Why did Dagny and Hank assume the motor had been invented by a single man?

[Philip Coates]

> I think that the first part of AS is the best and that it later deteriorates, with the last part being the weakest.

Dragonfly, I haven't thought about whether the earlier parts of Atlas are better than the latter. What I would have to do is simply read the last part in isolation to see. When you refere to the last part being weakest, are you referring to everything after Galt's Gulch?

Weak or unrealistic villains?

There are two villains who get the most space and dialogue and portrayal in the novel: James Taggart and Robert Stadler. (Wesley Mouch has more power but we learn less about him than even Orren Boyle, if I recall.) One thought that does occur to me about Taggart, being a "caricature" later on. He is portrayed as "losing it", going out of control, even almost slightly nuts. But she is making a point for dramatic purposes which is allowable. And even that is not out of the realm of human possibility. One hears allegations that both Hitler and Stalin dies insane - to take an even more extreme example.

Again, some assessment points would require a good deal of rereading on both your part and mine to solidify recalled impressions.

Did you read Atlas in your native language (Dutch) or in a second or third language?

[Selene]

What I would have to do is simply read the last part in isolation to see. When you refere to the last part being weakest, are you referring to everything after Galt's Gulch?

Really? That is an interesting approach.

James Taggart and Robert Stadler. (Wesley Mouch ... Orren Boyle He is portrayed as "losing it", going out of control, even almost slightly nuts.

This is just a little too sexist for me...Don't you think Lillian Rearden and Hank's mother qualify as on a par with the male villains.

Adam

Post Script: You have to grant me the fact that this does look really cool.

Even though the quote tool is not as simple and easy as advertised, it is like working with any new tool, it gets much easier.

[Philip Coates]

> Don't you think Lillian Rearden and Hank's mother qualify as on a par with the male villains. [Adam]

Good point, sexist porker Phil forgot to include them!! And they are well-developed villains, especially Lillian. So much for the false idea that all the bad guys in Atlas are 'cardboard' or wooden or one-dimensional.

Edited October 21, 2009 by Philip Coates

[jeffrey smith]

> Don't you think Lillian Rearden and Hank's mother qualify as on a par with the male villains. [Adam]

Good point, sexist porker Phil forgot to include them!! And they are well-developed villains, especially Lillian. So much for the false idea that all the bad guys in Atlas are 'cardboard' or wooden or one-dimensional.

And here's where readers can form different judgments.

I remember les femmes Rearden fairly distinctly. They were certainly villainous, but they were so blatanly moocher-istic (is there an actual adjectival form of the word?) that they rapidly became cardboard cutouts. There was nothing to them except their mooching.

Speaking of one- and three-dimensional characters, you'll find that Forster says some interesting things on the subject in Aspects of the Novel.

However, the AS reading project has been put on temporary hold. Going into a used bookstore to see if they have a copy (they didn't; only For the New Intellectual and Romantic Manifesto)) I found a copy of the Complete Compleat Enchanter (deCamp and Pratt) including the two stories I never read before. So guess what I'll be doing this week?

The Compleat Enchanter stories might actually be a good way of introducing people to epic literature, btw.

Jeff S.

[Alfonso Jones]

I remember les femmes Rearden fairly distinctly. They were certainly villainous, but they were so blatanly moocher-istic (is there an actual adjectival form of the word?) that they rapidly became cardboard cutouts. There was nothing to them except their mooching.

Jeff S.

I would disagree re the Rearden women (Lillian, and Rearden's mother). I have personally known people who had LOTS in common with those two. A medical doctor would have certified them as alive (and in fact did) in a biological sense.

I agree that these two are hardly reasonable, well-rounded people - - - but then again take a look at Jim Taggart. That's part of the point, I think - - - these people aren't really living - - - their lives are parasitical. Not only parasitical economically, but much more fundamentally. Lillian's purpose in live is wholly negative. Jim Taggart's seems to derive pleasure only from the negative. So - yes, they may not be people with full lives - - - - but I don't think they are meant to be. They're not as complex as, say, Dr. Robert Stadler or Ellsworth Toohey. Those two are some of the most complex villians Rand created - and much more interesting, at least to me.

Bill P

[Xray]

Dragonfly:

When the cavalry arrives, mentioning the name of the hero is enough to disarm the bad guys:

In time with the fall of the man's body, the window burst into a shower of glass—and from the limb of a tree, as from a catapult, the tall, slender figure of a man flew into the room, landed on its feet and fired at the first guard in reach.

"Who are you?", screamed some terror-blinded voice.

