy who happened to be in charge of the furnaces where the slaves worked. He would scream at the giant, order him around, beat on his head and insult him constantly as the giant carried him around on his shoulders, enduring the insults and accepting whatever the dwarf told him to do. At any time the giant could have simply knocked the dwarf off his shoulders and said "I've had enough of you" and the dwarf would have been helpless and defenseless but he continued to be the docile servant from conditioning. That is how I imagine Atlas's shrug. They had had enough. They were fed up with being burdened those who demanded everything and produced nothing. They shrugged the dwarf off their shoulders. Anyway, that's my interpretation. I could be right, you could be right or Hush could be right.....or the truth could lie in a combination of all three. I thank you for joining in the conversation with your thoughts and insight....they are always welcome.  By the way, I have a very nice letter from Ayn Rand thanking me and expressing her pleasure that I named my first daughter Dominique... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I agree almost 100 percent, Mike. I never meant to suggest that Rearden was the Atlas, but rather presented him as an example of the process everyone went through in realizing all that you said so eloquently about the moral sanction. And that's also where I slightly disagree. Rearden and Dagny are the only examples we get to fully see, and Dagny's is a "special" case because she blundered her way into Galt Gulch. That's why I chose Rearden as my example. And while he is prodded to his realization, mostly through Francisco as Galt's agent, he pretty much makes the trip on his own. I think that's important, because I'm sure you'd agree that Rand would never suggest we sit back and wait for John Galt to bail us out. By extension of Rearden's example, I'm assuming that each of the heroes went through a very similar process. Otherwise, I think the book would be about a superman that none of us could hope to emulate. Galt provided an answer, but they had to first discover the question themselves. Of course, I also agree that any of the interpretations - or perhaps all three - could be what Rand had in mind. You might have even noticed I carefully said "a third interpretation," rather than calling it "my" interpretation? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yes, I'm sure that each went through his own personal journey. It just seemed to me that Reardon was the most mule-headed or stubborn. As soon as they killed Colorado, Wyatt was gone. When Midas Mulligan lost his court case, he was gone. When Halley was shown thunderous acception of his work and was told it was right for him to have suffered to get there, he was gone. Yet Reardon went through the dispersal of his companies, the loss of his rights to Reardon Metal, blackmail, the increased quotas and lessened profits and a variety of tests and he STILL refused to see the inevitable! He was an infuriating fellow Unfortunately, Ron, I think that Ayn Rand's books WERE about men we could never hope to emulate. I know that after the first reading of Atlas Shrugged, I promptly lost every friend I had. Realistically, I don't believe that one can emulate her characters and live in this world. At least I couldn't and, believe me, I tried. Even to this day, there are characteristic I carry from that time that push me away from others who don't understand where I am coming from. I think Ayn Rand summed it up best in a conversation Dagny and Francisco had when they were children. She asked him if it ever bothered him that, in school, he was not accepted or even liked by his fellow students. He slapped her face and she could see the pain her words had caused because, yes, it had hurt him very much. It is a very lonely life her characters live...it DOES take a superman to emulate them. I couldn't do it, I'm not particularly proud to say.  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
You're kidding, right? I find it fairly easy to be every bit as mule-headed as Rearden, and I don't hardly even try. Besides, can you imagine how much shorter the book would have been had Hank and Dagny been less stubborn and more insightful. "Who is John Galt?" would have quickly become "Where is John Galt, and how do I get there?" Speaking of which, I wonder where Amy is at? I hope we get to see her final draft … |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
ROFL@the new title!  As for the rest, having never been stubborn, I wouldn't know.... She is probably busy writing the draft and shaking her head at us! Yes, I hope to see it, too.. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
I'm just kinda sitting back and watching the fun... and I'm trying to think about what's being said rather than jumping on one side or the other, or instinctively disagreeing, as is often my habit... I'm working on the rewrite, too... |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Okay... here's re-write #1: In Atlas Shrugged, Atlas represents the prime movers as a group that supports the world. The diversity of the group, and the concerns of each person regarding the political and economic agendas that are incapacitating their ability to produce, are fitting elements to attribute to Atlas. As the man who supports the world, Atlas must come to terms with his position, which is one of both great subjection and power. Atlas remains in the former arrangement until he faces the realization that the world depends on his consent to hold it up. Having arrived at this knowledge, he finds himself endowed with the latter, able to relinquish his burden as a problem he is neither capable of solving in its current form, nor responsible for. The prime movers must accept that since the world has nothing but punishment to offer them for providing a means of survival, they are no longer compelled to provide sustenance for it. They must all reach this realization individually; it is only when they are all bound by their refusal to support the world in its current state that Atlas has truly shrugged. The phrase Atlas Shrugged is a double entendre. One interpretation of the phrase utilizes the word shrugged as a participle; the other, as a past-tense verb. As a novel, Atlas Shrugged displays the cause and effect relationship between the first interpretation and the second by depicting humanity’s general disregard toward the rights of the prime movers to be rewarded for serving their needs and desires, and the prime movers’ reciprocal disregard to humanity’s needs when serving those needs ceases to be a profitable and rewarding occupation. Atlas Shrugged can be viewed as part of a passive statement that would read closely along the lines of: “Atlas [was] shrugged [by the world he supported.]” Taken literally, this action is, of course, impossible. One characteristic of the political group in power, however, is its insistence upon the impossible as the basis of its survival. That attribute makes this passive interpretation particularly appropriate, because the members of the society that disregards the rights of its producers always phrase things in this manner. They name the industrialists as the objects of their directives, without naming themselves as persons capable of performing such actions. In this way, they evade responsibility for the degenerative state of the world. When these directives slowly cripple America’s economic system by restricting persons