dansullivan

Reidy had written in another thread, I didn't attribute a particular size of role to anyone. I just asked about O'Connor's background. I have seen a lot about him in relation to Rand, but very little about him as a person in his own right, or about his background, other than the mention that he had briefly been an actor. Do any of your sources say what he did before that, where he lived, where he spent his childhood, what his parents did for a living, what they taught him, etc.?

Actually, I wasn't aware of that. Did Ludlum write The Bourne Identity then? I was referring to the character's name, and hadn't even thought about the author. (I didn't even see the movie, just a few minutes of a sequel. As a meaningless novel, Shrugged is inferior to other novels that primarily just tell a story (Although Gone with the Wind had real meaning behind it.) I would put Shrugged in the same category as 1984 and Brave New World, which were not so great in terms of storytelling as they were statements about society.

Well, something has certainly gone awry if you believe that I or anyone else on any thread I started brought up Ludlum. Who's Ludlum? Does it have to do with Allegheny Ludlum Steel? With regard to Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart, I never brought up anybody. Rather, I clearly stated that I was researching the matter before I made any statements at all. However, if you imagined I was alluding to someone named "Ludlum," I would suggest that you get a little less righteous in condemning "speculation." I never heard of the person.

Substitute "reactionary" for "radical" and the blog makes perfect sense. After all, claiming to be an "unjobber" focuses attention only on what one is against, not on what one is for. If these things she decries are irrational and counterproductive, what causes people to keep doing them? What exactly would she change? Indeed, if she is against artificial forces that cause people to be more job-oriented than they would care to be, then I might agree with her to some extent. However, she does not identify any causes for the behavior she dislikes, so there is really nothing to agree with or disagree with - except to disagree with the superficiality of ranting without analyzing. Even if she made the distinction between "jobs" and "work," there might be a great contribution in there somewhere. Studiodekadent is correct that there is a big difference between a Calvinist work-ethic and a natural work ethic, the former being imposed by social approbation and the latter arising from the natural desire for achievement and self-actualization (See Abraham Maslow's "hierarchy of needs.") Indeed, a natural work-ethic, which the blogger sloppily condemns as part of the problem, is the secret to becoming an "unjobber." The late Karl Hess, whom I regard as one of the more thoughtful members of the Libertarian Party, engaged in several experiments having to deal with escaping the state's contrived rat-race, and I believe Ayn Rand wrote a book about it. Wasn't Rearden an unjobber? Did he do things because someone assigned things for him to do, or did he do things because it interested him to do them? I remember some billionaire saying, "After the first ten million or so, the money doesn't matter; it's just a way of keeping score. That is, it tells the person he had created something of value, which was his desire. Did Rearden develop Rearden Metal in order to have what money could buy? Didn't the novel start right off with him giving away $100,000 (millions in today's money) just because someone close to him had asked and it amused him to comply? No, when Rearden saw problems he instinctively tackled them, simply because solving problems was "self-actualizing." (One of the problems with Rand's use of the word "selfish" is that the standard usage of the term implies a narcissistic, dishonorable, materialistic disregard for others. While her elaborations and examples show that this was clearly not what she had meant, the word as she used it invites misunderstanding. Maslow's term, "self actualizing," is much clearer, and hence less controversial, but it probably was not available to Rand, and it certainly was not understood by the public. Although he published the term in his Theory of Human Motivation in 1943, it only gained popular acceptance in the 1960s. Anyhow, whether we look at the freest of societies or the most repressive, those who work for themselves have the strongest work ethics of all, and those who take no risks and do only what is required to get by have the "worst" jobs, with bosses to tell them what to do every step of the way. Everyone else (other than the idle rich and the idle poor) is in between, but, even then, the stronger one's natural work ethic, the more likely one is to gravitate to employment that is less "job-like."

Wikipedia, which is certainly not the last word, says the following under "Atlas (mythology)" Etymology The etymology of the name Atlas is uncertain and still debated. Virgil took pleasure in translating etymologies of Greek names by combining them with adjectives that explained them: for Atlas his adjective is durus, "hard, enduring",[21] which suggested to George Doig[22] that Virgil was aware of the Greek τλήναι "to endure"; Doig offers the further possibility that Virgil was aware of Strabo's remark that the native North African name for this mountain was Douris.[23] Some modern linguists derive it and its Greek root from the Proto-Indo-European root *tel, 'to uphold, support'; others[citation needed] suggest that it is a pre-Indo-European name.

Pittsburgh, PA

Atlas Shrugged was not satirical? No jabs at various ideologies? No exaggeration to drive home a point? And no symbolism in the character names of such modern non-satirical works as The Bourne Identity? Earlier, you wrote, Let me offer a clue about civilized discussion. You will more easily get away with back-pedaling if you you learn to start your disagreement without trashing the perspectives you disagree with. And, yes, I do have a lot more on Dagny and Rearden. I was just hoping someone had something to offer besides contempt. You claimed there was a great deal of biographical information on Frank O'Connor. So, where is it? Risk being helpful instead of insulting. I think your image will withstand it.

