Our First FReeper Book Club: Atlas Shrugged

A Publius Essay | 15 January 2009 | Publius

[Publius]

Over the past few weeks, Ayn Rand’s classic, Atlas Shrugged, has been mentioned in articles in the Wall Street Journal and among conservative and libertarian bloggers. Two questions are being debated by those who have read the book.

1. Are we living in a time line that follows the book?
2. What chapter are we in?

Besides those who have read the book, there are FReepers with little awareness of Rand and her work. Some are turned off by the length of her works of fiction. Some of a more religious bent have problems with Rand’s atheism. Some wish she had left the few sex scenes out. Some just think she’s a bad writer.

I would like to propose our first FReeper Book Club effort: A chance for a group of us to read Atlas Shrugged together, both old hands and newcomers to the book. Once this effort settles in, I or others might want to start FReeper Book Clubs dedicated to Forrest McDonald’s States’ Rights and the Union, or Alexis de Toqueville’s Democracy in America. I like the idea of an interleaved reading of both the “Federalist Papers” and “Anti-Federalist Papers” together in strict chronological order so as to see the point and counterpoint of the debate over the Constitution. I’ve picked Atlas Shrugged for starters because it’s a hot topic and it’s fun. Once we get into the habit of reading and discussing together, we can tackle the heavier stuff.

The book is divided into 30 chapters. I propose to post a thread on one chapter every Saturday, which would make 30 threads over a period of 30 weeks to cover the entire book. I’ll provide a short synopsis of the chapter, expound on certain themes and raise questions to stimulate debate. If FReeper Book Club members feel that a faster pace is better, we can settle on one.

Atlas and Me

I came to Atlas Shrugged via the usual method: I read it in high school. The bully who sat behind me and enjoyed pounding me at the Catholic prep school I attended in New Jersey exposed me to the book by hitting me on the head with it. Its weight made an immediate impression. Our sophomore English teacher was not teaching the book, and he suggested that the bully pound me with something of lesser weight, such as The Red Badge of Courage.

The English teacher panned the book, stating that it was the kind of book an immature person might enjoy, but a mature adult with experience of the world could not take Rand seriously. The solutions proposed by Atlas Shrugged were not realistic.

The vice principal, a priest from Brooklyn who believed in FDR, JFK, LBJ and God, in that order, excoriated Rand for writing “an anti-Christian epic” and broadly hinted that the bully was sinning by reading it. Better to hit someone over the head with it. The solutions proposed by Atlas Shrugged were evil.

I read the book anyway.

The Strange World of Atlas Shrugged

Rand’s book was written between 1945 and 1956 and published in 1957. During the postwar years, America saw massive changes in society and technology, and the shape of world politics shifted mightily. None of this is reflected in the book. Some of the differences between Rand’s world and our own are rather egregious and require comment.

• There was no Cold War. Nation after nation accepted some form of socialism without argument and took the title of “People’s State”. America drifted more slowly into socialism, and the book can be viewed as the story of how two brave entrepreneurs fought the final plunge into the abyss.
• America was frozen in time with respect to culture and technology. Television did not replace radio. Live classical music was still played on network radio.
• The Interstate Highway System, proposed by Eisenhower in 1956, was never built. This was the largest and greatest accomplishment of American socialism on our time line, but Rand didn’t see it coming. In the book, America was connected by a network of decaying two-lane roads.
• Commercial air travel did not take off. There is a hint that airlines were operating their own separate airports just as railroads operated their own separate stations before the concept of “union” stations came along in the Twenties. An executive who needed to fly got a pilot’s license and flew his own private plane.
• Railroads were still the main form of transportation, and passenger rail was thriving! Rand never thought of nationalizing passenger trains by creating Amtrak. The conversion from steam to diesel locomotives, a major event in railroading in the Fifties on our time line, went much more slowly in the book. Coal- and even wood-fired steam locomotives still plied the rails. Radio was not used in communication, instead relying on the older technology of telegraphs and phone boxes.
• Outside the cities, it was hard to find a place to make a long distance telephone call.
• American heavy industry did not flee the country to escape high labor costs because the rest of the world had preceded us into communism.
• Good industrialists branded their companies with their own names, such as Wyatt Oil, Rearden Steel, d’Anconia Copper and Mulligan Bank. Bad industrialists hid behind corporate names such as Associated Steel.
• Congress was now called the National Legislature, and the President was now called the Head of State. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment was even less operative than in our own time. Great violence had obviously been done to the Constitution. All power was vested in bureaucrats
• The can-do spirit of America was crushed. The ubiquitous cry of frustration was, “Who is John Galt?” In other words, “How can anyone hope to make anything better?” A key difference between America and the Third World has always been that when something breaks in America, it gets fixed expeditiously. Maintenance is understood and valued. In the Third World, it either never gets fixed, or it’s fixed when somebody damn well pleases. In the book, America was Third World.

