Posts Tagged ‘American Literature’

AtlasShrugged atlasshrugged4

Adult Fiction; Dystopian (Sociological Sci-Fi); Published 1957

Premise: The world is falling apart around Dagny Taggert and Hank Reardon as they struggle to save their beloved industries from their strangely powerful, pervasive enemies. But who, exactly, is their enemy?

About: Part of what makes this book so interesting is that it’s part novel, part philosophical treatise. I really enjoyed the novel and learning about Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism. While I don’t agree with the moral part of her philosophy, I agree with a lot of the economic part. However, I can’t say that even the economic portion was quite thorough enough or correct enough to say, “Yes, I approve.” I hear that her non-fiction work is more thoroughly developed, as far as philosophy and theory, although I haven’t read any of it for myself, yet.

BEFORE YOU READ ON: I generally try to avoid spoilers, in my reviews; but this review is going to contain a lot of spoilers about Ayn Rand’s political position and the point she makes in Atlas Shrugged because it’s pretty much impossible to critique these things separately from the book. (It is a VERY political, VERY polarizing book.) I really hope that if you’re considering reading this book, you’ll skip the “What I Liked” and “What I Didn’t Like” sections until you have read the book for yourself. Discovering Rand’s perspective was a huge part of the fun—for me, at least. Do please, however, skip down and read my “Overall” and “Audiobook” sections of the review, if you’re interested.

SPOILERS!!!

What I Liked: (1) This novel kept me up at night. It’s a study in slow-burn tension. I couldn’t stop thinking about it. (2) It introduced me to libertarian thought, something I was almost completely unfamiliar with. (3) It breaks down the idea of economic centralization and shows, with examples, why it might harm an economy, if implemented as irresponsibly as the Jim Taggarts of the narrative did. It also strongly conveys the conservative argument that socialism takes incentive away from businessmen, inventors, workers, etc. (4) It interested me in politics by giving me a new perspective on the confusion that is contemporary American politics. I didn’t know where to begin, before reading this book, so I have to thank it for helping me forward. (5) It provides a very pro-American viewpoint that is lacking in the public schools I attended. I had absorbed a very negative view of America by the time I went through public high school and my first two years of college. But this book—among other things—showed me that things aren’t as black and white as my teachers (or other people in my life who would disagree with my public school teachers) would have me believe. (6) The book is just so…triumphant. A lot of the book feels like the best moments in other books, when your hero kicks the antagonist’s booty. Oh, here’s a slightly spoilery Catching Fire example: when Peeta drops the baby bomb on live television, and the capitol citizens end up calling for a halt to that year’s unpopular hunger games. At that moment, you’re just like, HAH TAKE THAT, PRESIDENT SNOW! GO PEETA!! That’s what reading Atlas Shrugged felt like, to me. There are so many great moments, particularly from Dagny and Hank.

What I Didn’t Like:

(1) Its portrayal of socialists is flawed. It simply is. I don’t believe all socialists are like Jim Taggart. I think a lot of self-described socialists honestly believe that economic centralization is the answer to world poverty. That doesn’t make them evil, bloodsucking moochers. It means they are compassionate people who, I believe, rely too heavily on the government for social salvation. In fact (just to throw in one ideological disagreement I have with this novel’s message), I like some “socialist” practices and policies because I think (a) the policies can work to benefit the poor, if done right, and (b) that individuals do have some obligation to the community. To give one small example: free lunch for underprivileged school kids. I would vote for that, in my community, as long as the policies made sense. Why? Because, using my brain and heart to think this through, I decided that these kids are doing their part by going to school and it will only help the community to have them being properly fed, if they aren’t getting the right nutrition at home. I wouldn’t vote for laws about this on a federal scale because I think the specifics of the policies should be kept local–the local communities know what their kids need better than the federal government does. It’s simply of matter of “Which way does it work better?” But I don’t think that’s a bad tax on our community’s hard workers, as long as the majority of voters approve. (And yes, I realize that unions and other organizations passed important standard-of-living controls on corporations.) So basically, my complaint is that Rand does not honestly portray the protests of her opposition, in this book. Either that, or she just didn’t understand her opposition. I would have to read her nonfiction to know whether or not she understands the heart of socialist thought.

(2) And, for another ideological disagreement with the novel: Unlike Rand’s heroes, I don’t think that all taxes should be abolished. I believe the government needs some taxes to keep running and doing its primary job of protecting us from our enemies and ourselves. I don’t think a completely free market would provide safe service in every realm (such as law enforcement. I don’t see how law enforcement could safely and successfully be privatized, although I admit I’m new to libertarian thought and haven’t read all of their ideas on the subject). (3) Another thing: making money is not the highest virtue. Sorry. Frugality and hard work certainly are virtues, but making money is not the highest of callings. I truly believe that some Americans—e.g. wounded veterans, physically and mentally disabled, and many mothers, who work more often than not on unofficial “jobs” like keeping house, keeping children and keeping sane–cannot and/or should not have to be monetarily self-sufficient, as Rand seemed to believe. (4) The marriages. Marriage, in this book, is a horror zone. That’s not surprising, considering Rand’s ridiculous string of affairs, but I’ll leave it at that 😉 (5) ALL HUMANITY MUST WORSHIP THE HEROES OF INDUSTRY OR THEY SHOULD JUST DIE (nope, sorry).

END OF SPOILERS!!!

Overall: Fabulous novel with some flawed philosophies and portrayals. Despite my qualms with it, it’s been a long time since I loved a book this much.

