Atlas Shrugged Film

For those of you who aren't aware, the first part of the movie version of Atlas Shrugged comes out today. It's one of my all time favorite books, so I'm quite excited about it. In recent weeks, however, I've heard several negative things about the book and the movie that I feel are nothing but biased. In keeping with my "What I've Read" blog, this response is largely coming from Lewis Beale's review of the film in today's N&O.

To begin with, however, I'd like to refer to a situation that occurred a few weeks ago in my History of Literary Criticism class that I feel reflects Beale's view and probably many other people's opinions. For this particular class, I have a brilliant professor. He is extremely well read and has an extensive grasp on the subject matter. This particular day, somehow Atlas Shrugged came up in class. He, along with several others in the class, began talking about how terrible the book was. One argument against the book is Rand's style and voice, which I can't really argue with. In terms of the great literary writers, Rand is merely a footnote, if that. Compared to Steinbeck or Faulkner or whatever "great" author you choose, Rand simply can't compete. (Which is sorta ironic considering her points in The Fountainhead.) Their other criticism, which I feel is in line with Beale's, was about how unrealistic the book is.....I'm sorry, what? "Atlas Shrugged is just too unrealistic." My professor went on to say that Atlas Shrugged is one of those books you read as a 13 year old and think it's a great idea until you become an adult.

I have a couple of problems with this. To begin with, no 13 year old reads that book. No adults read that book. Including myself, I know 4 people who have read the book in its entirety, and I take graduate level classes with English writers and literary experts. Only 4. Though, I suppose my professor has read it, which would be 5. (Which frustrates me more, because once the film is out, people will criticize Rand's ideas who have never read Rand.) My second problem is my professor's (and Beale's)  main critique: The book is too unrealistic. Is Atlas Shrugged unrealistic? To a point, yes. Parts of it are simply impossible. However, let us consider the books that are traditionally praised and part of the "Canon"-1984, Animal Farm, Brave New World, Moby Dick, The Old Man and the Sea,  and one that my professor constantly references: Lord of the Rings, just to name a few. Now I've read the aforementioned books, and I like, to some degree, all of them. Aren't they ALL unrealistic, perhaps even more so than Atlas Shrugged? I don't think Orwell really thought that by 1984 "Big Brother" would be killing and brainwashing people for reading books. I don't think he thought that a farm would actually be overrun with communist talking pigs. I don't think Melville really thought that man's struggle with nature was actually taking place somewhere on the sea with a giant white whale who seems to be in an epic battle with Ahab. Lord of the Rings? Don't even get me started. I have no problem whatsoever with the "unrealistic" portion of these books. They are, after all, called fiction books. The reader understands that the events taking place are taking place within the world that the author's created. In addition, authors often use extreme and unrealistic situations to convey a point. The Old Man and the Sea would really suck if Hemingway had just said "This one guy's hope is tied up in his struggle with this fish, cause he's a fisherman." Why are these "unrealistic" plots accepted in these other works, but not Atlas Shrugged? The only reason I can see, if one looks at the situation logically, is bias.

Now, onto Beale's article. Let me begin by saying I'm not familiar with Beale. I tend to read the movie reviews that I'm interested in, and I don't recall ever seeing Beale before. The paper titles him  a "Correspondent." I don't know what his expertise is or what he usually writes. I tried looking up some of his other reviews, but RottenTomatoes' links are down, and I can't access any of them. (And apparently all movie review links I found are now actually links to RottenTomatoes) Upon reading his review, however, I have several problems with what he's said before I've even seen the film.

He begins by saying that Atlas Shrugged has "three fatal flaws." His first flaw is the plot.  He describes the plot as a "ridiculous, paranoid sci-fi fantasy that only a believer in no-holds barred capitalism could come up with." What was the biggest movie of the past decade? Avatar. Wow. Talk about a realistic movie with no paranoia or political bias.....wait a minute! What about Inception? This film also wasn't paranoid or sci-fi or....wait. Beale's criticism is going to start with the film's genre? Is that an adequate grounds for criticism? If a movie stinks because it's sci-fi, you've just ruled out Star Wars, Blade Runner, Star Trek, Frankenstein, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and E.T. Damn that E.T. Him being so unrealistic- it totally ruined the movie for me. My favorite part of Beale's first "fatal flaw" is this quote "[the bad guys] then try to take him [Rearden] down by pressing the government to pass a law mandating no person can own more than one business. (Really, I'm not making this up.)" Oh really Beale, that's so incredibly hard to believe? More difficult to believe than giant blue  Avatars? Rand was making a point, not saying that the government actually was doing this. Again, authors use fiction works to convey ideas, not to describe things exactly the way they think it will be.