The easiest way to explain these anomalies is to say that Rand lacked the scientific background to project technological change and simply dealt with the technology of her era while projecting political change. But then how did she project the use of ultrasound for Project Xylophone and the holographic projection that protected Galt’s Gulch? There is a strange mix of the old and the new. What marks a total departure from our reality is the change in politics and in the American character.

One can accept all this as artist’s license, but I tried to come up with my own logic for how Rand’s America came to this pass.

Alternative History: Trying the Harry Turtledove Approach

If one wanted to create an alternative history for the universe of Atlas Shrugged, one could start with the 4-way election of 1948. In this alternative history, Henry Wallace won the race, defeating Truman, Dewey and Thurmond, establishing a Labor government on the British model in America. The warning voices of Martin Dies, John Bricker, Joseph McCarthy and Richard Nixon were stilled.

Wallace wanted no cold war with the Soviets, and with the quick withdrawal of American forces from Europe, Germany was reunified under a communist People’s State government. The Soviet Union, now the People’s State of Russia, never geared up for war, settling instead for passive mediocrity. Britain never rejected Clement Atlee, and with the abolition of the monarchy and the establishment of a written constitution on the German model, the People’s State of England replaced the United Kingdom. In France, De Gaulle never came to power, and the Fourth Republic morphed into the People’s State of France.

In the Western Hemisphere, figures similar to Fidel Castro established the People’s State of Mexico and other communist countries in Central and South America.

America did not go all the way to People’s State status, however, although intellectuals worked hard toward that end. Instead, America became a gray, downtrodden country accepting an atmosphere of sad decay, much like England today. Americans accepted that things were hopeless and that nothing could be done. Feelings replaced facts. The very nature of reality was questioned.

It took only a decade of economic stasis, misguided politics and cultural pollution to create the hell described by Rand.

Some Thoughts on the Movie

A scriptwriter would have a hard time shrinking the story to fill a two or three hour time slot even if all the long speeches were eliminated. A miniseries for television would have served the book better.

This effort would be a production designer’s dream. I would point to John Vallone, who handled production design for Walter Hill’s 1984 classic, “Streets of Fire”. Vallone created a fascinating mix of Fifties and Eighties that had no parallel in real time. Something in the same vein would make the movie memorable, rather than setting it in the present or a future that looks like the present.

Let’s Get Started

I will build a ping list for our FReeper Book Club, so sign in on this thread. I’ll use the keyword “freeperbookclub” to mark these threads as they are posted.

Welcome to our first effort. Prepare to read and discuss.

[maine-iac7]

The only thing that breaks my heart is that Ms. Rand was an atheist

Her personal life was a mess. I suspicion she saw herself as a tall, gorgeous blond like her heroines - but trapped in a short, dumpy, dark homely body.

That said, if we judged/read books by the private lives of the authors rather than the content of the books, we'd miss a lot of valuable information/insight.

[RaceBannon]

http://www.rooseveltmyth.com/book/hbzfrm.htm

[GOP Poet]

Absolutely! :-D

[TheThinker]

Maybe someone should translate Rand's work so that it is more prosaic.

[RaceBannon]

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=liberal+facism&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#

Jonah Goldberg on Google Video discussing Liberal Facism

[Lou L]

It should be stated that most mere mortals are unable to finish the final speech.