"Ragnar Danneskjöld."

Three sounds answered him: a long, swelling moan of panic—the clatter of four guns dropped to the floor—and the bark of the fifth, fired by a guard at the forehead of the chief.

DF: I find this really bad writing, it sounds more like some comic strip of Superman or whatever those supernatural heroes are called. Catapulting from a tree right through a glass window, landing unharmed on your feet and disarming everyone merely by mentioning you're Ragnar Danneskjöld... sorry, but that's a bit too much for me. It's as if Rand is living in her own fantasy, where all evil people are powerless cowards, always panicking and screaming in terror when problems arise. Perhaps some people enjoy such fantasies, but I prefer more realistic villains.

JMO too. "Comic strip Superman" fits it to T. In quite a few a passages of AS, both what is written there and how it is described is so absurd that it borders on the comical.

Edited October 21, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

JMO too. "Comic strip Superman" fits it to T. In quite a few a passages of AS, both what is written there and how it is described is so absurd that it borders on the comical.

Subjective value opinion. I won't argue.

--Brant

[merjet]

JMO too. "Comic strip Superman" fits it to T. In quite a few a passages of AS, both what is written there and how it is described is so absurd that it borders on the comical.

Subjective value opinion. I won't argue.

--Brant

Also, Xray's evaluations, being subjective, cannot be objective according to her own dogma.

[Dragonfly]

JMO too. "Comic strip Superman" fits it to T. In quite a few a passages of AS, both what is written there and how it is described is so absurd that it borders on the comical.

Subjective value opinion. I won't argue.

Of course it's a subjective value opinion, but so is yours. That is no reason why someone should not give his reasons for arriving at his opinion. Perhaps you might even learn something from that, an different viewpoint may sometimes be refreshing and open new insights. But of course you can also close the door and bolt it shut, that's your own choice.

[Xray]

Also, Xray's evaluations, being subjective, cannot be objective according to her own dogma.

The topic was about Rand's unrealistic superman-types of heroes in AS.

Whether one finds her heroes (which are projections of her personal fantasies) appealing or not is a matter of subjective choice - you got that right.

In several posts I have elaborated why I don't find them appealing.

Also keep in mind Rand claiming that men such as she wrote about existed in reality.

Now compare that e. g. to the Danneskjöld scene where he flies through that glass window like Superman, staying unharmed of course - imo that's just plain hilarious.

Rand often failed to notice the discrepancy between fact and fiction and reversed the two in her thinking and writing.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Summarizing all the B.S - Rand bad

Boring. Banal. Bland.

[Brant Gaede]

JMO too. "Comic strip Superman" fits it to T. In quite a few a passages of AS, both what is written there and how it is described is so absurd that it borders on the comical.

Subjective value opinion. I won't argue.

Of course it's a subjective value opinion, but so is yours. That is no reason why someone should not give his reasons for arriving at his opinion. Perhaps you might even learn something from that, an different viewpoint may sometimes be refreshing and open new insights. But of course you can also close the door and bolt it shut, that's your own choice.

In six months I could write a 200 page book criticizing and analyzing Atlas Shrugged. I could never read it cover to cover any longer for pleasure. I take exception to someone who pulls out a few lines here and there, however, to go ha, ha, ha. She's a troll. I don't care that's she's sophisticated and intelligent enough to just barely lambada under most people's troll alarms.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

> these people aren't really living - - - their lives are parasitical...Lillian's purpose in life is wholly negative. Jim Taggart...they may not be people with full lives - - - - but I don't think they are meant to be. They're not as complex as, say, Dr. Robert Stadler or Ellsworth Toohey.

Excellent points, Bill.

I think Xray and Dragonfly and Jeffrey are missing the point that not all characters can be or ought to be fully 'rounded' or three dimensional in a novel. i) There isn't space in a book this crowded, nor is detailing these characters every nuance properly a goal given Rand's purpose. ii) It would be distracting if every character 'hogged the stage' that way. Leading to a meandering, always flying-off-on-a-tangent mess.

Even though that's what muddy and confusing modernism often teaches as an ideal. One of its greatest condemnations is 'simplistic' or 'too linear'.

A novel, particularly a romantic or otherwise stylized one is a selective recreation of reality. The great artist, whether painter, sculptor, whether musician or fiction writer, is skilled not only in what he includes but in what he is intelligent enough to leave out.

