"Atlas Part 1" Commentaries and Reviews

[Philip Coates]

> If you are still in Florida, Phil, there are four theatres listed

Thanks, William, but I'm several hundred miles away and I don't know anyone in Miami I could crash with. (I could get a hotel room for a single night I suppose, but I'm not inclined to do that.)

[9thdoctor]

Thanks, William, but I'm several hundred miles away and I don't know anyone in Miami I could crash with. (I could get a hotel room for a single night I suppose, but I'm not inclined to do that.)

Mmm, I wonder if Phil’s suddenly being nice to me on various threads because he’s angling for an invite to crash on my couch. If he knew of the carnal debaucheries that have been perpetrated on that piece of furniture, he’d demur. In any event, I’m sure the film will make it out his way soon enough (around Tampa, right?).

[Dennis Hardin]

I'm turning green with envy at all of you who live close enough to one of the few places where it will be showing!!!

I.m guessing it will probably be a year before it gets to my vicinity.

Phil,

The movie is showing at a multiplex in Torrance which I go to all the time. Maybe I'll take along a video camera and make a bootleg version. Of course, it's going to cost you big time. Plus postage.

(Oops! Darn! I just remembered I'm not a libertarian.)

[Philip Coates]

> Mmm, I wonder if Phil’s suddenly being nice to me on various threads because he’s angling for an invite to crash on my couch. [ND]

No.

[Philip Coates]

I'll take the bed. You can have the couch.

[caroljane]

I'll take the bed. You can have the couch.

Phil/ND,

Do you moonlight as scriptwriters for The Big Bang Theory? If not you should!

[Xray]

I have never been much of a fiction reader, to say the least, so when I finally decided to read Atlas Shrugged (I was in college at the time), I began by skipping to Galt's Speech, after which I read the other speeches. I liked those a lot, so I finally buckled down and read the incidental stuff.

I liked The Fountainhead better than Atlas. The characters appealed to me more, including Ellsworth Toohey, one of the greatest fictional villains of all time. The villains in Atlas struck me as bumbling fools compared to Toohey, who, in addition to being evil, had a philosophy of evil. I still consider his analysis of altruism (during a conversation with Peter Keating) to be one of the best things Rand ever wrote.

I have read The Fountainhead around ten times. I have only read Atlas twice. That's why I expect to like the movie more than others might. I have forgotten a lot of details about the plot, so I won't fret over things that are left out or changed. In this case at least, ignorance might very well prove to be bliss.

I liked neither TF nor AS, but found AS somewhat more intriguing to read, at least in the first part, because I kept asking myself where the hell all these people had vanished. When it turned out where they had set up residence, in that (totally boring imo) "Eu"topia Galt's Gulch, my interest in the whole thing plummeted.

Imo the surrealistic elements in AS actually did Rand's "realistic" intentions a disservice, for they make the hero Galt an extremely unreal character, resembling more some god-type than a human being.

Galt's far too long speech stands out like a bulging atheroma, giving the novel an uneven architectural structure.

On the other hand, Galt being so surrealistic made him somewhat easier to 'digest' emotionally for me than Howard Roark, a type who could exist in reality.

Roark's lack of empathy is so threatening because the acts he commits evoke acts which have happened in reality, and will happen again. Open up the paper and you will read about people mentally having "justified" their violent acts, believing they have been treated "unjustly" by their surroundings, or because they feel their "moral ideals" have been smeared by those who don't happen to share them.

Roark's "justifying" his blowing up the building with "breach of contract" is absurd, for Roark had no contract. The contract was with Keating, not with Roark.

Edited March 18, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

It's one thing not to like a novel; it's another to presume to somehow correct it.

Of course Roark would blow up the housing complex. It was too great an idea for a climax to pass by. Rand justified it the best way she could, but TF is no more about an architect blowing up buildings than it's about him getting the girl in the end. How's this for a contract: If you don't like the way we build your buildings you can blow them up!? Who'd come with such a thing? The only legal way to get past blowing up that complex would have been through jury nullification, an idea that really can't be worked into what the story was all about. That's what his jury really did, but not what the author said it did.

--Brant

[Dennis Hardin]

Roark's "justifying" his blowing up the building with "breach of contract" is absurd, for Roark had no contract. The contract was with Keating, not with Roark.

Wow. How perceptive you are. Too bad you weren't around in the 1940's so you could have pointed that out to Ayn Rand. She was obviously confused.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Dennis Hardin

[Selene]

Roark's "justifying" his blowing up the building with "breach of contract" is absurd, for Roark had no contract. The contract was with Keating, not with Roark.

Wow. How perceptive you are. Too bad you weren't around in the 1940's so you coud have pointed that out to Ayn Rand. She was obviously confused.

Additionally, we should also discount the oral contract between Howard and Keating which was as clear as an oral contract could be, but Ms. Xray's vision is obstructed by the lead shield in front of her brain.

