Atlas Shrugged - Week 3: Ch 5&6

[BellaPippin]

I leave for an hour and look at this. WHERE IS MY FOAM SWORD.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ExaltedLife]

WHAT? How did I miss this? Atlas Shrugged is my favorite novel of all time!

All I can say is KEEP READING! You have no idea what you're in for.

 

[BellaPippin]

In chapter 6 parts of me feel sorry for Rearden while also wonder if he's the creator of his own issues.

Meaning with Lillian and their what sounds like a non-relationship marriage. Why stay married to her?

Considering the time it was written at, divorce wasn't as widely well seen I guess, and it seems they both come from very conservative backgrounds. IIRC it is mentioned or easily inferred he's very self-righteous and sort of believes he took the vows now can't go back

 

[csalvato]

So, clearly the most unrealistic part of the book so far is that international business titans send their sons to school in Cleveland, Ohio. That is definitely part of the "parallel universe" aspect of the book.

I think this is because Rockefeller got his start in Cleveland. In the era when the book was written, he had just died and was still a pretty big deal and associated with all things Titan-like

If I remember well from the chapter is that Lillian doesn’t think twice about the bracelet. I feel it’s either another super forced/unrealistic or she’s a sociopath of sorts lol. Like after the fact she didn’t learn anything or thought anything of it. Still in conflict with this extreme-ness of some characters. Like can you be that oblivious or are you Paris Hilton or what

Never met anyone who just doesn't care or think about their husband at all? I think I know like 6 people personally

I'm not sure Taggart values fairness supremely. He likes to think he does and he utters statements about fairness all the time. But a lot of his actions are pretty unfair. Taking credit for other people's work. Colluding to deprive other business owners of the benefit of their efforts, etc.

IMO so far he's only shown to value what other people think of him, from what I can tell.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[broswoodwork]

He essentially abandoned her rather than respect her ability to understand his “great” breakthrough. It’s actually a very subtle way of minimizing her inner strength.

Maybe, but I'm not sure if Dagny would have wanted to live the way he's been living for 10 years, even if he had a great reason. If she did, he may have worried she did it "just for him", instead of willfully and voluntarily. I think this shows a great appreciation for her strength, assuming that's why.

I hope this isn't a spoiler. I typed it out 3 different ways and deleted them all. Just going to commit to this wording.

 

[Primeperiwinkle]

Maybe, but I'm not sure if Dagny would have wanted to live the way he's been living for 10 years, even if he had a great reason. If she did, he may have worried she did it "just for him", instead of willfully and voluntarily. I think this shows a great appreciation for her strength, assuming that's why.

I hope this isn't a spoiler. I typed it out 3 different ways and deleted them all. Just going to commit to this wording.

But that’s what love is right? It’s deciding to do stuff together. I don’t think she was emotionally ready to handle the information that he must have acquired in college but he STOLE that growth opportunity from her AND abandoned her to a decade without him?!??

This is like not telling your wife that you know you’re going to lose your job a year and a half from now because “she can’t handle it”.

Now, in some marriages they don’t go over every little detail of their lives right? It’s a partnership. Everybody handles their domain or their little kingdom and the two kingdoms support each other.. but his a$$ just left!

He could have lovingly shared the information or introduced her to the professor or invited her to travel with him or ... anything really .. besides just up and deciding to LITERALLY ORCHESTRATE A FINANCIAL CATASTROPHE to show her the corruption in the world?!

And this is of course all my own conjecture. We could be utterly wrong.

The way this book twists the next chapters might all be about Eddie and the Brakeman traveling to The People’s State of China!

 

[G-Man]

Ok but let’s discuss the convo between Hank and Francisco. Is it just me or is Francisco sizing him up to later destroy him too??

Yes on sizing him up, but I think it’s a soft approach for a future recruitment of some kind

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[WJS]

Dagny trades her diamond bracelet for Lillian’s simple Rearden Metal, publicly.

