The book meme

[lls_mutant]

From various people on my f-list... Pick passages from five of your favorite books. The first book’s passage should come from the fifth page, the second from the tenth, the third from the fifteenth, the fourth from the twentieth, and the fifth from the twenty-fifth. Do not give the titles and see if your flist guesses the books.

1.) There were doors all round the hall, but they were all locked; and when (let's not make it TOO easy) had been all the way down one side and up the other, trying every door, she walked sadly down the middle, wondering how she was ever to get out again. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, guessed by marilla82

2.) I'll bet he's in there making a bomb. Maybe he'll blow up Albert Einstein High School as a senior prank. The Princess Diaries, guessed by happyreaper

3.) "Yes, and Mr. Spriggins the butler is in bed with his trouble again," said Shawn. "There's only me, miss. And I've got to get the dinner started before I'm off 'ome because Mrs. Scorbic is poorly." Lords and Ladies, guessed by katilara

4.) "Forgive my ignorance," said the shaky voice of the old Precentor, "but if I ever knew what the Aurora was, I have forgotten. Is it what they call the Northern Lights?" The Golden Compass, guessed by marilla82 and krislaughs

5.) The Dean wondered why he had promised the professor of mathematis to do all he could for this boy. Merely because the professor had said: "This," and pointed to (blank)'s project; "is a great man." A great man, thought the Dean, or a criminal. The Dean winced. He did not approve of either. The Fountainhead, guessed by ignipes

Comments

[lls-mutant.livejournal.com]

I'm obvious, I guess :)

Just out of honest curiousity and intelligent discussion, what is it you don't like abou Ayn Rand? Style, philosophy, minimal characterization? (I'm not one of those people who insists her writing is perfect, so I'm just asking because I'm curious, not because I'm up in arms to defend her! Heck- her take on sex really disturbs me at times. (Not the philosophical bits about sex, but the fact that every sexual encounter is near-rape to rape, and the woman enjoys it.)

[ignipes.livejournal.com]

Well, the characters never seemed like real people to me, so that was a major turn-off. The writing style itself wasn't such a big deal; she is readable and the stories were engaging.

But more importantly, the philosophy bothered me. I don't like the idea that society ought to be divided into "special people who get things done" and "worthless vermin", with, of course, the special people being the ones who do the dividing. I mean, it's an idea that works well enough if you can place yourself very carefully into the "special people" group, but it's pretty awful if you're the poor security guard who gets murdered by the protagonist just because you had the gall to ask a few questions when you don't know what's going on. We're supposed to root for a character who commits that type of careless murder, as if the person she's killing is no more important than a fly to be swatted out of the way? And support a philosophy that claims that people who disagree are essentially worthless? No, thanks.

I realise it's probably more complicated than I understood when I read it (I read Atlas Shrugged in high school, and I've never read any of her non-fiction), but I remember coming away with a very, very bad feeling about the sort of people Rand seemed to think deserve to be admired, and a very distinct feeling that I wouldn't want to live in any sort of world she imagined.

[lls-mutant.livejournal.com]

Interesting, and actually, I can see where you're coming from.

The character I always identified the most with in Atlas Shrugged was Eddie. He didn't fit into either group... and he ended up dead in the end. (Or good as.) What annoyed me was he DID appreciate the people that JKR is trying to hold up as her ideal. I can definitely see where you're coming from, because I always thought it was pretty shabby of Dagney not to even TELL Eddie about the valley and give him any options, even though she knew his worth.

I read the Fountainhead, first, and I think it's a gentler introduction to her philosophy than Atlas Shrugged is. (I think the characters tend to be a little more human, although I can sympathize too with your complaint that the characters never seem like real people. It was hard to tell the difference between John Galt and Howard Roark, and Dominque Francon was frankly terrifying to me.) But anyway- I think that was when I started distilling her philosophy. I had a teacher who understood it very well, and although I resisted ideas of Rand's at the time, I eventually came to believe in a lot of them to an extent (although I think she shows the extremes and not normal people).

Interesting bits of history (because talking about this is more interesting than reading the book on molecular modelling that I'm meant to be reading): Ayn Rand developed rational objectivism largely as a response to being brought up and escaping Communist Russia. (We the Living is the closest she's written to an autobiography.) I had read The Fountainhead and Anthem in high school, and always meant to read Atlas Shrugged but never got around to it. I finally read it when I spent a month in China. I was admittedly extremely lonely at the time, but more than that, I was in a Communist country. It's not like the Communism truly touched me- I was a student visiting for a month. But what did affect me was the air of the people going to work, and the general attitude of life. Not the religious aspect, but there was something there I couldn't put my finger on- almost an attitude of hopelessness. Not hopelessness. Acceptance, in a way. Until my visit to China, I'd always believed Communism was a beautiful system in theory, but not in practice. Between being there and reading Atlas Shrugged while there... well, let's just say I came home and registered Republican. (Isn't that pathetic? My act of rebellion was to register Republican.) Course, I don't always vote Republican and don't even really consider myself one (I consider myself an Independent, but stay registered Republican so I can vote in primaries), but it was such an interesting shift in myself, brought on by a book and a month in a foreign country.

