Capitol Hill Blue Forums Misc. Topics Book, Movie & Podcast Reviews my own book page

This year's Newberry is in my B&N.com order that should arrive tomorrow.

It's funny but I took in Rand's Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged as political documentaries. So much of what she wrote had puzzled me back when I was learning about the Constitution and our Bill of Rights. I would read the words of our founders and be unable to locate them in the governments from the late 50s through the 60s. I was very aware of the pressure from the majority of people that hurt the new thinkers of the era that she wrote about. She was warning us of the power of the masses within a Democracy. The acceptance of that which we were told were good things upset me badly and I finally saw her points.

Rand's style has been criticized because her heroes are found in her own ideal people. Hank Reardon and Howard Rourke were her ideals and she used them to demonstrate their lasting power that overshadowed the ignorance of the government, local in Fountainhead and Federal in Shrugged.

She was the spokesman for individual freedoms and no one has since done such a fabulous job. She walks over the subject of faith and ignores the superstitions of the religious masses. That has turned the Christians against her but not a day goes by that her name is not spoken in awe of her essays and novels.

About every 10 years I reread Shrugged as a renewal of my own desires for a governmenr based on freedoms not silly prohibitions. Sadly many who respect her writings tend to over analyze her words. It has brought many people into missing the points whe wanted emphasized. That is what is so interesting about Rand is that just about everyone has a opinion on her subjects. I remember when her essay "The Virtue of Selfishness" was in print and the religious masses wanted every charitiable action done in the name of God and Rand spoke out that it in most cases these actions were done because it brought joy to the giving person. I never did convince my mother that doing for others was done as an offer of love not as a deed to prove something to God. She did not have the mind set to read Rand and she was annoyed that both my girls read both books including her book of essays.

My planned review of five books in five days was going to be a sentence or two short.

The Alpine Recluse by Mary Daheim
Set Sail for Murder by Carolyn Hart
The Alpine Scandal by Mary Daheim
Twelve Sharp by Janet Evanovich
and Lean Mean Thirteen by Janet Evanovich

All of these books are of the genre of cozy mysteries. They have continuing characters that are endearing and quirky. The main characters frients are always interesting to say the least. Reading these books is my version of spending time with characters I like in a weekly sit com.

Although in reality I think I remember plots in sitcoms a litttle longer than I do the plots in these books.

Still I purchase them and read them. It is called ESCAPE.

I did like LEAN, MEAN THIRTEEN which is the latest Stephanie Plum novel because of two scenarios that I found enjoyable.

Stephanie wants to take in a petty criminal to re-bond him but this man cannot leave his house for fear the cable company might one day listen to his appeal to fix the cable leading into his house and if by chance, the company would come and this petty crook would not be at home, his appeal would loop to the back of the requests and he would NEVER EVER get the quality internet access he desires.....Haven't we all been there?

Stephanie's other shout out was for a company that I greatly respect: COSTCO. Stephanie is faced with an empty stomach and empty pocketbook, so with her COSTCO card she grazes until her belly is full at the free samples along the warehouse isles.

I love to shop COSTCO around the noon hour.

Kathy

Sandy,
My "review" of Atlas Shrugged will probably cover a lot of ground. I'm very glad I've read the three of hers and I'm very glad I read them in the order I did. I think the most pleasant surprise I've had with Rand is what a good storyteller she is. In AS when the story was heading toward the train crash, I couldn't put it down. But when she "landed" in happy valley and all the super businessmen would talk out their views, I was bored silly. I got the point long before they stopped talking about it. Now, however, Dagny (sp?) is back out in the world where the idiots are taking over. There's conflict and action, and I'm a happy listener.

Kathy,
Literature as escape. Hummm. Squack! Does not compute FOR ME and I imagine the problem is too many years and courses as a drama and English major. Part of my enjoyment is ferreting out the writer's take on things and how he/she presents it through plot, character, thought, etc. I guess you can take the girl out of the literary analysis, but you can't take the literary analysis out of the girl. I mean, I see the 87th precinct novels as escape but I can't help analyzing them. Your approach is probably better. Mine probably leads to insanity. Out, out damned metaphor!

You need to talk about books with Pat Blackman. She's given up on me, too.

