Atlas Missed

Ever since conservative pundits started ranting about how the apocalypse in Atlas Shrugged was being brought to fruition by Democratic bailouts and other spending programs, I have mentally slotted it on my ever increasing “to read” list. I finally got around to it this January after receiving a copy of the text as a Christmas gift (shout out to Dad), just in time for the upcoming movie (see trailer below). Like every young liberal-minded person of my age I am aware of the farce that is Fox News, and through beloved media outlets such as The Onion and The Daily Show, am aware that the boundary between what passes as “news” in the US and inane political banter is at best paper thin. With that in mind I didn’t take the media’s love of Atlas Shrugged as a parable for our times at face value.

Yet despite this, I was still shocked by how off the mark Fox & Co. were. There certainly are aspects of Atlas Shrugged that lend support to their Tea Party extremism, but on the whole I felt that Rand was arguing more against their political and economic policies than those of the American Left. One of the first criticisms Rand slaps down is Jim Taggert’s decision to continue to buy his steel from Orren Boyle despite the fact that he can never deliver the product on time; Taggert’s response? “he’s my friend.” Perhaps before they endorsed Atlasism, Tea Baggers need a refresher on the Bush/Cheney administration’s choice to ink huge contracts with Lockheed Martin or the re-working of laws regulating natural gas production that paved the way for Halliburton’s vast expansion. One of the other arguments frequently cited by neo-Cons is Rand’s demonstration that bailouts and government meddling in industry stifle the economy to the point of ruin. Perhaps they too need a refresher, this time on the original $7 billion financial bailout approved by Bush. Rand is also critical of those who inherit wealth—either in the form of hard currency or socio-economic power—as opposed to creating it themselves. Yet you never hear wealthy Republican heirs and heiresses suggesting that perhaps they should have to actually earn their trust funds. 

On a more philosophical note, although I found that Rand really bashed me over the head with Objectivism, it is not an ideology without its merits. Her beliefs in happiness, productivity, and reason are certainly tenets I can ascribe too. Her absolute belief in them, and her application of them only to the individual are, however, something that I disagree with strongly. Countless times throughout the book we are told that each of the "hero" characters are only working for their own personal gain, be it fortune, innovation, or ideological domination. The idea behind this is akin to utilitarianism---but applied solely to one person. The inherent flaw in this philosophy is of course that no man is an island; we both affect and are affected by those around us and thus our success and happiness cannot be judged without consideration to the greater society in which we live.

One needs to look no further to the recent natural disasters in Japan to recognize the global nature of modern society. An earthquake and a tsunami hitting one country on an island has had profound effects on stock markets around the world, to name only one global repercussion. The trickle down of this negative aftermath to an individual living in a small town half-way around the world from Japan is by no means a stretch of the imagination. While the characters of Atlas Shrugged might chagrin those who wanted to help their neighboring countries to succeed, our modern global economy suggests that at least some measure of world wide cooperation is necessary. On the flip side, the success of the post-WWII Marshall Plan (to such an extent that a similar initiative is being considered in the post-revolution Arab world), demonstrates the positive outcome that cooperative financial measures--or in Rand-speak "looting"--can have on global society.


Rand does allow her Objectivist characters to act for the benefit of others, and sometimes does justify it in the perspective of self-interest I have identified above. But it is too little in comparison to the constant badgering of the need to look out solely for oneself whenever a broader self-interest is applied. This, coupled with her decision to not explore this theme when Dagny and Hank discover the abandoned industrial town of Starnesville, Wisconsin, (once the home of the Twentieth Century Motor Company) make it even clearer that Rand's Objectivism was only applicable in the narrowest of senses. Which, when you think about it, suits the ideology of Tea Partyers just fine.

The Lake Effect

Ever since I discovered Paris 1919 –and with it my love of non-fiction—I have eagerly anticipated reading the winner of the Governor General’s Literary Awards each year. This year’s winner, Lakeland: Journeys into the Soul of Canada by Allan Casey was no exception. Although it was different from the type of non-fiction I normally read (being a bit of a history/politics/society type) it was no less enjoyable. My first surprise came when I tried to order a copy online through Chapters. They were completely out of stock, and didn’t expect to get any new orders in for weeks; Sentimentalists all over again it seemed, but without the excuse of the book being hand printed and bound. As it turns out, my initial disappointment merely paved the way for my surprised excitement when the book came in just over a week, perfectly on time for me to delve in after finishing Clio in the Clinic. Sometimes I guess the universe does get things right.