Lilian is a very smart person, but I think this is probably her dumbest move in her entire life. Trade her husband's extremely thoughtful, one-of-a-kind gift for a diamond bracelet, which she most likely has plenty, and to do so in public? Seriously, no matter how undesirable someone's gift is, you're obligated to at least show some form of appreciation - keep it at home if you really don't value it, but don't throw it away like that. She'll likely regret her actions later.

Henry must have disliked her wife even more after this. I know I would if someone close to me do this. She has pushed him further away (despite wanting and trying hard to connect with him) and made a fool of herself.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[broswoodwork]

Do you think there are any similarities to what we see in society today?

No to all of the above.

Surely you must see some similarities?

Warren's tax plan could bring rates over 100% for some billionaires

Tax rates higher than 100 percent could result from the combination of several tax hikes the Massachusetts senator has called for on the ultra-wealthy.

www.foxbusiness.com

 

[MTEE1985]

Ok a bit, lol. I don’t usually pay attention to financial politics though. I’m too worried about the moral decline.

I’d argue that punitively taxing/stealing from society’s most productive people is about as morally reprehensible as it gets.

The people being targeted as a political platform do more for this country than they are ever given credit for. I suspect we’ll find out in this book that the morality and well being of the people declines with the increase in regulations like the anti dog eat dog rule and the nationalization of the San Sebastián mines.

 

[Primeperiwinkle]

I’d argue that punitively taxing/stealing from society’s most productive people is about as morally reprehensible as it gets.

There are people in my city fighting in the court to begin chemically castrating a seven year old boy so that he can live as a girl.

Abortion has killed more people than every war ever fought, combined.

Sex trafficking, child slavery.. the list goes on. The reason I don’t pay attention to politics is because it’s all awful.

Anyhoo.. I don’t want to get into a debate about what the worst evil is.

I think the more important question that could be asked at this point in the book is do we want to be like any of these characters?

Do I want to be like Dagny? Or Rearden? Or D’Ancinio or any of them?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[broswoodwork]

There are people in my city fighting in the court to begin chemically castrating a seven year old boy so that he can live as a girl.

Abortion has killed more people than every war ever fought, combined.

Sex trafficking, child slavery.. the list goes on. The reason I don’t pay attention to politics is because it’s all awful.

Anyhoo.. I don’t want to get into a debate about what the worst evil is.

I think the more important question that could be asked at this point in the book is do we want to be like any of these characters?

Do I want to be like Dagny? Or Rearden? Or D’Ancinio or any of them?

I want to be Ragnar Danneskjöld.

 

[csalvato]

And got frustrated maybe?

Noted. I should have done w/o that – it only took away from my ability to communicate with you, and added nothing.

You want me to dissect the characters values but frankly, I can’t. They’re not fully complete to me, yet. I only know such a very tiny bit about them.

Like for all that I do not sympathize with Reardens marriage woes I do think his invention is phenomenal. And for all I want Dagny to succeed because she’s so incredibly passionate - I think her focus is sad and deeply flawed.

I’m still learning them, I suppose.

At this point, we have about 100-150 pages on that have a ton of info on Hank, Dagny and James, at the least.

For comparison, that's the same amount information you'd have on Harry Potter, Draco Malfoy and Hermione Granger halfway through The Sorcerer's Stone!

Even looking over a single chapter with Dagny (like I did in the Ch 3 & 4 discussion) unveils a lot about the things she values:

1. Productivity
2. Not being a looter
3. Decisiveness
4. The word of other productive people
5. Technological Advancement

Rearden values:

1. The opinions of others (his family, which is why they are such a source of his stress)
2. Productivity
3. Decisiveness
4. Staying out of politics (which is why he pays so little mind to his "man in washington" in the party scene)

James Taggart values:

1. The opinions of others
2. Being regarded as philosophical/altruistic
3. Being taken seriously for the sake of being taken seriously

You may have a hard time seeing these values if you're trying to identify with any single one of them.

For example, I highly value decisiveness and productivity (like Dagny and Rearden), and often catch myself with a bruised ego when I'm rejected for a meeting or a sales call – even though I did nothing to earn that meeting (like James Taggart).