Can I go to COSTCO with you for lunch?

I was a library science major. I had to read ALL the Caldicott and Newberry books....read, contrast, compare. I like finding "gems" in the books I read but not reading just for brain expansion. I'm glad I forced myself to read THE PATH for instance but I can't say that I look back to that trip as one of pleasure.

Martha, now that I'm not afraid of driving your WALL DRUG Nimbus 1000 we can go to lunch anywhere.

I started the 1964 Newberry Book -- I think it's called "It's Like That Cat." I confess I put it down to finish a book with the terrible title "Wed and Buried."

I'm hopeless.....

Kathy

Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is done; all 42 discs have been listened to. Now where to begin? Oh, where to begin? This review will have to be different from my normal format because I realized early on that when you listen to a book, there aren't any pages to dog-ear. Obviously I'm going to have to deal with broad strokes, so:

Almost a week ago I attended an ice cream breakfast, given by a fellow garden home owner here in the retirement community. I started off with my customary social charm, trying to think of responses when other ladies talked about their grandchildren, churches and conservative beliefs. So there I was, winning friends and influencing people, when one lady actually started a conversation about books. The heavens opened; I was in my element. I acknowledged that I was currently "reading" Atlas Shrugged. The lady helped me along by saying that surely I was reading it again. Nope. I said I'd never read it before. She asked why? I opened my mouth to say, "I was an English major. English majors don't read Ayn Rand." But before I had taken a breath of air, I realized how snotty the remark sounded and stopped myself. Now, a week later, is it still snotty? Yes. But it's also a great way to start a review.

English majors don't read Ayn Rand, at least not as part of any course curriculum. (Actually they may do so now, but I'm talking early sixties.) So, let's say it's a true statement. But is it a valid statement? Let's see.

Sandy said she reads the Rand novels every few years as political treatises. No argument there; they are that. And in that regard they present Rand's political views clearly. (Assuming, of course, that I'm understanding what she's saying.) So do I buy into her views? I've never been that crazy about characters that, IMHO, personify the ubermensch. (Boy, am I surprised that Wikipedia doesn't list Atlas Shrugged as an example of the ubermensch in recent literature. I sure think it belongs there. Do I have another subject for a doctoral dissertation? Alas, no. My heart remains with the 87th precinct.) The problem I have with such ubermensch characters in literature is there's no room for growth or development. Rand's characters—the good guys—start out as perfect and spend the book explaining why they are perfect. The idiots, on the other hand, do stupid things and never realize the stupidity of what they're doing. I will grant, however, that they're fun to read about. To me the best parts of Atlas Shrugged were when the government morons were messing up what the industrialists had built.

Related to character, I think Rand missed the boat with a character named Cheryl. She's married to Dagny's brother and eventually learns that truth and honor rest with Dagny, not her brother. Sad to say, IMHO, Cheryl learns this and four pages later Rand kills her off. I was sorry to see her go, in no small part because she illustrated to me what novels do best. Actually, I think the two above paragraphs support why English majors don't read Rand. The reader learns a great deal about political theory but, IMHO, very little about humanity and even less about how novels are put together and work.

The other area where Rand drives me crazy is her heroines' approach to sex. Good sex is violent; good sex is degrading. Sorry. Dominance/submission has never held any appeal for me, particularly the submissive side.

Finally, putting all the above aside, I'm really glad I've read her books. When her characters aren't in bed or aren't expounding on how the world should be, Rand can tell a gripping story. That's most likely what I'm going to remember.

Martha. I told you that Rand does not write about people like you or me, she writes about ideal people. She doesnt have time to have her characters change and develop into the kind of people we would understand. She writes her ideals and allows the reader to follow or shut down. I loved Cheryl and she was a tragic character and many universities use her character to discuss Rand's writings.

It may be a global thing but UCLA, USC, Stanford, Berkeley and even smaller private universities all discussed Rand in the 60s.
I took a class on Rand at UCLA along with "Whose Afraid of Virginia Wolf?" In 1980, at Berkeley, Dr. Leonard Piekoff who was Rand's heir and the keeper of Rand's papers did a class at Berkeley and the class filled up in 15 minutes after it was posted. I will admit that the Western States love new thinkers and new approaches to all subjects. Yes, Rand wrote of violent sex but it turns loving and that may be a hint to her own nature. Maybe if you had been raised in the West instead of the South you might understand the meaning of Rand and Objectivism.

