The first thing I want to say about this short story is I enjoyed it very much- but I didn’t get the underlying meaning behind it. To tell you the truth, I didn’t like the underlying story as much as I liked the story itself, and it kind of annoyed me how something good turned into something that was, in my opinion, really crappy. Anyway, here are my thoughts on the story AND it’s underlying story.
I at first though the story was a time warp or something, because everywhere he went he seemed to be forgetting things and people treated him horribly when he thought he was close to them. I didn’t even THINK of the nervous breakdown until you told me, but I did pick up on the alcohol in every part of his swim. I think you were somewhat correct about how the swim was a metaphor for his life, but I also think you may have gotten the nervous breakdown theory wrong. After seeing both you and I’s renditions of what happened, this is what I came up with:
I think that the “swim” is really just showing the stages of alcoholism. It starts out easy, almost party-like- and as it progresses, it destroys you. It makes you lose your family, your friends, your house- and even your life (because if you remember, at the end of the story, he is almost dying). But even though he is “dying”, what does he ask for? Alcohol. It truly shows how addicting and harmful it is, and how you can be oblivious to how it slowly kills you. It would also explain his memory loss as the swim progresses.
However- I think I may have also been on the right track with the time warp statement- because it shows him aging! The season he started in was mid-summer- but as he swims on, the season seemingly changes into autumn. So maybe he swims in the warp, but at the same time his life is still passing and his illness is progressing. At the very end of the book, it seems his life is at it’s end and his house is gone- and there is no sign of his family anywhere. If the warp is true, then maybe his wife passed away in the process as well.
All in all, I think the story represents the type of crisis that Mom went through- the fun, innocent days of happiness, the downfall and the strive to keep plugging on, and finally, her death because of what was so “fun” in the beginning. In fact, Neddy kind of represents Mom in my opinion- she lost friends, dignity, AND memory because of her illness. She also lost her family and her home- it all ties in; the story is clearly showing a story of an alcoholic and perhaps even the deteriorating marriage.
Perhaps you were right too- maybe it was a nervous breakdown BECAUSE of the deteriorating marriage which was CAUSED by the alcohol! BAM! Wow, deciphering this stuff is actually really fun once you figure it out (and get help from you). We should do this some time for fun- is there an after school club for this? Anyways, I really enjoyed the story and I enjoy my own version of what happened even better than yours.
Maddie
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
The End of Atlas Shrugged
The End of Atlas Shrugged- My Thoughts
By Madison Nef
By Madison Nef
The end of the book was actually my favorite part- and not because it was THE END OF THE BOOK. Basically, Dagny crashes into a “paradise” of sorts while tailing John Galt- and awakens to meet Galt helping her up. She is told that the place she has found is Galt’s Gulch- a place where hardworking people can stay. Galt is essentially building his own colony- he visits people, often heads of major factories that are needed by the US and tells them about his paradise. He tells them that they are free to take up any job they like in the Gulch, except they must not share ANYTHING they do or find out with the outside world- such as cures for diseases, new musical pieces, etc.
The currency isn’t paper money- it is gold, minted by Midas Mulligan, who founded Galt’s Gulch. The people living in the Gulch live protected by heat reflectors that keep the Gulch hidden from the naked eye, and everything is camouflaged. Everyone living there has their own house, own job that contributes to the community, and pretty much can live freely- no encroachment from the government forcing them to give up their new inventions or discoveries at a lower price than they are worth and no weak public demanding and leeching off of their profits.
Even though the country was pretty much driving away and being unappreciative of these companies, as the owners started disappearing, there came great worry- who would produce oil? Who would run the trains? What about copper? Galt finally took over a broadcast and pretty much told everyone listening that they had messed up- big time. They were already driving out the resources they needed, and now saw that they DID need them. Galt reminded them that they were depending on money and the thoughts of other men to do all their work for them while at the same time, not treating them right. He said that he had shown them another way to live and offered them a chance to live like that- and they had chosen his way of life.