His second "Fatal Flaw" is the screenplay. He says, "Never known for her way with words, Rand was given to speechifying..." Again, I can't really argue against this point. I don't think Rand was the most artistic writer. I also, as I said, haven't seen the film, so I can't have much of an opinion of how the screenplay was written.

His third "Fatal Flaw" is the philosophy of the film. Let me begin by saying that Rand's philosophy is subject to one's own opinion. I'm just not sure if Beale should have included his in what's supposed to be a review of the film. He says "Unfortunately, Rand's beliefs are elitist and profoundly undemocratic, her heroes ubermensch types who Know What's Best For All of Us and, if they can't get their way, will pout, take their ball and go home." To begin with, this is such a terrible misunderstanding of the book that at this point Beale lost all credibility with me. I wonder if he's even read it, or just jumped to conclusions based on the first part of the film and what others have told him about the book. Again, a critique of Rand's philosophy is a critique of her philosophy and not the film. You may not agree with her philosophy, but by telling people not to see the film, aren't you telling people not to make up their own minds about her views? "Listen guys, this Rand's a quack, you don't even need to pay attention to what she says-just trust me." I would agree that her philosophy is wrapped up in Atlas Shrugged, but by passing such harsh judgement on a philosophy, aren't you simply showing your bias? If Beale just has a problem with Objectivism I suspect he'd hate anything that came out with Rand's name on it. Everyone will have a different opinion of Rand's philosophy, but they should make up their own minds about it.

In conclusion, I realize that once I see the movie I too will likely be a little biased in my review. I tend to agree with a lot (not all) of Rand's ideas. I will likely enjoy the film. What I've attempted to address here are points that I don't see as valid for the critique of the movie. Beale's political views being one of them. I also want to reiterate that while I do love Atlas Shrugged, I don't believe it to be the an example of great writing. I appreciate its plot, entertainment value, and the fact that Rand carried a coherent idea through 1200 pages. Go see the film, or better yet, read the book and make up your own mind.

Psalm 146

Yesterday I read Pslam 146. It's one of my favorites, but I feel like every time I read it something else surprises me. It starts (like a lot of Psalms) with the Psalmist writing praises to God. Then you get to verses 3 and 4:

"Put not your trust in princes,
in a son of man, in whom there is no
salvation.
When his breath departs, he returns to
the earth;
on that very day his plans perish."

But......I do that all the time-I feel like I put a lot of hope in my schooling, job, whatever. This teacher said that, this teacher gave me this assignment that ruined my weekend. Or this teacher said I was awesome which means I'm awesome. Yet that's all temporary. It's not going to be around long. Unfortunately the teacher that thinks I'm awesome will probably be dead in a few years leaving me to search for another teacher to suck up to.

Then, though, there's what is eternal in verses 5-10:

"Blessed is he whose help is the God of
Jacob,
whose hope is in the Lord his God,
who made heaven and earth,
the sea, and all that is in them,
who keeps faith forever;
who executes justice for the oppressed,
who gives food to the hungry.

The Lord sets the prisoners free;
the Lord opens the eyes of the blind.
The Lord lifts up those who are bowed
down;
the Lord loves the righteous.
The Lord watches over the sojourners;
he upholds the widow and the
fatherless,
but the way of the wicked he brings to ruin.

The Lord will reign forever,
your God, O Zion, to all generations.
Praise the Lord!"

So that's eternal-BUT the two new things that struck me are this: 1. Everything is present tense. The Lord sets....The Lord opens....The Lord loves....God is still doing these things.  If my hope was in a prince, then when he died I'd say "Well, this prince did  this for me, or he did that..." God, just like He was for the Pslamist, is still setting people free, still loving, still doing all these things (Which is another entry in and of itself-just noting what God does do in these verses). The Psalmist isn't even saying "God did this for Israel", he's saying "God did this and is still doing it and will do it forever". Which brings me to the second new thing: 2. That's what's eternal. "The Lord will reign forever." God will always love, always open, always watch over sojourners, always watch after widows and the fatherless-and nothing else can do that. That's why the Psalmist says "Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob." The one who hopes in man isn't blessed because that's temporary.

So I guess that's pretty cool.

Grapes of Wrath

Last summer I read my first John Steinbeck novel as an adult. It was East of Eden, which I really enjoyed. I think aside from his great characters and settings, Steinbeck is one of the best authors I've ever read in terms of description and analogies. I'm considering doing my MA capstone project on a Steinbeck novel-but I've never read Grapes of Wrath. So I started reading it!