[Greybird]

[...] Additionally, we should also discount the oral contract between Howard [Roark] and [Peter] Keating which was as clear as an oral contract could be [...]

It was made into an oral contract in the movie, probably for dramatic brevity, and consisted in essence only of Keating's "I give you my word." This was later attested to by the signed confession that Ellsworth Toohey browbeat Keating into providing.

In the book, it was a written contract. The last two lines below were, however, used nearly verbatim in the movie, to conclude the scene, after Roark and Keating shook hands on their agreement.

Roark took two typewritten sheets of paper from his pocket and handed them to him. "Sign it."

"What’s that?"

"A contract between us, stating the terms of our agreement. A copy for each of us. It would probably have no legal validity whatever. But I can hold it over your head. I couldn’t sue you. But I could make this public. If it’s prestige you want, you can’t allow this to become known. If your courage fails you at any point, remember that you’ll lose everything by giving in. But if you’ll keep your word — I give you mine — it’s written there — that I’ll never betray this to anyone. Cortlandt will be yours. On the day when it’s finished, I’ll send this paper back to you and you can burn it if you wish."

"All right, Howard."

Keating signed, handed the pen to him, and Roark signed.

Keating sat looking at him for a moment, then said slowly, as if trying to distinguish the dim form of some thought of his own:

"Everybody would say you’re a fool. ... Everybody would say I’m getting everything. ..."

"You’ll get everything society can give a man. You’ll keep all the money. You’ll take any fame or honor anyone might want to grant. You’ll accept such gratitude as the tenants might feel. And I — I’ll take what nobody can give a man, except himself. I will have built Cortlandt."

[Part Four, chapter 8]

[Selene]

Steve:

Yes indeed. Clear as Ms. Xray could ever desire. However, it would interrupt her constant attempts to rewrite Ayn. Typical public "servant!"

Keep those facts out of the record because it makes the state repression so much more sticky!

Adam

[Dennis Hardin]

[...] Additionally, we should also discount the oral contract between Howard [Roark] and [Peter] Keating which was as clear as an oral contract could be [...]

It was made into an oral contract in the movie, probably for dramatic brevity, and consisted in essence only of Keating's "I give you my word." This was later attested to by the signed confession that Ellsworth Toohey browbeat Keating into providing.

In the book, it was a written contract. The last two lines below were, however, used nearly verbatim in the movie, to conclude the scene, after Roark and Keating shook hands on their agreement.

Roark took two typewritten sheets of paper from his pocket and handed them to him. "Sign it."

"What’s that?"

"A contract between us, stating the terms of our agreement. A copy for each of us. It would probably have no legal validity whatever. But I can hold it over your head. I couldn’t sue you. But I could make this public. If it’s prestige you want, you can’t allow this to become known. If your courage fails you at any point, remember that you’ll lose everything by giving in. But if you’ll keep your word — I give you mine — it’s written there — that I’ll never betray this to anyone. Cortlandt will be yours. On the day when it’s finished, I’ll send this paper back to you and you can burn it if you wish."

"All right, Howard."

Keating signed, handed the pen to him, and Roark signed.

Keating sat looking at him for a moment, then said slowly, as if trying to distinguish the dim form of some thought of his own:

"Everybody would say you’re a fool. ... Everybody would say I’m getting everything. ..."

"You’ll get everything society can give a man. You’ll keep all the money. You’ll take any fame or honor anyone might want to grant. You’ll accept such gratitude as the tenants might feel. And I — I’ll take what nobody can give a man, except himself. I will have built Cortlandt."

[Part Four, chapter 8]

Actually, the contract between Roark and Keating was a probably an afterthought by Rand. By itself, it does not legally “justify” the destruction of Cortlandt, since the actual builders had no contract with Roark. All it does is underscore the philosophical theme: that an innovator has the right to the products of his genius, and that Toohey’s cohorts demonstrated total disrespect for that right in the way they dealt with Keating, who, in Roark's absence, fought hard to have it built exactly as Roark designed it.

[Selene]

Dennis:

Cortland would not have existed without Roark's design,

It was built in violation of his contract with Keating.

Therefore, he had an absolute right to destroy it[his intellectual property].

Adam

Edited March 20, 2011 by Selene

[Philip Coates]

> Wow. How perceptive you are. Too bad you weren't around in the 1940's so you could have pointed that out to Ayn Rand. She was obviously confused.

Dennis, don't descend to the snarky and belittling level of so many posters.

[Brant Gaede]

> Wow. How perceptive you are. Too bad you weren't around in the 1940's so you could have pointed that out to Ayn Rand. She was obviously confused.

Dennis, don't descend to the snarky and belittling level of so many posters.

Yeah, right. It's okay to dump on Ayn Rand as long as you're polite. What's wrong with honest sarcasm as compared to the hypocrisy of face to face social lubrication you keep trying to import to an Internet forum?