 

[GigMistress]

Really love this book, especially a lot of the grandstanding speeches, but I feel like there's only two sorts of characters:

• Antagonists and peripheral characters who are utterly contemptible and totally realistic
• Protagonists that are archetypes of ideas and therefore totally unrealistic.

That's largely true, but neither Eddie nor Cheryl fits into either of those categories--there are a few others, as well--just enough to acknowledge that there is a whole mid-level class of decent people who aren't really addressed in the good/bad divide that Rand sets up.

I'm rooting for Hank and Dagny, but they're not real people. Even Lillian doesn't come off as real in the bracelet incident, which tells me she's going to be some sort of Deus Ex mechanism later in the plot.

Only positive person that comes off as kinda real is Francisco, but even he's an archetype. I think Ayn Rand was just visualizing her perfect crush, and the result is the character of Francisco. Don't get me wrong, she clearly has good taste in men, but damn.

Another aspect of this lack of realism is that each and every one of her talented, successful characters is also heavily weighted with honesty and integrity. She attempts to set them up to show how much better things would be if government and people like Jim Taggart got out of the way and let them have free reign, but they're all "my word is my bond" sort of people, which certainly doesn't universally characterize today's success stories (and very probably didn't then)

 

[broswoodwork]

Here's another one, ripped from the headlines:

"These funding sources have become a bone of contention among University of Michigan students: "We regret the Administration's willingness to support business moguls whose advancement on gentrification inflicts harm on Detroit residents and believe the largest public university in our state has an obligation to invest in projects which center community members, equity and justice – not profits," they wrote in their petition, signed by 378 people as of Nov. 20." ~ Source: https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/...tion-center-in-downtown-detroit-sparks-debate

The donors, who probably shouldn't have wasted their money attempting to lift Detroit above post- apocalypse status with support for a state run institution, obviously needed to donate in CASH like Rearden, if they wanted this to pan out.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[broswoodwork]

And this law for NJ.

The lives of hundreds of thousands of New Jerseyans are about to be destroyed (JEFF EDELSTEIN COLUMN)

Attention fellow New Jerseyans: We are about to get screwed like we've never been screwed before by state Sen. President Steve Sweeney, the rest of the legislature, and, if he

www.trentonian.com

A similar law is going into effect Jan 1st for California.

Jesus wept...

 

[scottmsul]

Looks like my guess they would ban Rearden Metal was wrong, but they're making an even dumber law so maybe I was half-right? And knowing how things work in Ayn Rand's universe there's a 100% chance it gets passed.

I have more predictions, pretty much all based on Francisco's off-hand comment about confirming the story of John Galt.

Spoiler: Predictions

If we assume Atlantis is real (which is likely since Francisco confirmed it and Francisco never lies), a lot of the puzzles start to make sense. The people of Atlantis probably only let certain outsiders in, most likely based on their greatness/purpose. I'm predicting they took in Richard Halley after he "retired" where he wrote his 5th concerto. That train mechanic guy has probably been to Atlantis and heard it (how/why would a random train worker go to Atlantis though?). I'm also predicting that Francisco's already been there, and his purposeful destructive actions are connected somehow. They're also very secretive about it, which is why the train worker hushed about it, and Francisco couldn't tell Dagny anything in their final flashback meeting.

I was thinking a lot about Jim Taggart too. We know that Atlas Shrugged is supposed to be an exposition of Rand's philosophy, so I think each of her characters was written to believe in some moral value as "supreme" and then follow that moral value to a T. In Jim's case, if that moral value if Fairness, then all his actions make perfect sense.

 

[BellaPippin]

Never met anyone who just doesn't care or think about their husband at all? I think I know like 6 people personally

I mean not so obnoxiously and openly like that! D:

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Primeperiwinkle]

And I think that's what I'm ultimately going to conclude about her work: she has some real insights and good points, but pushes them too far and oversimplifies everything.

I agree and yet THATS the beauty of it. I swear this book is half comic book/ half fairy tale which goes directly to the heart of us and make us rethink our own archetypes.

Only positive person that comes off as kinda real is Francisco, but even he's an archetype. I think Ayn Rand was just visualizing her perfect crush, and the result is the character of Francisco. Don't get me wrong, she clearly has good taste in men, but damn.