I'm only a few chapters in, but I wanted to share some of what I've read thus far. One thing that's amazing is Steinbeck devotes entire chapters to just background things. For example, chapter 3 is entirely about a turtle that (thus far at least) doesn't have a ton of significance for the entire novel. Like this:

 "His horny beak was partly open, and his fierce, humorous eyes, under brows like fingernails, stared straight ahead. He came over the grass leaving a beaten trail behind him, and the hill, which was the highway embankment, reared up ahead of him."

I'm not sure another author could pull off a whole chapter about a turtle. His descriptions are just so vivid, so full of life. Later he spends a whole chapter capturing the voice of a used car salesman. He spends a chapter talking about the "monster" that is the bank (which is repossessing a bunch of land). The characters intrigue me-though thus far I don't think I'm enjoying any particular character as much as any from East of Eden.

I'll update more as I read more, but just wanted to share that portion!

NCAE

My last blog was heavily focused on politics. I'm going to try to avoid that issue unless it comes up in something that I'm reading. That said, I wrote this a few days ago in response to something I read in the paper. It's not meant to be political. I'm not trying to support a candidate or cause, rather I'm trying to point out some things I see really wrong with NCAE's latest video. Here ya go:

I was reading in the paper this morning and saw an article about NCAE that sparked my interest. Apparently they released a video this week, alleging that there is a "pact" between a Wake County School board member (Chairman Ron Margiotta), NC House Majority Leader Paul Stam, and a couple private citizens to destroy public schools. Naturally, I wanted to watch the video. The video can be seen at their website, NCAE. It's the first video on the page today. 

I was shocked. I can't believe that a public organization like NCAE would take time to put together random clips and a few facts to claim a conspiracy. I'm simply stunned. They show the amount of money donated to Chariman Margiotta's campaign and Stam's campaign and then make the extraordinary jump that there's a conspiracy to end public schooling. What is more, NCAE didn't explain all their facts, just edited clips to suit their needs.

They say at one point "Luddy and Pope spent $38,000 on the 2009 Wake School Board Races to transfer resources from public schools to private schools." That money didn't all go to Ron Margiotta, it was spread across candidates. If you'd like to point fingers at contributions, one of the people who had the most contributions (notably one donation from an employer of a George Soros company) was Rita Rakestraw. You can see her financial report here. She had contributions from a state Senator and state Congresswoman, as well as several former school board members. Not only did Rakestraw report raising over $14,000, John Tedesco (who has since lost his job) reported raising only $3,764. Tedesco has largely supported Margiotta, but if there's a conspiracy to close public schools why didn't Luddy and Pope buy out Tedesco too? (And why did Tedesco win and Rakestraw lose their respective districts if money is everything?) Tedesco's report is here. I don't see Pope's or Luddy's name on it. Let's treat contributions like they are: everyone got them, and that doesn't mean there's a conspiracy there. Luddy and Pope do want something from the school board, but that's no different from other contributors. People contribute to campaigns because they support what the candidate wants. Contributors want their voices heard.  Rakestraw got donations because people believed in her cause and supported her. That doesn't mean there was a government conspiracy behind her campaign just because she had several donations from Public representatives. Rod Brind'Amour also donated to the Wake County schoolboard campaigns in 2009. Does that mean there's a conspiracy to make everyone in schools play hockey? No, he just supports what one of the candidates believes. I'm just shocked that NCAE pointed to campaign contributions and failed to mention that one of the people who received the most contributions was Rakestraw, who likely wouldn't support Margiotta's ideas. This isn't the only bias statement in the NCAE video. 

The "Vouchers" they refer to, for example, aren't actually vouchers-they're tax credits. Same thing right? No, they're not. Paul Stam is dealing with a budget issue-right now it costs (on average) about $8500 a year to educate one student in North Carolina. Add that up for all the students in NC, and you get a lot of money being spent on education. Paul Stam's proposal was to offer a tax credit, which would give money back to the parents of students who enrolled in private schools. That money could be spent on anything-you could buy a car, a dog, or even donate it to the public school system. A voucher, however, would simply go from North Carolina government to a private school. Stam's proposal would save the state about $6000 a year per student whose parents chose to enroll him or her in a private school. That's not destroying public education, that's saving it money.

Their suggesting that businessmen own Charter schools is also misleading. Charter schools are funded by the government, not run by one man. They aren't like private schools, because they still receive public funding, though they make it seem that Luddy owns and operates Charter schools solely as private business venture. 