The next surprise came from the content of the book itself. I’ll admit that it wasn’t even on my radar before the GGs were announced. I like lakes as much as the next Canuck, but I never really thought about reading about them; the whole point of lakes was always to swim in, camp next to, and go “yuck” at the thought of even putting a toe into Lake Ontario. It didn’t help that the book description was vague. So I was again pleasantly surprised to crack open the book and find the memoir/environmental slant/travelogue style a joy to read. Following the author through his journeys into Canada’s wilderness, via its iconic lakes, seemed like the perfect form of armchair travel in the dead of winter. I learned about swimming races in small town Quebec, the scourge of development on Lakes Emma and Okanagan, the abysmal level of government funding for non-Great Lake freshwater research, and the role of European immigrants in Nova Scotian lake towns. My only complaint was that a lack of a map resulted in my reliance upon Google Maps to locate the specific location of the less-known lakes portrayed in each chapter. I unavoidably felt more Canadian by the time I closed the cover for the last time.

So then, why has Lakeland remained off the radar of most readers? A quick check reveals that it never made it to a bestsellers list, and only has one and two online reviews on the Indigo and Amazon.ca websites, respectively. All this in contrast to the hype and selling-frenzy that emerges following a Giller award, or even short-listing. Perhaps this says something about Canadian reading habits, poor marketing by the GGs, or a failure on the part of Greystone Books to capitalize on GG fame. Not to mention that the cover could easily sell the book on its own if it was given some prime book store real estate. Either way, for those who are missing out on this slice of Canadian literary heaven, the paperback comes out February 11^th.

Oh Freedom, Where Art Thou?

So I broke my rule of never buying new books in hardcover and bought Freedom by Jonathan Franzen. Moreover, I tend not to get too excited about books set in contemporary America. Reading for me--fiction or nonfiction--is another form of travel; both stem from my innate desire to experience new places, people, and ages. And lacking an interest to travel to 21st century America, I tend to turn away from such works. I am, however, happy to report that I surprised even myself, and fell for Freedom almost instantly. Although the story is captivating in and of itself, and is certainly well written, I found unraveling the characters' various quests for the titular goal of Freedom the most fascinating aspect of the piece.

Although it sometimes bordered on cheesy how every character--and story line--was a commentary on Freedom, looking past that I found a deep commentary on Franzen's view of true liberation. Whether it be Patty's quest to escape the overbearing apathy of her parents, or Walter's seemingly selfless need to save the environment from humanity, or Joey's desire to become financially and emotionally independent, or Richard's motivation to rid himself of the idealized expectations thrown upon him by Walter, each character was struggling, in his or her own way, to become free from the entanglement of their past and their family and friends populating the present. The main story line, Walter's efforts to preserve a parcel of land for the warbler in West Virginia, also speaks to the book's central theme.

As each character tries, fails, and then tries again to find freedom, the reader is faced with the fact that the freedom most people yearn for isn't just about a lack of restriction or outside influence or physical intrusion. That type of freedom, personified by Walter's alcoholic, homeless brother, is a hollowed, empty existence that when achieved, only fails to satisfy each character. It is only with the story drawing to a close that a sense of calm finally descends upon the Berglunds. But what is interesting is the cause. For it isn't the achievement of the freedom they initially sought, but a more personal freedom. Instead of isolating themselves, each character faced their concerns and learned to live freely amongst both those around them and their own psychologies.

But what does this all mean for those of us non-fictional characters? For one, traditional freedom isn't all it's cracked up to be. Freedom in the commonly thought of sense--escape from all restraints and roadblocks--isn't what we really want. Otherwise we would all become homeless alcoholics with no responsibilities, free to roam as we see please. Instead, what we are really after is the sort of freedom found in the end of Freedom: a freedom from our own self-deprecation and struggle after a freedom that doesn't exist. We need to stop thinking we can be free if we resist the pressure from our jobs, our families, and our morals. Instead, we need to look inside, become comfortable with ourselves, and find the freedom that comes from living up to no one's expectations but our own.