“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” - John Galt
After the speech, Galt is arrested- but refuses to bargain with the country, and riots soon commence when more and more company head leave. The country falls into shambles- as Galt had said. He is begged to help lead the country, but even after torture he refuses. He is soon rescued by the people of his Gulch, led by Dagny in a final armed confrontation with his guards. After Galt is rescued, everyone returns to Galt’s Gulch where Dagny finally agrees to join Galt and his followers on “strike”. As the last trains leave for Galt’s Gulch, Eddie Willers is left behind- refusing to give up on the train lines and of the socialistic country, insisting that Taggart Transcontinental can be saved. Back in the Gulch, plans are being put together about how to rebuild the country, and the book ends with Galt looking out over the shut down country and saying: “The road is cleared. We are going back to the world.”
The book was awesome. The reason the ending was my favorite was mainly because of the speech Galt gave. Had I been a business owner in the time period Rand describes in her book, I too would have gone with Galt. Naturally, now there is too much technology for a place like Galt’s Gulch to exist- but it would be great if it did. Had someone in the past actually taken Rand’s book as a warning and commenced her idea, the country could well have been something quite different from the way it is now- and by “different” I mean better.
Friday, June 6, 2014
Atlas Shrugged
Thoughts on Atlas Shrugged
By Madison Nef
I want to start out by saying what a GREAT book Atlas Shrugged was. At first, I thought I wouldn’t like it (judging by its length and by the opening chapters). However, once I got past about the 1st part of the book, I began to like it a bit better. But as with every great book, it had its fatal flaws. One of them, in fact the one that I thought ruined the book, was the main character’s personality. I didn’t like the fact that Rand put so much emphasis on- almost ENCOURAGED- cheating on one’s partner.
I think that the point was completely unnecessary to make the point of the book. It DID give Lillian a reason to blackmail Dagny, but in my opinion, Rand could have found a better point, such as a business scandal (being that was the theme of her book anyway: a corrupt government). I think that apart from that one negative, Dagny was actually a very good character. The only good thing I can say about putting that into the book was that it added a LITTLE more depth to both of the characters and showed that even people with better, higher lives have their flaws.
“Thought—he told himself quietly—is a weapon one uses in order to act... Thought is the tool by which one makes a choice... Thought sets one's purpose and the way to reach it.” - Hank Rearden
Every piece of the book I read seemed to represent a different part of Rand’s philosophy, starting with the tree described by Willers in the beginning of the book- something that he trusted in and thought was true and whole ended up being weak, shallow and empty. I see this as a reference to the government- something that many people are FORCED to place their trust in, and yet truly is shallow and weak. It shows the lies that the government feeds us and the false image of protection that they give us.
Rearden Metal is the next reference I noticed. I think that Rand is trying to show that Rearden is being an individual- breaking free from communism by denying the government rights to his metal. Rand had previously stated that obedience, conformity, submission and alikeness were necessary to have a communist country- and Rearden showed none of this, therefore rejecting communism. He was proud of the metal he had created, and regardless of how much money was offered for it, refused to sell the right or even the metal itself to the government.
In the book, Rearden says this: “There might be some sort of justification for the savage societies in which a man had to expect that enemies could murder him at any moment and had to defend himself as best he could. But there can be no justification for a society in which a man is expected to manufacture the weapons for his own murderers” when he is not allowed to know for what experiments his metal will be used in. Obviously, Rearden figured that the government was using his metal to make powerful machines or weapons to keep people in check. He at LEAST wanted to know what his metal would be used for if he was to sell the rights to it to the government.
“If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but immoral when experienced by you?... Why is it immoral for your to desire, but moral for others to do so? Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away?” - John Galt
The largest reference in my opinion was the tramp on the train’s story. The story tells of the tramp’s previous job and life and how unfair the factory had been. It is a HUGE reference to both socialism and communism in my opinion. Basically, the factory workers were all on the same pay, and being paid as the OWNER of the company saw fit to their needs. Poor people worked hard- only so that the rich people who had enough money to take care of themselves could mooch off of the company, cutting the poor people’s paychecks down.
Factory workers soon knew how to manipulate the owners of the company to give them more money- they brought in relatives to live with them, got “sick”, among other things. While the company was getting gypped, poorer people (who were working very hard) were being given less and less money for their enjoyment- not even being allowed enough to get a drink. Soon, the workers got enraged- and when it seemed that a “sick” person needed medical attention, they would suddenly “disappear”. Murder was never suspected, but it was highly likely.