of ability in the use thereof in order to offer those less competent a “fair share” of the market, a deterioration of product and service quality ensues, leading to a nation of consumers who are unwilling to consume substandard commodities. The resulting stagnation leads to mass unemployment, and an American public who now can no longer afford to purchase even the most fundamental human necessities. The looters insist that this collapse is because of a lack of cooperation with their system, when in reality, it is caused directly by the system. As a result of these conditions, the nation’s industrialists and producers begin to disappear. This is the manifestation of the active interpretation of Atlas Shrugged. This point is clearly demonstrated in a climactic bit of dialog between Francisco D’Anconia and Hank Rearden: Francisco: “Mr. Rearden, if you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of this strength, and the greater the effort the heavier the world bore down on his shoulders- what would you tell him to do?” Rearden: “I… don’t know. What… could he do? What would you tell him to do?” Francisco: “To shrug.” (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, pp. 424) The prime movers’ disappearance is the novel’s depiction of Atlas shrugging. As the world becomes more and more difficult to support, the rewards for doing so become less and less. The producers continue to produce to the best of their ability because to them, it is the only logical thing to do, even under the current circumstances. However, Francisco acts as Galt’s agent and explains to them the nature of the system under which they are operating; that is, the system requires the prime movers’ consent in order to exploit them. By continuing to serve people’s needs without profit under the belief that illogical systems will, by nature, defeat themselves, the producers act as the asset by which the system continues to function. Having realized the full extent of the evil they are helping to support, the men of ability join Galt’s “strike against the creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties” (Rand, Atlas Shrugged, pp 929). The significance of this shrug is that it is done knowingly and calculatingly by the prime movers. It is not the shrug of ineptitude that characterizes the moochers’ political and functional practice, but rather the shrug of incapability to fight an oppressive system in any other way. The strike is the final product of a world Galt saw ten years in advance; a world that lauds need over ability and sentiment over logic. The strike is what persons of ability turn to when the realize that there is no way to function in the world without serving the looters’ system, and no way to fight the system except by removing one’s ability from it. In this sense, the strike is the world’s doing; it is a direct result of the communistic system being employed. Galt and his agents served as a catalyst by which this shrug was performed. In both of the above interpretations of the title, Atlas is represented positively. As victims of the system, the prime movers are victimized by the own inability to recognize the evil logic of a system that promotes “the doctrine that life is guilt” (Rand, Atlas Shrugged, pp 929). The true nature of this system is that it promotes death by design, not by flaw. When Galt and his agents help them recognize that and the role they play in the scheme, they choose to leave their lives’ work behind. Because Atlas is composed of a group of human beings who must endure a great inner struggle to accept the course of action they must take, it is apparent that Atlas is not “a face that bore no mark of pain or fear or guilt,” (Rand, Atlas Shrugged, pp. 647) but rather a culmination of human logic and love of life. If each member of the group that retreats to Galt’s Gulch were as invulnerable as Galt himself, as perfect, their achievement would exemplify an unattainable model that we, as imperfect humans, would have no hope of emulating. Atlas’ true achievement is that he triumphs over evil human capabilities through his use of logic. He represents humanity that refuses to operate under conditions that require the sacrifice of the product of one’s mind. Atlas represents humanity at its best, humanity that utilizes "mutual trade to mutual advantage," (Rand, Atlas Shrugged, pp. 989) as the only moral way to live. [This message has been edited by hush (09-14-2002 03:48 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"it is only when they are all bound by their refusal to support the world in its current state that Atlas has truly shrugged. " Yes! That's it in an eloquent nutshell. I think you have done an excellent job here, Amy, and one I am sure (or at least hope) will be given strong consideration by the judges. Congrats on a very nice liece of work.. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
See? Amy summarized it in such a way we're all right! Lookin' good ... |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Thanks, you guys. I'll let you know what happens, one way or another. THE ONLY WAR THAT MATTERS IS THE WAR AGAINST THE IMAGINATION |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Amy, I have watched this thread all of the way through, and you have taken two very well respected gentlemen's viewpoints, put them in your inkwell of thought, mixed liberally with your own, and came out the winner for it. Thank you ALL for summarizing Rand's book for me. I had promised myself to read it, I believe I still shall if I can ever get my hands on a copy, but you all have made me look forward to the undertaking all that much more. |
||
|
Red Member
since 2000-01-01
Posts 143Ca |
I know this thread is from awhile ago but I did a search on something and up it popped, much to my delight, and I've only now just had the pleasure to read it. I read Atlas Shrugged over the summer for the same reason as Hush and having picked the same topic, it was great to read what someone else wrote about... mind you this would have been more helpful to me 3 months ago!!!  Your essay was excellent Hush!! I really wanted to thank you all for you comments and insights in this thread... this book did something to me, though I'm not sure what yet.lol I think it is one of the greatest books that I have ever read but it has also troubled me for some time and I am not quite ready to say whether I believe in Rand's philosophies or not, either way, she has definately opened my eyes to something I never really thought about before.. and you have all helped me clarify some of the questions that I have been thinking about that have stayed in my mind ever since I put this book down. A SINCERE THANK YOU , Hush, Balladeer, and Ron!!! |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
hush - I didn't ignore you on this one... uhm, i just never saw it.  |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Well... thanks for the compliment... and hey, Ron and Balladeer, you asked me to tell you how things turned out- well, winners were to be notified by 10/21, and that deadline passed without word from them- unfortunately, about an hour after it was in the mailbox, I realized (Stupid, STUPID me) that I forget to include a reference page. So... even if it was good enough to win a prize, I guess I screwed myself on that one, huh? There's always next year, and this thread has proven invaluable to me in both scholastic and personal contexts... |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