This mortal's read the book at least a half-dozen times, and I still skim that last speech. For all the efficiency of purpose that Rand admires, I can't believe she couldn't reduce her speeches somewhat, certainly that one.

But add me to the list.

[Liberty Valance]

"You can enjoy it by marking and skipping the soliloquies. Go back and read them when you’re done."

Great idea! Thanks. Thats probably where i got hung up last time.

[SuperLuminal]

Include me, please.

[CottonBall]

Oh, what fun! Please sign me up.

However, I still need to order the book. So I’ll be catching up.

[maine-iac7]

Fountainhead was made into a movie years ago

'got the tape. My favorite Cooper role - and Patricia Neal was perfect as Dominique - Even Raymond Massey was good.

Powerful movie - but even tho' Rand had a lot of say in it's filming, she was still unhappy - and didn't want Hollywood to get it's hands on "Atlas"

[Txsleuth]

There are also Cliff’s Notes of Atlas Shrugged.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Wow! Great timing. Please sign me up!!

[Real Cynic No More]

In the book, America was connected by a network of decaying two-lane roads.

Well,now we're connectged by a network of decaying two-lane roads, downtown streets, major river crossings, interstate highways, and all kinds of infrastructure operated by ... - drum roll - ... government or quasi-government agencies. And how are state DOTs and other groups trying to get out of the mess? By privatizing the maintenance and operation of such facilities.

Ayn Rand may have missed some details of being able to predict what happened, but she certainly got it correct about the core understanding of liberalism/socialism v private ownership and passion for success.

I read Atlas Shrugged about 8 years or so ago, because my son was reading it in high school. He had never, and I mean never, been interested in fiction up to that point. The battle for socialism is now at an all-time high, and the actions taken by Pelosi in the House are going to really (I hope) increase the understanding by the public. Unfortunately, it takes years sometimes to see the impacts of actions taken, and by then the negative results will be blamed on something else unrelated to the actual cause, to-wit: "global warming".

I'm interested. Put me on your list.

[CSM]

I have the Italian production of “We the Living.” It was made by the fascists and they were all proud of it, in addition it was also produced without Rand’s knowledge or authorization. When she finally got her hands on it, she was surprised at how accurately the fascists had been. She said something to the effect that if she had directed and produced it she couldn’t imagine it would have been better.

I find it comical that the fascists produced such an accurate rendering of “We the Living” while never realizing that they were producing a movie that was actually anti-fascism.

[SpaceBar]

Big fan of Rand’s works. For those looking to purchase them, I’d recommend the Signet publications available at all major bookstores, since they are affordable (no frills paperback), and small enough to tote around. Second, we are presently near the beginning of the book where Dagney notices that there is a general malaise of the economy but can’t quite put her finger on it. Third, I find Rand’s character development refreshing in this day of boilerplate tv/cinema where all you need to create a hero is a gun and some shaving stubble.

[maine-iac7]

we are in the preface when someone should be establishing a Galts Gulch .... so whats taking so long?

and what makes you think there aren't several already well established? They wouldn't exactly be advertising rentals...

[Taffini]

The character from the Fountainhead, Lois Cook, do you remember her? She wanted to own the ugliest house in NY. She wrote nonsense poetry and was lauded by the critics and revered by the idiot public.

Who would play Lois Cook?
Rosie O’Donnel?
Roseann Barr?
Barbara Mikulski?

[maine-iac7]

The Makers & The Takers

http://www.amazon.com/Makers-Takers-conservatives-generously-materialistic/dp/038551350X

[ADemocratNoMore]

I'm just about at the end, after reading it for the first time and would very much like to discuss it with my fellow Freepers. Please add me to your ping list.

[Lou L]

The only thing that breaks my heart is that Ms. Rand was an atheist.

I diverge with Ms. Rand on that one too. What's interesting--and I believe she uses the "A is A" argument against the existence of God--just as she does justifying abortion; i.e., "a fetus is not a human being, so abortion is not wrong."

I could be paraphrasing, and I could be completely mistaken in my recollection about this. Please enlightenn me.