He’s a trope. It wasn’t overused in Rand’s time but it definitely is now.. powerful guy, slightly haughty, foreign, rich, brilliant and emotionally distant?!?

He’s NOT a great man at all just what modern women conceptualize as a great man. To compare characters all I have to do is bring Little Britches or The Odyssey or any novel where the guy stands by his family, fights to get to them, or endures hardship while caring.

He essentially abandoned her rather than respect her ability to understand his “great” breakthrough. It’s actually a very subtle way of minimizing her inner strength.

Great men trust the women in their life with shit. Great women trust the men in their life with shit. Bottling it up and not confronting it (like Rearden) or changing the world to avoid confrontation is the mark of an emotionally weaker person.

 

[BizyDad]

Uuugh. Grrrrrr. That's my honest reaction so far. Words do not even begin...

I am still sorting all this out. I'm just going to give random thoughts right now.

I think it was @Primeperiwinkle who said Ayn Rand is reflecting mud. Yeah, I needed a shower for my heart when I read these chapters. I'm going to start reading more detached.

Thank God for Francisco. The only enjoyment I got these two chapters was from him. I am not looking forward to the rest of this book. ( to Banderas. But taller I think.)

Of course there's a Viking. I believe he knows Francisco and there's a connection between them in bringing down the world. (Of course they went to the same school). Maybe also to Atlantis, because who knows the sea better than a pirate. How does Francisco know about Galt? Because of Ragnar.

The slap. Her reaction. Just pouring gas on the fire. Smh.

Where is Dagny's pontificating on the nature of parties headed?

Francisco did ask Dagny to leave TT. She wouldn't. So he left her. You can't bring down a company your wife works at. Maybe Francisco doesn't look good for his part in this, but she made her choices too. She picked a side.

But that’s what love is right? It’s deciding to do stuff together.

No. Its not.

If that's what love is, the Reardons have love.

It is hard to feel sorry for him though because it was his choice. I still do. Although, being a family man and a world class businessman are not mutually exclusive. Maybe if he had chosen better, he would excell at both.

Exactly. Well said. This part of the book is hitting way too close to home for me.

Why did Francisco harm TT? Why would he want to hurt Hank?

Unlike the joker, I'm sure there is a method to Francisco's madness.

---------

To wrap up:

I found this line fascinating:

To me, there’s only one form of human depravity—the man without a purpose.

Your thoughts?

And this:

They have a weapon against you. It’s their only weapon, but it’s a terrible one. Ask yourself what it is, some time.

What is the weapon? I have a feeling I am not going to like the answer...

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[BizyDad]

I was falling behind, as I was only halfway through Chapter 3 today. Picked up the pace and got caught back up fully. If anyone else finds themself in the same boat at some point, just do it.

I was in that boat this morning. Which brings me to...

Why is that?

Keep in mind I had just finished reading the chapters.

It was tough. 7 times I read things that made me take a hard look... At me. And I recognize the truth from the perspective of the writer/character, but I do not agree with it for myself. Ok, I'm not making sense.

This is "supposed" to be a book about finance, economics, liberty, business, government theory, etc. I did not expect to see parts of me or my actions or my past in these pages, nor was I prepared to judge those so harshly.

I wanted to intellectualize these pages, not emote my way through a discussion. If this book can do that in chapter 5/6 what am I in for here?

So that's why I said it. It was a best instant reaction to what I had read.

That said I have hours of distance. The finest in literature exposes our selves to new ideas or experiences, so that we may grow. I just didn't like how this one did it. I'll be better prepared now that I've seen it happen.

Only 2 other books have had this kind of surprise negative effect on me where I was invested and beating myself up metaphysically through the book. Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance, which I read when I was 20 and Catcher In The Rye which I read at 15.

Because of course that book got brought up in here. That's just the kind of day it's been.

That’s nice of you but it’s been eight years. He’s had plenty of time to go to therapy.