Wanted on the Voyage

As the title suggests, one of the themes that runs throughout Not Wanted on the Voyage is who was permitted to accompany Noah on the ark. Findley's portrayal of the Biblical fable highlights the absurdity of God's edict that arbitrarily specified who would be saved and who would not. One of the most emotional examples is Noah's attempt to burn Mottyl, the family cat, because God's two cats had already been selected. However, God permitted Noah to take several sheep on board. While the rules are specific in some areas, God also left loopholes, one of which allowed Lucifer to marry Noah's son and thus escape the flood with the family. Apart from the obvious holes this pokes in the belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing God (why didn't he just prevent Mottyl from boarding if the edict was so important?), it also leads one to ponder "what would I take on the ark?" What would I want, and not want, on the voyage?

Well, for starters, while I certainly feel that it was noble of Noah to attempt to preserve each animal species, modern science has taught us that multiple members of each species would be required in order to preserve genetic diversity. This makes it nearly impossible to save all of animal kind within the confines of one ark. Although I commend God for being concerned about animals for a change--as opposed to relishing in their sacrificial slaughter--I am also left wondering about the survival of our plants, minerals, and bacteria, not to mention the myriad of art and artifacts that represent our human history. In a magical world (like that of the Bible), I would turn the ark into a Marry Poppins-esque bag, and fit every plant, animal, mineral, single-celled organism, work of art and artifact that I could find. In reality, I would take a very thorough collection of photographs.

Now that our culture and the elements of our earth are accounted for (in one way or another), it is time to consider my personal affairs. Without question I would take my family, friends, pets, and anyone with a skill or ability that would make surviving an extended voyage less dreary. We've all seen the movies where some cataclysmic event is looming over earth and only a select number of people can be saved. Typically some bureaucrat chooses three types of people: those with money, those whose work is essential to human survival, and those with luck. If I was in charge, I would require everyone to audition and only select those who are creative and I could get along with--I have no desire to be trapped on an ark with an obnoxious know-it-all no matter how smart they are! As for bribes, what use would money be after the whole world is submerged under the waters of God's fury anyway?

Last but not least, my things. For better or worse, there are certain inanimate objects that I would have trouble parting with for the rest of my life, and that I would simply be bored to tears without. First, flood or no flood, I want a high speed internet connection. I don't care how the techies do it, but this is a must. I might no longer need to use the internet to communicate with others (since we are all in one ark), but lets face it, everyone has e-talked to someone in the same room at one point or another. Second, my comfort items--those things that due to sentimental value bring me joy, happiness, and peace. Third, entertainment: Xbox, boardgames, music, videos, you name it. I don't plan on watching the water for however long it takes God to get over his issues. But when the rains stop, and the sun comes out again, it will be time to sit on the deck in a comfy lounge chair and enjoy the final thing I want on my voyage--a really big stack of books.

Speaker for Humanity

"I see," Human said, "they were part of the tribe. From the sky, but we made them brothers and tried to make them fathers. The tribe is whatever we believe it is. If we say the tribe is all the Little Ones in the forest, and all the trees, then that is what the tribe is. Even though some of the oldest trees here came from warriors of two different tribes, fallen in battle. We become one tribe because we say we're one tribe." (Orson Scott Card, Speaker for the Dead)

The books in the Ender series following the Bugger Wars and Ender's "Xenocide" portray humanity's journey to understand the "other." In the Ender series, that "other" is first the Buggers, and then the piggies; however, its lessons are applicable to humanity. We live in a time with great angst toward the "other," be they Islamic Jihadists, American conservatives, North Korean communists, or Iranian dictators. At the end of Ender in Exile, Ender reincarnates himself as the Speaker for the Dead by being the only person who understands the Buggers, and thus can transform his perception of them from aliens to a species comprehensible to humans. In learning that the Buggers never meant to destroy humanity, that they merely lacked the means to communicate, and that they were as emotionally, psychologically, and morally complex as humans, Ender made humans see the Buggers as "them." Of course, this conversion meant Ender was now a murderer--more specifically the "Xenocide"--and he became hated as the one who had destroyed a whole culture of humanoid beings. This inspires one to wonder: if Ender can make humans love aliens, will humans ever learn to love each other?