And can I say that if my kids want to go abroad, they're going? :) Especially to countries that are nothing like our own?

But yeah. I can definitely see your points, especially given the way you read it. (Also, anyone who is a devoted Rand follower does tend to scare me!)

[lls-mutant.livejournal.com]

Um, can you tell I'm obsessed? the people RAND was holding up as idea, not JKR.

[ignipes.livejournal.com]

But it would be really funny if JKR was promoting her wizarding world as an ideal society. Or really scary. Or both. ;)

[lls-mutant.livejournal.com]

LOL. Fortunately, I don't think she's doing that. :) Otherwise fandom would be right that Snape's a sex god, and that just really, REALLY scares me!

[ignipes.livejournal.com]

(although I think she shows the extremes and not normal people)

That's my main problem with it, I think. I did know about her background, coming from and reacting to a communist society. But the way her philosophy is portrayed in her novels, she seems to be advocating the replacement of one brutal, cold society with another that is, in some ways, just as bad.

If the philosophy is advocating a political/social revolution of some sorts, shouldn't what matter be how it affects the normal guy out on the street? The actions of a very elite corps of people -- who are more brilliant, beautiful, charistmatic, and talented than anybody we're every going to meet -- doesn't really demonstrate what anybody has to gain except for those few people.

And on a completely different note, I read Middlemarch during my lonely month in China. Just a little bit of cultural whiplash, there. Funny how travelling in China does that to you. :)

[lls-mutant.livejournal.com]

I think that's one of the reasons that Rational Objectivism takes so much flack. But then, I think in her stories she focuses on the ideal, because they make her point so much better, whereas I find it easier to apply some of her philosophies to every day people like myself- because I sure don't consider myself one of those industrial giants ;)

I actually disagree with a lot of her potrayals of work: her characters tend to work 14 hour days, and y'know what? I'm happy with my 8. I like my job overall, as much as I complain about it, and I'll miss it when I'm done. But there's so many other things that are important in life as well. Of course, I also expect to recieve a salary and whatnot that's appropriate to an 8 hour day- I don't think I should be making more than I am or anything. (Although I WILL argue teachers should make more than they do as a general rule. But that's an entirely different rant.) But her philosophies on deciding things through reason, logic in all things- even and perhaps especially love, and self-interest make sense to me. Those are the things I can work with. Of course, those are in her drier, non fiction works (or the 60 page radio speech that I always skip over in Atlas Shrugged!)

I did appreciate that about the Valley in Atlas Shrugged though. Although I missed Eddie there, I was pleased to see some more "normal" people there- including a housewife. I think her point is that in her ideal society, everyone has control over their own life, as opposed to Communism, where the government had control over everyone's life, and she uses some minor characters to show that to an extent. (Although Eddie's role still baffles me.) I also think for Atlas Shrugged to work, she HAD to focus on the elite, because they were high up enough to make the story work. People like us- normal people- pulling out of society didn't make enough of an impact, really. There's some major logisitcal flaws in if the strike would ever work, anyway, but I guess that's not the point.

In some ways I find her philosophy very cold- particularly in regards to thinking about certain situations- I think she oversimplifies. She doesn't address disability, for example, or people who just flat out get screwed unless they're the big guys. In other ways, there's things I really, really like about her philosophy. I like that she focuses on judging people by their merits instead of gifts they've been given or their connections or whatever, I like the philosophy that each person should be able to rise as high as they work to rise. I love the concept that wealth is the luxury of selection, not accumulation, which was only touched on. I used to think her views on love and earning love were very cold, and then I truly fell in love and I think they're dead on. While "earning" love is kind of cold, I do think people don't truly love without reason, and that true love is the highest form of admiration you can grant someone, and you should never settle for less than someone you can feel that for. However, I also find that her characters never seem to need to work at love, because they're all so perfect and reasoned that they pretty much become mind readers, which does annoy me. I like the notion that everything we do is motivated by self-interest; even things we do for someone else. We do them because we care about that person, and their happiness makes us happy. And I REALLY like the notion that putting ourselves in the service of others- at the mercy of their happiness when they have no claim on us- is a recipe for self destruction. I do think people tend to interpret that very strictly: for example, I do know missionaries I would consider truly happy people. But they do what they do because they value God and human equality, and the concept of this sort of work appeals to them. They like being able to help people. So they aren't acting as slaves for those they're helping, but are serving their own desires as well. Sure, the people they help benefit, but that's the POINT as far as they're concerned.

I've never read Middlemarch, or even really heard about it. What's it about?

[ignipes.livejournal.com]

Middlemarch is by George Eliot, and it's basically 800+ pages of provincial Victorian English life. Marriage, society, morals, families, etc. It's actually a very good novel, but it's definitely a book about people in a very specific time and place.

[marilla82.livejournal.com]

Just have to say, I am with you. I am not fan of Rand. After reading We The Living and The Fountainhead, I was infuriated with her politics and "ideal society". I am not a fan of her characterizations, either. I had trouble connecting with any of the characters in either work.

Not to mention, I am pretty much a socialist at heart, so her libertarian ideals just contradict everything I would like to see in government/society.