This topic will contain lots of plot spoilers.
See also my:
Iâm half way through a reread of Atlas Shrugged. Overall Iâm enjoying it. I have some critical comments.
I donât like how thin-skinned, fragile, emotional, short-tempered, violent or even murderous Rearden and Francisco are. There are several parts where they get angry over some sort of insult or slight, they look like they could kill, they restrain themselves from physical violence, etc.
I donât see why Francisco had to imply that he had control over whether his copper shipment to Rearden was sunk or not. He could have just given no information away. The whole plot point about Francisco betraying Rearden is weird because Francisco told him not to do business with dâAnconia Copper and Rearden violated Franciscoâs consent. It was Rearden who mistreated Francisco not the other way around. Note that Rearden had to hide his identity to do it. Itâs weird for Rearden to feel so betrayed when he ignored Franciscoâs warning â so he should have known he was taking a substantial risk â then didnât get the outcome he wanted. I also think itâs unreasonable for Rearden to be so mad at dâAnconia Copper for making him late on an order for the first time when the reason he was doing business with them is that every other copper company was also unable to provide him enough copper on time â why single out for blame the last company you turn to over all the others that had also become unreliable?
I think everyone communicates, discusses, explains and debates way too little. I dislike the major plot point about waiting for over a decade for Dagny to discover things herself instead of trying to explain them to her. Meanwhile Galt persuades a lot of other people in a single conversation. And overall Dagny seems like the most rational, reasonable character in the book (from what we see, from the actual information available). And John Galt should have given a public speech years earlier.
I donât like some of the exaggerations(?) about giving oneâs life for something like a year doing a job, or about something mattering more than the whole of the railroad or mills.
A lot of the sexual relationship stuff is bad.
Iâve been paying attention to Lillian because someone brought up the concept of her as a domestic abuse victim. At the half way point, Iâd say her story is compatible with her being primarily a victim of Hank, rather than the other way around as Rand intended it. I donât expect this to change later because sheâs already doing some mean and aggressive stuff, but it doesnât matter much because it comes after years of marriage. Itâs their courtship and the early days of their marriage that is primarily relevant. If sheâs a mean bitch now after being mistreated for years, and she tries to harm him now, itâs not very relevant because it could be a trauma response. Anything she says about the past and her past goals could also be a coping mechanism; sheâs an unreliable narrator now. Whatâs more relevant is Hankâs own account of his early behavior towards her. Their relationship is clearly bad now, and theyâre both jerks to each other now; the issue is primarily about how it got that way.
I can imagine some people defending all of Hankâs present behavior, saying itâs actually good, not merely understandable given years of prior fighting. Iâd really disagree with that. I fear Rand herself might take that position. Hankâs rather unkind to Lillian, and it looks to me like only their history of conflict can potentially excuse that, rather than it being a good way for anyone to treat their wife in general (even if she has some bad ideas, and even if she makes some rude and sarcastic remarks).
If Atlas Shrugged were published today, I would criticize it for being unrealistic regarding the bad philosophy the villains say. It doesnât seem like a fair enough characterization of common bad ideas in our culture today. I donât know whether it was realistic or not when it came out 70 years ago. In other words, I donât know if Ayn Rand was straw manning some of her opponents or not.
If Atlas Shrugged were published today, I would criticize it for being unrealistic regarding the bad philosophy the villains say. It doesnât seem like a fair enough characterization of common bad ideas in our culture today. I donât know whether it was realistic or not when it came out 70 years ago. In other words, I donât know if Ayn Rand was straw manning some of her opponents or not.
I donât know either.
However, I do know that when it was published, some critics said it was unrealistic in that way.
For example, this blog (note: the blog is very hostile to Rand) reposts an old 1957 review of Atlas Shrugged:
The term âstraw manâ doesnât show up in that review, but âcaricaturesâ shows up a few times in a context very similar to âstraw manâ. For example:
The Children of Darkness are caricatures, too; and they are really oozy. But at least they are caricatures of something identifiable. Their archetypes are Left-Liberals, New Dealers, Welfare Statists, One Worlders, or, at any rate, such ogreish semblances of these as may stalk the nightmares of those who think little about people as people, but tend to think a great deal in labels and effigies.
I think itâs fair to say this critic thought she was straw manning her opponents.
Though it is also worth noting that the review is, in general, very negative and nasty towards Rand. So maybe the critic in 1957 was being unfair.
But I think itâs plausible that whatever you might criticize today as a straw man would have been fair to say when it was published.
I found a part where Dagny was being murderous. It was around the time she was gonna build the John Galt Line:
Donât let them try to stop me. If they try . . . Jim, people say that our ancestor, Nat Taggart, killed a politician who tried to refuse him a permission he should never have had to ask. I donât know whether Nat Taggart did it or not. But Iâll tell you this: I know how he felt, if he did. If he didnâtâI might do the job for him, to complete the family legend. I mean it, Jim.
My first thoughts are that why does it have to come down to murdering somebody? It sounds bad. Idk tho i think i may be missing the point of why the above quote was written for.
I dont know if washington stopping Dagny is a slight or insult. Idk what those two words mean but if theyâre small in degree then theyâre smaller than politicians sabotaging Dagnyâs company.
Yeah I think itâs bad. People should threaten to write books or give speeches instead. Persuasion. The pen is mightier (and way more moral) than the sword. etc.
1 Like
Oh i didnt think about that. Thats a good alternative. I didnt know if there was a hidden meaning to the quote that would change the issue, but Dagny saying that âshe means itâ means the quote can be taken literally.
Oh actually? I wonder why he did it then n not ealier. I havent reread the speech part yet.
I remember reading the speech the first time n i was trying really hard to get why he was doing it and what he was saying.