Finally, I was most appalled about the subject of this video: politicians and board members. Not kids. Not educators. NCAE  limply and lamely claims at the end that all this is "at our children's expense". If it was about students, NCAE, you should have started with that, not tacked on a small bit at the end with a cute little girl to rile up emotions. I can see the video watchers now: "Damn those people! They took from poor little Suzy! She'll grow up so stupid being in those private schools." Wait, wait. If NCAE is about furthering education, shouldn't it (a good education) be supported in any way possible?  Stam's just saying "Listen, if you put little Suzy in a private school, we'll give you (the parents) some money." I don't think the parents are going to be outraged that Suzy won't get a good education from Cary Academy or Ravenscroft or wherever. I can't imagine any parent saying "You mean our child will be in private school and we're getting $2500? You got a lot of nerve." In addition the video says nothing about teachers. NCAE wasn't advocating for teachers or even trying to say teachers will lose jobs. Rather than focusing on the students, teachers, and education, NCAE revealed their real purpose: politics. In two minutes, fifty-four seconds there is a three second clip of a student and nothing about educators. Everything else is about politics. 

My purpose in this isn't too support the Wake County school board or any particular politicians. I have mixed feelings about some of the people mentioned in NCAE's video. My point, rather, was to call out NCAE for making an irresponsible, biased video which focuses more on campaign contributions and politics than educating children. That, to me, is outrageous. If you'd like to pick a fight with public representatives, do it somewhere else and don't cowardly hide behind your title and claim you're "doin it for the kids". 

Stevie Smith

I read a poem by Stevie Smith this week called "Not Waving but Drowning".

You can read it here if you'd like. I highly recommend it. It's very short. The interesting thing about Stevie Smith however, is that many of her poems have accompanying pictures, though these aren't always published. Here's one of herself:



The drawing that's associated with "Not Waving but Drowning" isn't online, but it offers a stark contrast to the poem. The poem has two speakers from what I see-the dead man and the crowd. I think the "dead man" may still be alive. "Nobody heard him, the dead man, but still he lay moaning" as though the crowd already assumes he's died, but he's still there trying to get their attention. It's like the "I'm not dead yet" scene from Monty Python. If he is dead, there's this weird juxtaposition of the man being dead but still moaning. That, I suppose, goes along with the juxtaposition of someone not waving from the water but drowning from the water.

This is different from the picture-in the picture a person (who appears to be a woman) is standing tall in water that doesn't appear treacherous. Again, there's this juxtaposition-the man is drowning but a woman appears almost happy.

Either way, I think the poem is a type of commentary on society-that people tend to ignore or excuse away the bad things in the world. The people in the poem call the dead man "old chap" and say he probably died from the cold so that they don't have to really face what happened .

Or perhaps the poem is about people we know crying for help but never really seeing it.....that would be interesting considering Stevie Smith tried to kill herself in '53, like most modernist female authors.

Anyway, read and enjoy!

The World is Flat

If you haven't read the book The World is Flat, then maybe you should. Or at least read the first hundred pages or so. Or at least read my blog entry.

First, check out this video, it kind of sets up my point well:

Did You Know?

The World is Flat is a book by Thomas Friedman that was written around 2006. His ideas and thoughts in the book apply to basically every field of work and every person in the world, particularly the U.S. Friedman's point is that with the level of technology and outsourcing that is occurring and has occurred in the past 20 years, the job market and education as we know it is changing completely.

For example, did you know that the U.S. outsources X-rays in some places? If a hospital is overwhelmed, they can send X-Rays via e-mail to doctors in Australia who report back. Or accountants: Many accounting firms outsource their tax work to India. Businessmen even outsource secretaries. They can have someone in India set up their schedule, answer their phone calls, and check presentations for a much cheaper price than someone in the U.S.

China and India are both growing in all areas. They are developing technical schools that are churning out engineers and scientists at an alarming rate. Call centers in India have some of the higher paying jobs in the area. A U.S. company can pay call center employees a fraction of what an American would make in the same position, and the Indians can provide for their whole family.

It's not a possibility, it's a reality. American jobs are being lost. Want to be a radiologist? That may be mostly outsourced when you graduate. Want to be an engineer? You're going to be competing against millions from other countries. Want a minimum wage job answering phones? It'll be outsourced or automated by a machine.  Want to be a professor? Online classes are growing in popularity and will likely be outsourced soon. (I even read an example that some fast food places are outsourcing (to other States) the drive through by having one center that takes orders from multiple restaurants several states away)

Friedman calls it a "Flat World" because there's no longer barriers. Communication is instant, and everyone is on an equal playing field. Students are just as likely to enter the workforce with someone from China as they are someone from Kentucky.

People think this is nothing new, but it is: 40 years ago educators and parents weren't preparing their kids for something like this. There was no internet. Call centers weren't based in India because the long distance rates would be unbelievable. The internet, web browsers,  fiber optics, Y2K, offshoring, Web 2.0, all these things have come into play in the last 20 years.

It effects everyone: Educators, students, doctors, politicians, everyone. How does it effect you?