Hank has an issue of honor. Therapy won't help. He can't make his wife love him without sacrificing (changing) who he is. He won't do that and he won't leave. He is making do while living his code.

Fragile? I didn't get that here.

He is deciding to stay, but ok, that isn't love... to be continued.

The love of his life is intrinsically connected to one of the biggest and most corrupt businesses .. and she doesn’t see it. At all. Sigh.

He didn't choose to stay together and share. Love of his life?

Exactly. But it’s more than just working at TT.. Dagny is the heart and soul of the place.. it’s part of her identity.

You're right. Ok, so wild theory time. What if Francisco asked her to leave with him to make it easier to destroy the place? (Cue dramatic music)

Ok I doubt it, but...

This is from the convo between Francisco and Hank correct?

Yes. Fransisco says Hank's family has a weapon against him.

Does anyone who hasn't read ahead know what the weapon is?

I’m pretty sure Rand has a little bdsm tendencies because Rearden mentions wanting to slap somebody later too.

I actually got that vibe from the scene in childhood when James is teasing Dagny about why she hasn't shined Francisco's shoes. "Because he hasn't asked me."

My point is that love is a commitment to another person to share communication, activities, emotions and life while aiming for the same goal.

See comments above. You're contradicting yourself.

I think you described a partnership. Love is what comes before that.

But I'm not sure why I'm pointing this out, because I get your point and I'm discussing semantics again. So I'm going to skip ahead to the part where I admit I have only ever heard one definition of love I can't argue with. And I won't pull the pin on that grenade here.

Here are others that I've heard and feel come debatably close to the mark.

Love is the recognition of yourself in another.
Love is the recognition of the Divine in another.

I don't know how I got on this tangent, but I gotta jump off this train.

Someone say something libertarian. Or wrong. I need to pick a fight.

Oh, I know! @csalvato I made up my mind. You definitely did beg the question. Oh yes you did.

Chapter 6? It was a drag. Dagny-d'Anconio is rather lackluster compared to the history they had growing up.

See, I really enjoyed Francisco at work and at play at that party. Smug Francisco is the best Francisco.

Maybe I get my grade A schemer in this book after all! (Stupid James... )

--------

Also, I hate the philosophers at the party. Their words just grated on me, like they didn't understand the meaning of the word philosophy.

Lastly, what's the deal with the professor? That kind of went over my head.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[lludwig]

For those who are reading this for the first time.

• Do you think there are any similarities to what we see in society today?
• Do you see any of yourself in the characters? If so, who?
• Has the book changed anything about how you look at the world?

For any of my questions, I'm not suggesting you must agree with I'm just wondering. It's been said for some this book completely changed their view of the world.

When I first read it (about only 7 years ago), it wasn't a completely ah-ha moment but did help put some pieces together in my thoughts.

 

[Primeperiwinkle]

Surely you must see some similarities?

Warren's tax plan could bring rates over 100% for some billionaires

Tax rates higher than 100 percent could result from the combination of several tax hikes the Massachusetts senator has called for on the ultra-wealthy.

www.foxbusiness.com

Ok a bit, lol. I don’t usually pay attention to financial politics though. I’m too worried about the moral decline.

 

[csalvato]

Someone say something libertarian. Or wrong. I need to pick a fight.

Oh dear, I wonder how you're going to come out of the end of this book.

 

[lludwig]

Hol' up. Selfless and disinterested doesn't equal self-sacrifice. The giving tree is selfless but you don't need to self destruct or act against your self interest in order to be altruistic.
I'd argue it's different to EXPECT something in return FOR YOURSELF than to choose to pursue a venture that is of benefit to someone and produces revenue as a plus, which you can roll up into other ventures of the similar nature, which is coincidentally what I'm trying to do with my product. I don't need to be homeless to help the homeless. I can sell a product and help the homeless and if I have extra I'll help who knows who next. I think the intention makes it altruistic, not where the funds come from.

And to be clear, Ayn Rand has also said she's not against helping others. It should be done voluntarily and not put you into any harm.

 

[Kruiser]

Are we accounting for the possibility of having multiple motives? Most human action is driven by multiple motives. Everything doesn't need to be simply "self-seeking" or "other-seeking." Everything doesn't need to be "either/or" and reduced to a single motive.