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

> What's wrong with honest sarcasm as compared to the hypocrisy of face to face social lubrication you keep trying to import to an Internet forum?

Brant, I've already posted on what's wrong with the one and why the other is not "hypocritical" many times.

Plus there's a huge literature on civility.

[Dennis Hardin]

Dennis:

Cortland would not have existed without Roark's design,

It was built in violation of his contract with Keating.

Therefore, he had an absolute right to destroy it[his intellectual property].

Adam

Toohey’s puppets were not a party to Keating’s contract with Roark, so how could they have violated it? They violated Keating’s contract for the housing project, which gave Roark the right to take the action he did. Keating personally did everything he could to honor his agreement with Roark.

This will be my final comment on this topic. I'm sorry if that sounds "snarky," but this whole issue is obvious and a complete waste of time. Sheesh.

[Dennis Hardin]

> Wow. How perceptive you are. Too bad you weren't around in the 1940's so you could have pointed that out to Ayn Rand. She was obviously confused.

Dennis, don't descend to the snarky and belittling level of so many posters.

Phil,

I know you mean well, but when someone makes a thoughtless comment about Ayn Rand that displays such total disrespect for her artistic genius, my response is likely to have a tone of disrespect. I will do my best to avoid any personal attacks or name-calling. In such cases, however, my sarcastic tone reflects how I honestly feel, and, within limits, I think that's justified and acceptable behavior on a forum like this.

[jriggenbach]

> What's wrong with honest sarcasm as compared to the hypocrisy of face to face social lubrication you keep trying to import to an Internet forum?

Brant, I've already posted on what's wrong with the one and why the other is not "hypocritical" many times.

Plus there's a huge literature on civility.

The problem is, of course, that none of those posts really answers Brant's question. They all begin by assuming what needs to be proved.

JR

[Philip Coates]

You've gone through all of them and you know that?

Plus the huge literature on civility?

Edited March 20, 2011 by Philip Coates

[jriggenbach]

You've gone through all of them and you know that?

Plus the huge literature on civility?

Those who read with precision will note that I made no comment on "the huge literature on civility." (Nor, for that matter, did I make any comment on the huge literature on numerology, the huge literature on phrenology, or the huge literature on criminology. I tend to pay scant attention to literature, however huge, which is devoted to concepts and theories I've already long since decided are floating abstractions, conceptually incoherent package deals, or plain bunkum.)

JR

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Are contemptuous, disrespectful responses -ever- appropriate?

> when someone makes a thoughtless comment about Ayn Rand that displays such total disrespect for her artistic genius, my response is likely to have a tone of disrespect**.[DH]

Dennis, no offense but I think that is a mistake made by Objectivists regularly when their hero or their deepest values or philosophical ideas are attacked.

[**there's of course a degree issue - a difference between a mild tone of disrespect and completely sarcastic dismissal.]

I've noticed this on public websites, in letters to the editor, in question periods, or when people post on internet public response boards every time Rand or Objectivism are attacked. Emotions and long years of frustration kick in. (This goes back decades and is well-known publicly. One reason we get called "cultists". I constantly read of public figures who comment that "as soon as I publish something dismissive of Rand, I will get deluged with angry, emotional emails attacking my character and my basic intellect." Apparently, the calm reasoned respectful responders are often a distinct minority - or not always the ones that are well-remembered.)

Contempt, disrespect, sarcasm seldom convince the public or intellectuals as opposed to calmly and simply pointing out the mistake someone is making. Or the argument they are not hearing or evidence they may be simply unaware of.

I understand the emotional reaction and often am tempted myself, and I -do- think there is an occasion for responding with contempt and sarcasm but it's limited to when goodwill and fairness have long been absent: I respond with sarcasm or contemptuous putdowns on this list when the other party themselves treats you [me] repeatedly with personal attacks or the like, not when they disagree intellectually, respectfully, civilly. (I mentioned public venues above, but I think all this applies to more specialized or small discussion boards as well.)

The hard part:

By contrast, I think when you can bring yourself to swallow your anger or frustration and treat people with respect and calmly make your argument with crystal clarity, then (over time) the most thoughtful, honest people will start to treat you and your ideas more seriously.

(This is difficult I know. For me my frustration level tends to build with repeated ankle bites or unfairnesses. And control is seldom perfect)

Edited March 20, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

> Those who read with precision will note that I made no comment on "the huge literature on civility." [Jeff]

Yes, but you did comment on the body of my postings saying that it assumed the point to be proved. So my question if you are sure about that, if you've read them all is valid.

[Brant Gaede]

> What's wrong with honest sarcasm as compared to the hypocrisy of face to face social lubrication you keep trying to import to an Internet forum?

Brant, I've already posted on what's wrong with the one and why the other is not "hypocritical" many times.

Without any exceptions?

--Brant