I'm often insulted with Hemmingway for the same reason you fault Rand. The human mind and body is so diverse that we should never try to put them or ourselves in any category. You never mentioned John Galt's speech. On many occasions I will re read this speech and it makes everything else I read insignificant. I read this book for the first time when I realized I may have married the wrong man. She gave me the strength to live on my own agenda and ignore the cheap tricks I found in my own home. My own morals never changed and I accepted the fact that my husband was a simple hypocrite. I did not consult him again in my plans for the kids. We ignored him and we ended up just fine. Rand has been my moral guide all these years and helped me get over the fact that I did not have to believe in God to be a whole person.

Men seldom read Rand as they cannot understand what she is. I saw her interact with her husband and it was a beautiful thing to see. She had a fling with another man but it meant nothing in the long run and he used her celebrity for his own financial gain. So what?

I have a belief that might upset you but I believe Rand wrote for people like me who are always searching for the ideal in life and not people like you who have a different plan for life. I'm certain you are serene in your life and I might be considered a wreck. So what?

I was raised in Marin County and Silver Spring, Maryland. I did college in Ohio and Indiana. On my own I did 2 years of NYC, then moved to Huntsville. The south mystifies me.

I didn't mention his speech because, for me, not making any other judgment, it was way too long. When he said (paraphrasing), "For two hours you've not been understanding me" my reaction was "No, for two hours you've been boring me."

I think I do understand some aspects of Objectivism. Just because I don't wholeheartedly embrace a philosophy doesn't mean I don't understand it. Linda Ellerbee once said she had a history professor that saw history and big events as a river. In his theory some writers, I'd say Rand, write about the river and theevents. Ellerbee went on to say that other literature, her example was THE FANTASTICKS, was about what happened on the banks. I probably identify more closely with what's happening on the banks.

There's a lot in AS and even in John Galt's speech that will stay with me. Everything has two sides, one right and one wrong; evil lies in the middle. I'll be mulling that for a while because, yes, I consider black and white extreme shades of gray.

I think because I have so many doubts myself, I simply don't identify with her types of characters.

Plan in life? Never had one, never will--a truth that probably drove my parents crazy.

Rand in English classes. In my junior year in college I spent a few months in a smart kids' program where we read many of the Utopia novels. All through AS I kept thinking it would have been a good addition to the reading list.

I have no idea what her place on campus is today. Let's face it--it takes a long time for academics to decide anyone is worthy of being included. AS was published in 1957. No way it would be in a midwestern college program in the mid sixties. Even Faulkner barely made it.

And in all sincerity I have to say the followiing. We are just discussing a book as literature,aren't we? We're not getting upset because we don't see it the same way. I hope we're not.

THE GOOD HUSBAND OF ZEBRA DRIVE by Alexander McCall Smith

review: A+

I hope Mr. Smith is getting a salute from the tourism bureau of Botswana. If I ever do a Safari, it would be in this region.

Respectfully Submitted,

Kathy Albers

I had no cosmic plan in mind when I read George Orwell's 1984 right after Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, but they sure have lots in common. Both portray societies where the least common denominator has taken over. Rand's capable individuals escape by creating their own—and much better—society. Sad to say, Orwell's individuals are browbeaten and tortured into thinking and following the party line. But then since Orwell's individuals are nowhere near as self-sufficient as Rand's, their sad end is not surprising.

I also found a similarity in my response to both books. When a story was being told, I enjoyed them. When they wandered off into explanations of government and philosophy, I was bored. Like I said, reading them back to back was interesting.

I had read 1984 years and years ago—back when it was more science fiction than a picture of our current world. The thing that impressed me most this time through was Orwell's semantic approach. Newspeak, the language of Oceania, prides itself on the removal of words. After all, what need is there for the word "freedom," if the concept no longer exists? Conversely, if whatever doesn't exist, there's no need for it to have a symbol. People don't and can't talk about what doesn't exist.

Maybe in another generation or two, I'll read it again and something else will catch my attention. I don't think I'll hold my breath.