Hypothetical:

Maybe the amount of disposable plastic water bottles distresses me because I know the havoc they wreak on the environment. I genuinely care about the environment. I come up with a biodegradable material that is just as useful as the plastic bottles, but biodegrades within a year.

I patent it.

I expect it to truly help the environment (which I genuinely care about).

I also expect to make a ton of money.

--

Is my example even possible in the Randian universe? Or is the possibility of me innovating because I care about something other than myself not possible in her world?

Serious question.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[BellaPippin]

Are we accounting for the possibility of having multiple motives? Most human action is driven by multiple motives. Everything doesn't need to be simply "self-seeking" or "other-seeking." Everything doesn't need to be "either/or" and reduced to a single motive.

Hypothetical:

Maybe the amount of disposable plastic water bottles distresses me because I know the havoc they wreak on the environment. I genuinely care about the environment. I come up with a biodegradable material that is just as useful as the plastic bottles, but biodegrades within a year.

I patent it.

I expect it to truly help the environment (which I genuinely care about).

I also expect to make a ton of money.

--

Is my example even possible in the Randian universe? Or is the possibility of me innovating because I care about something other than myself not possible in her world?

Serious question.

We'll have to keep reading? Maybe there's an altruistic character? This single novel isn't her entire philosophy I'm sure, but the characters in this particular one are more accomplishment-centered I guess. Not even money, at no point anybody is like "oh look at my Beemer". Dagny even gives away her diamond bracelet because their values go beyond material things. For them the success of their enterprises is a principle issue not a "I'm such a capitalist pig I want money haha oink"

Edit- Grammurrrr

 

[lludwig]

and by explaining the themes BEFORE giving us a chance to notice them, explain what they mean to us, or discuss them among ourselves .. you are positioning yourself as a teacher.

? I'm not sure I understand this part. These are topics very much discussed in this chapter and the previous ones. It's not like I'm getting ahead of the book.

I'm not positioning myself as anything other than someone who has read this book and other books of hers. That's all. I'm also here to learn and discuss the topics as well.

There have been a few concepts I missed that I caught reading and also discussed in these threads.

If anything I'm trying to get myself more clear on what she meant on certain passages myself.

Yes, obviously I'm at an advantage since I've already read this book and others of hers.

There's a lot to be digested, it's a long book!

 

[csalvato]

Ok. So let me reiterate.

You guys are discussing a THEME in the book.

Theme.. means it’s in the whole book not just these chapters.

All I asked was not to discuss spoilers but you insist in sharing your thoughts about the WHOLE book.

Do you understand what I mean?

That's not what's going on here.

This started by examining the actions of the characters, which led to a discussion on altruism as a whole including people like @BellaPippin and @Kruiser who are on their first read-through.

Is altruism a theme? Yes, it is. One that is already expressed very strongly in Chapter 1-6 through the actions of James Taggart. Seems fair game to discuss it. No one is discussing any other parts of the book.

Some people's opinions on altruism will be shaped by the rest of this book. Those who previously read are doing a great job limiting their discussion to only these 6 chapters.

It's not perfect, but I think everyone is being pretty good about it. Frankly, we're all pretty much bending over backwards to make you happy.

It's all in black and white, so you can go check for yourself.

 

[csalvato]

Cuz if you hadn’t said anything.. wouldn’t we just be using the Webster’s definition?

Yes, but he's making a great point as to why you shouldn't be using Webster's definition.

This book was written in the 1940s within the context of that time. To appreciate the book, you need to understand the language as it was used in that time, and in that context; just like we need to understand how NYC looked in the 1940s, not today.

In another example, take Shakespeare. You need to understand the nuances of english in the 1500s to appreciate his plays.

For example, `Much Ado About Nothing` would have been pronounced as `Much Ado About Noting`, and back in that time, `Noting` meant gossip....so the book Much Ado About Nothing is all about gossip and the title is a crafty little pun; something that would be missed if you didn't understand how the language was used in that time.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.