As I wrote earlier, the name of Ayn Rand's pirate, Ragnar Danneskjöld, seems to have derived from the name of the Viking pirate, Ragnar Lodbrok, who is perhaps the only famous Ragnar in history. (He certainly dominated my Google search.) Dannesgeld was what the English and French called their tribute to him, the literal translation being "Danes Gold." I had speculated that Danneskjöld might be a scandanavian spelling of Dannesgeld, but I couldn't find an online translation of "skjöld." So, I wrote to the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation. This is what they wrote back. Hammar(e) means hammer and sköld is shield. There is no word "hammarsköld" in ordinary Swedish language (like goldsmith in English). Thus, Danneskjöld translates into "Dane's Shield." It offers an intersting symbolism, because Denmark has long maintained a culture of relative freedom and prosperity, despite being small in the era of great European powers, surrounded and easily plundered. It is also one of the most capitalistic and "business-friendly" of all European countries, despite having a rather large welfare state. (This suggests that taxation is less troublesome than meddlesome state intervention, but that is a tangent of a tangent.) Rand had a flair for ironic symbolism, such as in the name Midas (Mulligan). Midas's "curse" of turning everything into gold is combined with "a Mulligan," which is slang for a do-over or second chance, alluding to a stereotypical habit of some Irishmen of being unsporting losers. For her character, however, the ability to make money was anything but a curse, and Midas Mulligan was not asking for a second chance, but rather was giving second chances to Rand's "looted" industrialists. Ragnar Danneskjöld is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse, if you assume that Robin Hood was stealing rightful property and that Danneskjöld was returning rightful property. There are, of course, interpretations, even among non-socialists, that Robin Hood was taking what the Lords themselves had plundered from the people, and also (mostly socialistic) interpretations hostile to Rand's, that Ragnar's piracy was taking rightful property for his rich friends. If one such interpretation is right, RD and RH more of direct parallels than reverse parallels. This symbolic naming question is a little different from the role model question, which would revolve around whether the actual behaviors of the Viking Ragnar Lodbrok suggested the behaviors of Ragnar Danneskjöld. Still, I think it's interesting.

To anyone: To where should I move this thread? It seems to have gone beyond meet and greet. To everyone: I want to be clear that Ayn's gathering information from Frank or anyone else does not diminish her or her works, and that interviews with great novelists show the overwhelming majority of them draw from real-life characters and then adapt those characters to fit the demands of the novel. To Brant: What you wrote was thought-provoking, even if it wasn't exactly what I had been looking for. I always thought the last section of Atlas Shrugged was the weakest. After all, if Galt's Gulch was so superior to the norm, why not take over economically instead of swallowing the bait and getting involved in politics? Couldn't Midas Mulligan et al have gone out buying up land in small, poor countries and effectively enriching them, (and himself), while continually undermining the looter economies? The idea of Ellsworth Toohey as a "spiritual-suicide bomber" is indeed interesting. As I have to read the book again anyhow, I will keep that in the back of my mind. To Ninth Doctor: The following is very useful. It shows that Ayn and Frank did indeed discuss her writing while it was in progress. Some authors crawl into a hole and don't let anyone see anything until they have a finished product. Others solicit feedback from a very small circle whose judgment they trust and value. This indicates that Ayn got feedback from Frank. To Reidy: Take a deep breath, then let it out slowly. Ouch. My first post already draws an ad hominem. Well, yes, my mind is partially made up, based on what I already know. So is my bed. Tomorrow morning my bed will be unmade. Depending on how the evidence changes, my mind will be either unmade, made up even more, or remade. And yes, if I become more certain that I am right, I will want to say so. I don't know why any of that is worthy of comment. The first hyperbolic reinterpretation of what I said. There is a great deal of ground between co-authorship and merely contributing and collaborating. If someone were to tell me about some American industrialists, and I used that in a novel, it would hardly make that person a de facto co-author. Where do I find that biographical information? (Also, where did I say anything about his hobnobbing with industrialists?) I thought it was pretty obvious. Take the unusual first name of a pirate who collected a tribute called dannesgeld, then use a slightly tweaked version of dannesgeld to form the last name. (Indeed, dannesgeld is how the English and French spelled it. For all I know, danneskjold could be how the vikings themselves spelled it. I am checking on that.) Then there's the fact that both Rand's Ragnar and the historical Ragnar were pirates. I have not explored the detailed history of Ragnar Lodbrok enough to see if there are detailed parallels, so I don't know whether she took much more than the name. Who were the à clef (keyed) characters to whom you refer? How closely were they keyed, and to whom? Thank you. That was helpful. Can you point to sources for these? My guess is that your mind is made up and that you want to tell me that I am wrong. (I think that's because I haven't actually asserted things and you are already telling me I'm wrong.) However, my second guess is that you do know a good deal, and that you can be very helpful if you get out of argument mode. -ds

Hi. I joined because I am interested in researching the influence of Frank O'Connor and his background in the writing of Atlas Shrugged. I stumbled on this forum after sifting through an online book of memoirs with a title like "Facets of Ayn Rand." It showed Frank an Ayn as very close, but there were no explicit comments about his collaboration or brain-storming with regard to plot lines or character development. I believe the people interviewed in the book got involved when Rand was in the later stages of writing the book, after the core plot lines and characters had been devloped. I have seen a good bit of speculation that Nicola Tesla had been drawn upon for John Galt, and Ragnar Danneskjold looks like a transparent adaptation of Viking pirate Ragnar Lodbok. Lodbrok was paid "dannesgeld" (Dane's Gold) as tribute by English and French settlements that did not want to be sacked. I have found nothing in any Ayn Rand sources about role models for Midas Mulligan, Dagny Taggart, Henry Rearden or Fransisco D'Anconia. I am speculating that O'Connor, who had lived his life in this country, might have had more exposure to American industrialists than Ayn had. If so, evidence of collaboration between Ayn and Frank, even as informal discussion, would suggest that Frank's experiences could have informed Ayn's writings. Since I am diving right in to some specific inquiries, I should probably shift from this "meet and greet" forum to one more focused on this kind of thing, but it wasn't obvious what category I should choose. Any hints on choosing an appropriate sub-forum would be welcome. I suppose I should also inquire at the Ayn Rand Institute. -ds -ds