In the Ender books, Demosthenes writes about four classes of "others." "The first is the otherlander, the stranger we recognize as being a human of our world, but of another city or country. The second is the framling, the stranger we recognize as human, but of another world. The third is the raman, the stranger that we recognize as human, but of another species. The fourth is the true alien, the varelse, which includes all the animals, for with them no conversation is possible. They live but we cannot guess what purposes or causes make them act." During the Bugger wars the Buggers were seen as varelse, because the humans were unable to communicate with them; however, once Ender published the "Hive Queen" they gradually became perceived as raman. In Speaker for the Dead the piggies are quickly recognized as raman, in an effort to not repeat the mistakes of Ender and his fellow Battle School warriors. When the piggies kill two humans, there are those who wonder if this recasts them as varelse because their actions are no longer understood and are interpreted as hostile. However, the coming of Ender to Lusitania, and his unique ability to speak with the piggies, leads to the comprehension that they killed the two humans to honor them, and aid their passage to the Third Life. This results in a new understanding of the piggies, and their transformation to not only raman, but in the minds of some humans framling. The common denominator between each metamorphosis is the mutual understanding of both species.

For humanity the implication is that if we could just understand our fellow otherlanders we would be able to live in peace. But are our fellow earthlings even otherlanders? In some cases yes, such as the instances of those from different cultures but with a similar shared history, belief system, and language. However, it is hard to imagine westerners as viewing fundamental Muslims and militaristic North Koreans as otherlanders; in fact they are more likely to be classified as raman, and in extreme cases (especially by neo-conservatives) as varelse. In fact is this not part of the message behind labeling Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as members of the "Axis of Evil?" Yes, their actions are often seen as hostile to the western way of life (and very likely are), but if no true effort is ever made to communicate with them, and understand and feel their needs, can there ever be hope for a peaceful existence?

Another modern example is the conflict between the Jews and Muslims in the Holy Land. Throughout history, both sides--and for many years with the Christians as a third competitor--have been at odds with each other religiously and geographically over control of the most holiest of places on earth. Over time trade and communication have broken down and hostility has increased, until neither side recognizes the other as human, but first framling, then raman, and ultimately varlese. One only has to listen to the views of extremists of either creed to recognize that there is little appreciation of the other as otherlander, let alone human. It is easy for us now to study how this came to be. But does that mean we can reverse history, and create a place where both cultures can live in union? If we take Speaker as our guide, this would require someone to internalize the beliefs, desires, and needs of both sides, and share this with the world; in other words, we would need a Speaker for Humanity.

There is yet another layer in Speaker that is peeled back when Ender is finalizing the treaty between the humans and the piggies. It is the piggies belief that the other piggies were solely there to be killed, and to be slaves to the winning tribe in their Third Life. This is all the piggies have known, and to challenge that idea was as shocking to Human as if someone seriously suggested to me that I should die so I could become a tree and enter my Third Life. The human parallel is of course our relation to our other tribes, whether they be other families, other cultures, or other countries. Although these distinctions do not always lead to physical war in the 21st century as often as they have in past ages, they still bring about economic or philosophical competition. As a society, we compete against other countries for resources, and see foreigners who enter our country as taking what is rightfully "ours."

Through the instinctively knowledgeable character Ender, Orson Scott Card proposes that the solution is to re-think our classification of our fellow humans. First, he illustrates how we can transmogrify from varelse to raman to framling to otherlander; as the plot of the book finally unravels, he also demonstrates how to go from otherlander to a place where no distinction is needed. During his conversation with Human, Ender directs Human to recognize that what separates "us" from "them" is simply the act of using the word "them."

Perhaps this is an oversimplification of the problem, and perhaps it is wrong to draw such strong parallels from a work of science fiction, but is not all literature reflective of humanity, and over time, does not humanity internalize the common messages in literature? Fiction though it is, if Ender can teach humans to love the Buggers, a species they once feared so much that they united and focused all their resources towards defeating them, is it impossible to hope that there might someday be someone who can teach us about each other? After all, as Human eventually realized, people are only of another tribe because we say they are from another tribe. What we happen if we started to just say "us?"