“Your mind is your only judge of truth–and if others dissent from your verdict, reality is the court of final appeal.”- John Galt
Yet ANOTHER reference (and this one almost slipped by me) is the town just outside of the old factory where Dagny and Hank found the motor. When Hank tries to buy information off of a man in the town, the man refuses, saying that money is of no use to him. Hank is shocked, and asks the man why- to which the man replies that the people of that town trade goods with one another. This is a semi-capitalist argument- capitalists believe in letting people have free trade and naming their prices based on what the item is ACTUALLY worth.
“Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value.” - Francisco d’Aconia
Speaking of d’Aconia- in a very LONG speech he did in the book on money, he pretty much covered most of Rand’s philosophy.
“Money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality–the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.”
d’Aconia drove home the point that instead of money being the source of all evil, it was in fact the source of good. Personally, I think his argument was correct- without money, I don’t think our world would even KNOW how to begin to function. Everything and everyone depends on money and honestly, it shouldn’t. We say money is the root of all evil when we ourselves created it- and it is we ourselves who MADE it evil.
“So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?”
d’Aconia’s point throughout the whole speech was basically that while many think that money is the root of all evil, we are placing the blame in the wrong place. Money itself isn’t evil- it is what a man DOES with his money that is evil. This isn’t to say that because you have money you will be evil- but what you DO with your money is what makes you evil.
“Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another–their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun. ...Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they’ve passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter. ...”
I think that Rand also through some political references into the speech- such as “...It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money...” I think she is referring to the government as the “looters” and the people that receive what they have not earned (such as the people in the factory) the “moochers”. Why do I think this? Because in that same paragraph d’Aconia also says “Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor–your claim upon the energy of the men who produce.”
d’Aconia is basically saying that no matter how much money you have, it won’t keep you alive- especially if it loses its value after being exploited too much. As mentioned in the quote above- money is sought out by looters to the extent that money is no longer an item of trade- but a token in war. No longer does anyone care about how WELL someone can actually do their craft- all that matters is that they produce money. Suddenly, all that matters is who has the biggest bank account and the fattest wallet- not how they obtained their money.
“Money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver.”
“Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants: money will not give him a code of values, if he’s evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he’s evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?”
I think that the world today has become obsessed with money- prices are increasing and more and more money is being printed every day. We really have become a socialist/communist country... and it is sad. “Looters” have taken so much money and left us with nothing... money is slowly losing its value, and this will only lead to economic collapse. I truly believe that Rand foresaw this coming- even in the years she wrote the book. If it was that bad back then, think of how bad it is now!
The speech, now that I have actually taken the time to read it, is very wise and overall one of the best parts of the book. All in all, Atlas Shrugged was a very insightful book for me and I would recommend it to everyone who likes to read. I hope you enjoyed my paper.
Maddie
By Madison Nef
I want to start out by saying what a GREAT book Atlas Shrugged was. At first, I thought I wouldn’t like it (judging by its length and by the opening chapters). However, once I got past about the 1st part of the book, I began to like it a bit better. But as with every great book, it had its fatal flaws. One of them, in fact the one that I thought ruined the book, was the main character’s personality. I didn’t like the fact that Rand put so much emphasis on- almost ENCOURAGED- cheating on one’s partner.
I think that the point was completely unnecessary to make the point of the book. It DID give Lillian a reason to blackmail Dagny, but in my opinion, Rand could have found a better point, such as a business scandal (being that was the theme of her book anyway: a corrupt government). I think that apart from that one negative, Dagny was actually a very good character. The only good thing I can say about putting that into the book was that it added a LITTLE more depth to both of the characters and showed that even people with better, higher lives have their flaws.
“Thought—he told himself quietly—is a weapon one uses in order to act... Thought is the tool by which one makes a choice... Thought sets one's purpose and the way to reach it.” - Hank Rearden
Every piece of the book I read seemed to represent a different part of Rand’s philosophy, starting with the tree described by Willers in the beginning of the book- something that he trusted in and thought was true and whole ended up being weak, shallow and empty. I see this as a reference to the government- something that many people are FORCED to place their trust in, and yet truly is shallow and weak. It shows the lies that the government feeds us and the false image of protection that they give us.
Rearden Metal is the next reference I noticed. I think that Rand is trying to show that Rearden is being an individual- breaking free from communism by denying the government rights to his metal. Rand had previously stated that obedience, conformity, submission and alikeness were necessary to have a communist country- and Rearden showed none of this, therefore rejecting communism. He was proud of the metal he had created, and regardless of how much money was offered for it, refused to sell the right or even the metal itself to the government.