That's why so many modernist-schooled people raised to appreciate contemporary literature and depth-texture-complexity-richness-nuance lose the ability to appreciate what is clear and essentialized. And err in condemning Rand by modernist [and often quite false or narrow or limited] literary standards.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Philip Coates

[jeffrey smith]

I think Xray and Dragonfly and Jeffrey are missing the point that not all characters can be or ought to be fully 'rounded' or three dimensional in a novel. i) There isn't space in a book this crowded, nor is detailing these characters every nuance properly a goal given Rand's purpose. ii) It would be distracting if every character 'hogged the stage' that way. Leading to a meandering, always flying-off-on-a-tangent mess.

Nay, nay--well, I can't speak for Dragonfly, since I don't know his opinion, and it's impossible to speak for Xray, since she never has a clear opinion--but for myself, I was only reacting to in number 128 of this thread:

Good point, sexist porker Phil forgot to include them!! And they are well-developed villains, especially Lillian. So much for the false idea that all the bad guys in Atlas are 'cardboard' or wooden or one-dimensional.

with which I happen to disagree, in so far as it relates to Lillian or Hank's mother.

But the general point you make above I agree with. In fact, I think it is so obvious it's hard to imagine anyone thinking otherwise, unless you have a novel with a very limited number of characters, and none of them minor characters.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The great artist, whether painter, sculptor, whether musician or fiction writer, is skilled not only in what he includes but in what he is intelligent enough to leave out.

Phil,

This is an excellent point. I would go so far as to say that thinking in themes in literature is equivalent to thinking in principles for guiding your life.

A person shooting for the highest experience life can offer—i.e., devoting his life to excellence in all his major values—requires the skill of knowing what to leave out. That means leaving stuff out of his thoughts, his values and his life.

(I obviously mean her, too—damn this limitation of the English language.)

Michael

[Philip Coates]

That's right, you can't do everything in life, just like you can't in literature. You have to eliminate clutter, distraction, both in literature and in life. Else you end up in a swamp or going in circles or never getting nearer to the light at the end of a road as straight as Dagny Taggart's rails.

[Philip Coates]

> the general point you make above [not all characters can be three-dimensional] I agree with. In fact, I think it is so obvious it's hard to imagine anyone thinking otherwise...

Allright Jeffrey! You are no longer on my literary shit list!!! B)

I just wanted to try all these faces....

Schoolmarm's PopQuiz for Recalcitrant Students #31227:

Match each face up with one of the nine villains in Atlas and tell me which face is fully rounded and which is cardboard. (No jokes about Dopey, Sneezy, and Grumpy.)

Edited October 22, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Michelle]

A person shooting for the highest experience life can offer—i.e., devoting his life to excellence in all his major values—requires the skill of knowing what to leave out. That means leaving stuff out of his thoughts, his values and his life.

(I obviously mean her, too—damn this limitation of the English language.)

Michael

Don't worry. Anyone who isn't an irate gender-feminist will know that you're not limiting your comment to the coarser sex.

[Dragonfly]

Dragonfly, I haven't thought about whether the earlier parts of Atlas are better than the latter. What I would have to do is simply read the last part in isolation to see. When you refere to the last part being weakest, are you referring to everything after Galt's Gulch?

I don't think there is a sharp division, but let's say part III, including Galt's Gulch (as totally unrealistic) and especially the "action" scenes at the end.

Did you read Atlas in your native language (Dutch) or in a second or third language?

No, I read it in English (about a dozen times, so I know the book fairly well).

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Unrealistic and Fake vs. Stylized and Selective

Dragonfly, I'm going over and rereading the last 30%. If I have the time to stay here and keep posting, I'll note my reactions.

One thing, right off the bat. When Dagny comes back from the valley she notices a certain accelerating deterioration. In people, in government takeovers, etc.

Here's the point: You and others have made a by now standard criticism of Atlas: It's unrealistic in one way or another. People aren't like that, events don't happen that way, portrayals of villains, etc.

Rather than trying to rebut each of these or simply repeat over and over that you have to allow a writer some literary license and that Rand is a romantic writer and her writing is stylized....all of which are true, and a good answer...I will simply want to use the accelerated deterioration point as one example:

In Atlas, the economy and the society go steeply downhill in a single lifetime. Yes, this wouldn't actually happen that way. It's 'unreal' in that sense. But that is not a valid criticism of the novel. The novel is not supposed to be a carbon copy of reality. Whether in regard to whether or not Dagny would have slept with Eddie or whether Francisco fumbles with a cork. . . . Or in this matter. The novelist needs to show what would happen if a society were to crumble. And for that purpose, just like in a fantasy or any other speculative fiction, the author not only can but in this case should show the different stages within the span of one book.