Audiobook: Scott Brick is freaking fantastic. Great narrator. Loved the audiobook.

*****FIVE STARS

SPOILERS!!!

Characterizing Quotes:

“I want to be prepared to claim the greatest virtue of all—that I was a man who made money” (a hero of the book, 96).

“No one’s happiness but my own is in my power to achieve or destroy” (798).

“Accept the fact that the achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness—not pain or mindless self-indulgence—is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and result of the loyalty to the achievement of your values” (1059).

“If you choose to help a man who suffers, do it only on the ground of his virtues, of his fight to recover, of his rational record, or of the fact that he suffers unjustly; then your action is still a trade, and his virtue is the payment of your help. But to help a man who has no virtues, to help him on the grounds of his suffering as such, to accept his faults, his need as a claim—is to accept the mortgage of a zero on your values” (1060).

Advertisements

About: Published in 1936, Gone With the Wind tells a tale of the south before, during and after the Civil War. The setting’s conflicts are brought to life in its colorful confederate characters: brutal and beautiful Scarlett O’Hara, a femme fatale if there ever was one; Melanie Hamilton, a gentlewoman who surpasses all obstacles with true humility; Ashley Wilkes, a gentleman lost in a new age; and Rhett Butler, Scarlett’s dashing and courageous male counterpart. The book was a best seller and won the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award.

As of any book with such outstanding credentials, my review isn’t going to be anything ground-breaking; but I couldn’t resist sharing my thoughts. Perhaps readers will be interested to know what I enjoyed, admired and disliked about it.

What I Loved: All of it, really.

First of all, I love the novel’s attention to women’s concerns. It follows Scarlett O’Hara throughout her lovely, antiquated little world: the courting! The pretty dresses! The chivalry, the quaint mannerisms! And it pays the greatest attention to Scarlett’s every girlish crush, womanly worry and “mean girl” whim. At least half of the book is comprised of Scarlett mooning over beaux, scheming how to entrap them, and ruining relations with girls everywhere. You don’t find that in a lot of classics! Scarlett’s narration gives the novel a certain allure that could never be achieved with another narrator. Even though I would never want to meet her, her engrossing narration undeniably livens up the story.

Because of this unusual choice of subject matter, perspective and storyline, I found Gone With the Wind one of the most engrossing and readable books I’ve ever encountered. (I enjoyed it far more than, say “Madam Bovary,” which I’ve heard described as “the first ‘sex and shopping’ novel.”) I’ve never stormed through 1,000+ pages so quickly in my life! I was hanging onto every word- a can’t eat, can’t sleep sort of book.

The characters. I love them for their completeness, if not always for their amicability (or, rather, their lack thereof). They never change their natures, an inflexibility that usually leads them into unhappy lives. But I loved them even when they broke my heart. Melanie, a sweetheart just as tough as Scarlett, is my favorite character. She provides an invaluable counterpoint to Scarlett, and her victories give the story a refreshing radiance.

As we enter the story, Scarlett is already losing her beloved Ashley to some inbred mouse of a girl named Melanie—and the one-sided rivalry has begun. This rivalry symbolizes the tensions between the heart and spirit of the south. Melanie, the heart, gentility and nobility of the south, fades away in the aftermath of the war. Scarlett symbolizes the unbreakable spirit of the south, being one of those few southerners with the mettle to survive and thrive. Melanie proves herself reigning queen of gentle, well-bred society by recognizing the courage, if not the moral bankruptcy, of the survivors. Many of the other gentlemen and women turn their noses up at the “unsexed” Scarlett and other prosperous but scandalous figures arising from the ashes of war.

The book describes confederate society entirely differently than the history books do, giving voice to an important, lesser-known perspective. For example, it portrays a more sympathetic theory of origins of the KKK. I haven’t read much about the Confederacy and am ignorant about the Reconstruction; but after reading this, I’m certainly interested in finding out more about the difficulties of life in the antebellum south. The primary theme of the book—Nobility vs Survival—colors the character arcs set against this background. The intelligent, fierce and selfish survive, while the noble fade “nobly” away, gone with the wind.

What I Didn’t Love: (1) It broke my heart. ***HIGHLIGHT to see SPOILER***Specifically, the last 100 pgs or so utterly and completely broke my heart. Being a rather sensitive sort of reader, I don’t like feeling listless and unhappy after finishing a book. However, not everyone experienced the ending this way—it is, after all, a poetically just, “serves you right” kind of ending. Scarlett entirely deserves what she gets (and I suppose you could say Rhett, Ashely and Melanie earned the fruit of their labors, as well), and she doesn’t let it break her because she never lets anything break her. And there is hope for the future, for Scarlett will always keep pressing on. ***END*** (2) The book is clearly racist, and I can’t imagine an African American enjoying it…but, at the same time, history is history. When the author wrote this (in the 1930s), racism was still fairly prevalent. And after all, Margaret Mitchel was writing about the Civil-War-Era American South. I think most readers are able to recognize and acknowledge that writers aren’t perfect and never will be—they will have flaws. The perspective presented in this book is valuable because we can learn from it. But readers who cannot overcome the reality of this historical fault may not be able to stomach the book.

Overall: I expected to enjoy this book and it far and away met my expectations. It’s marvelously written, painfully truthful and definitely what I’d classify as “unforgettable.” I’m sure I will read it again.

5/5 Stars. Highly recommended to all.