In the book, Rearden says this: “There might be some sort of justification for the savage societies in which a man had to expect that enemies could murder him at any moment and had to defend himself as best he could. But there can be no justification for a society in which a man is expected to manufacture the weapons for his own murderers” when he is not allowed to know for what experiments his metal will be used in. Obviously, Rearden figured that the government was using his metal to make powerful machines or weapons to keep people in check. He at LEAST wanted to know what his metal would be used for if he was to sell the rights to it to the government.
“If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but immoral when experienced by you?... Why is it immoral for your to desire, but moral for others to do so? Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away?” - John Galt
The largest reference in my opinion was the tramp on the train’s story. The story tells of the tramp’s previous job and life and how unfair the factory had been. It is a HUGE reference to both socialism and communism in my opinion. Basically, the factory workers were all on the same pay, and being paid as the OWNER of the company saw fit to their needs. Poor people worked hard- only so that the rich people who had enough money to take care of themselves could mooch off of the company, cutting the poor people’s paychecks down.
Factory workers soon knew how to manipulate the owners of the company to give them more money- they brought in relatives to live with them, got “sick”, among other things. While the company was getting gypped, poorer people (who were working very hard) were being given less and less money for their enjoyment- not even being allowed enough to get a drink. Soon, the workers got enraged- and when it seemed that a “sick” person needed medical attention, they would suddenly “disappear”. Murder was never suspected, but it was highly likely.
“Your mind is your only judge of truth–and if others dissent from your verdict, reality is the court of final appeal.”- John Galt
Yet ANOTHER reference (and this one almost slipped by me) is the town just outside of the old factory where Dagny and Hank found the motor. When Hank tries to buy information off of a man in the town, the man refuses, saying that money is of no use to him. Hank is shocked, and asks the man why- to which the man replies that the people of that town trade goods with one another. This is a semi-capitalist argument- capitalists believe in letting people have free trade and naming their prices based on what the item is ACTUALLY worth.
“Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value.” - Francisco d’Aconia
Speaking of d’Aconia- in a very LONG speech he did in the book on money, he pretty much covered most of Rand’s philosophy.
“Money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality–the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.”
d’Aconia drove home the point that instead of money being the source of all evil, it was in fact the source of good. Personally, I think his argument was correct- without money, I don’t think our world would even KNOW how to begin to function. Everything and everyone depends on money and honestly, it shouldn’t. We say money is the root of all evil when we ourselves created it- and it is we ourselves who MADE it evil.
“So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?”
d’Aconia’s point throughout the whole speech was basically that while many think that money is the root of all evil, we are placing the blame in the wrong place. Money itself isn’t evil- it is what a man DOES with his money that is evil. This isn’t to say that because you have money you will be evil- but what you DO with your money is what makes you evil.
“Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another–their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun. ...Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they’ve passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter. ...”
I think that Rand also through some political references into the speech- such as “...It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money...” I think she is referring to the government as the “looters” and the people that receive what they have not earned (such as the people in the factory) the “moochers”. Why do I think this? Because in that same paragraph d’Aconia also says “Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor–your claim upon the energy of the men who produce.”
d’Aconia is basically saying that no matter how much money you have, it won’t keep you alive- especially if it loses its value after being exploited too much. As mentioned in the quote above- money is sought out by looters to the extent that money is no longer an item of trade- but a token in war. No longer does anyone care about how WELL someone can actually do their craft- all that matters is that they produce money. Suddenly, all that matters is who has the biggest bank account and the fattest wallet- not how they obtained their money.
“Money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver.”
“Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants: money will not give him a code of values, if he’s evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he’s evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?”
I think that the world today has become obsessed with money- prices are increasing and more and more money is being printed every day. We really have become a socialist/communist country... and it is sad. “Looters” have taken so much money and left us with nothing... money is slowly losing its value, and this will only lead to economic collapse. I truly believe that Rand foresaw this coming- even in the years she wrote the book. If it was that bad back then, think of how bad it is now!
The speech, now that I have actually taken the time to read it, is very wise and overall one of the best parts of the book. All in all, Atlas Shrugged was a very insightful book for me and I would recommend it to everyone who likes to read. I hope you enjoyed my paper.
Maddie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)