[Philip Coates]

In other words, "accelerated deterioration" is one example of something which is not realistic in the sense of it not being likely to happen that way. But it is literarily a valid technique.

How fast things fall apart, whether in a society or in a person [James Taggart, anyone?] in fiction vs. reality is one example why lack of perfect or complete literal realism is not a valid criticism of a work of art.

[jeffrey smith]

In other words, "accelerated deterioration" is one example of something which is not realistic in the sense of it not being likely to happen that way. But it is literarily a valid technique.

How fast things fall apart, whether in a society or in a person [James Taggart, anyone?] in fiction vs. reality is one example why lack of perfect or complete literal realism is not a valid criticism of a work of art.

Phil--

I think maybe the word "realism" is throwing you (and other people) off here.

It's not so much how realistic the story is (that is, does it happen in real life) as how plausible the story is (that is, could it happen in real life, given the correct set of circumstances).

Jeff S.

[Philip Coates]

Subject: More on the "Rand is Unrealistic" Fallacy

> how plausible the story is (that is, could it happen in real life, given the correct set of circumstances).

Jeffrrey, that rapid a set of economic / intellectual / social / gang warfare deterioration couldn't happen in real life, but then neither could the events of myth or fantasy. Does one condemnt the literature or myth or fantasy (or science fiction) becaues they couldn't happen, are metaphysically impossible, are a "stretch"? The events of the Odyssey or the Iliad could not happen in real life, but no one would say of them (as they do of Atlas) that they are disqualified from being great literature because they are not "realistic."

Also: Achilles is a creation of fiction, as is Odysseus, as are Dagny and Rearden and Roark. You can't condemn one as unrealistic unless you condemn them all.

People who don't like or don't agree with an author's sense of life, or perspective, or politics, or views of human nature tend to try to come up with words to wrap around that. And if you [i don't necessarily mean you personally] don't think it is possible for a person of complete integrity to exist, everyone has flaws in this area or in ethics more widely, you will say Roark (to take just one of the literary heroes) is "unrealistic" and will condemn the novel -literarily- (not just philosophically) for that reason.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Dragonfly]

I think maybe the word "realism" is throwing you (and other people) off here.

It's not so much how realistic the story is (that is, does it happen in real life) as how plausible the story is (that is, could it happen in real life, given the correct set of circumstances).

Yes, that is a succinct formulation of what I wanted to say. I don't think that readers find the 'accelerated deterioration' in itself so implausible, but the fact that it would be at all possible to destroy the world by picking a few dozen people and inciting them to strike. If you want to show the importance of innovators it's much better to limit the scope of your novel and work on a much smaller scale. In that case you could perhaps create a convincing story. By the way, that is a tendency I also see with some thriller writers: their first novels are often convincing local stories, but then they seem to feel that they must operate on a grander scale, resulting in very implausible stories wherein the hero saves the earth from destruction by some super-villains.

How realistic elements of a novel are depends also on the context. SF is a genre that is almost by definition unrealistic, but that doesn't mean that such novels have to be be implausible, a good writer can make you suspend your disbelief. Now there may be some SF elements in AS (the motor, Rearden steel, the screen over the valley), but in general the description is meant to be realistic (meaning: it could happen). As Rand herself said: "I trust that no one will tell me that men such as I write about don't exist". Therefore I think that unrealistic traits of heroes and villains in AS are a minus. It makes the book like a morality play, which belongs more the Middle Ages than in a modern novel. It's a way of dumbing down the text: it suggests that people can only get the message when it's spelled out in all details, with all too obvious schematic characterizations of villains and heroes, and that is what goes against the grain with many readers.

[Xray]

> Don't you think Lillian Rearden and Hank's mother qualify as on a par with the male villains. [Adam]

Good point, sexist porker Phil forgot to include them!! And they are well-developed villains, especially Lillian. So much for the false idea that all the bad guys in Atlas are 'cardboard' or wooden or one-dimensional.

But isn't Lillian's "villainous" behavior also a reaction to how she was being treated by her husband who rejected her right from the start? Who wouldn't get bitter feelings having to live like that?

When Lillian finally finds out about Rearden's adulterous relationship with Dagny, he threatens that he would "beat her up" if she ever dared to mention Dagny's name. I ask myself who is behaving like a 'villain' here.

Lillian is not only being cheated on, into the bargain she is being threatened with physical violence by her adulterous husband, the Randian 'hero' Rearden.

Edited October 24, 2009 by Xray