The Continued Relevance of Rand's Villains (Atlas Shrugged)

Ludwig Von Mises Institute ^ | April 19, 2011 | J. Patrick Rhamey Jr.

[cetarist]

Yes, but I found it pretty simplistic. Sorry, I may be a small-government Goldwater-ite, but I fail on the Rand test - a hack writer who could of done much better if she put effort into it.

[keep your powder dry]

Yes. I’ve read it, my wife hasn’t... she got it.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Will do! :)

[Diana in Wisconsin]

I’ve been thinking of creating a new game: “Randian Villain or Democrat?”

How can you tell the difference? LOL! :)

[catnipman]

“I think they missed an opportunity by glossing over the Reardon Aniversary Party.”

Actually, I thought the most powerful scene in the entire movie was at that party. Dagny trades Lillian Rearden Dagney’s extraordinarily valuable diamond necklace for Lillian Rearden’s singular Reardon Metal bracelet that Hank Reardon made especially for Lillian from the first pour of Rearden Metal.

This bracelet represented the things most important in the world to Hank Rearden and he gave this priceless object to his wife, who was so shallow and empty-headed she was going to give it to her maid, thinking that common diamonds were more far valuable. Lillian thus rejected not only Hank’s bracelet but Hank himself in her valuation of the bracelet.

Dagney, immediately realizing the true importance of the bracelet, its true rarity, and what it really meant in terms of both accomplishment and to Hank himself, powerfully demonstrated her own boldness, her own sense of values and her own personal power by taking this precious object from the shallow Lillian, thereby taking not only the bracelet itself which was not deserved by the essentially worthless Lillian, but taking Hank from her as well. In effect, Dagney bought Hank from the clueless Lillian, and demonstrated just how much Dagney valued both Hank and his unique accomplishments by the price she paid for the bracelet.

[backwoods-engineer]

Somebody please tell me that "Atlas Shrugged" is better than "The Fountainhead." I got 1/3 of the way through the latter some years ago, and literally threw the book across the room, screaming, "there are no people like that!" I never read the rest, but gave the book back. The characters are completely un-human, one-dimensional, devoid of any emotion (least of which compassion), and acted like they did not care whether they lived or died, or whether anybody else did. I cannot relate to them at all.

So, if the protagonists of "Atlas Shrugged" are anything like that, I will neither read the book nor see the movie.

Talk me down from my tree here.

[Onelifetogive]

Representative Jackson's tirade this week about the iPad is a joke that just writes itself!

It was a bit too wordy for my taste...

[Onelifetogive]

Somebody please tell me that "Atlas Shrugged" is better than "The Fountainhead."

I like both books, but they are not dramatically different. The characters are VERY one dimensional, and no, they are not really like real people. They represent a pure ideal. IMnsHO.

[denydenydeny]

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. took to the house floor to declare that Steve Jobs's iPad was killing jobs. Congress must, according to Jackson, recognize that Apple is driving companies such as Barnes & Noble and Borders out of business, and the company should be stopped in the interests of fairness.

We can call it "the Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog Law."

[Ragnar54]

"Indeed, many of the film's difficulties are less the fault of the director, and more of Rand herself. The primary protagonists of the book are emotionless industrialists, stilted and one-dimensional in their behaviors, thinking only of metal, railroads, and factories. "

Actually, the protagonists are anything but "emotionless". They are extremely passionate about their work. This concept is foreign to the typical modern liberal arts graduate, for whom life should be a succession of cocktail party discussions about politics, ballgames, television shows, etc. Had Mr. Rhamey availed himself of the opportunity to take some courses in hard science or engineering, he would probably have a better appreciation of "metal, railroads, and factories". I would have enjoyed seeing scenes from Dagny's early work on the railroad, or of Hank Rearden's work in the ore mines and steel mills.

The movie was anything but "mediocre". The Sunday afternoon showing was interrupted multiple times by applause; I suspect that most members of the audience were already fans of the novel. I cannot recall any other movie having as great an emotional impact.

[TheOldLady]

Spend a Lot of Time at Free Republic?
Get a Lot of Information?

Donate what you can afford

Or sign up to donate monthly
and a sponsoring FReeper will donate $10

Urgent: Save Lazamataz! Donate today

[Old Teufel Hunden]

I know HBO would never do this, but this story IMO would be best told as an HBO miniseries.

[Publius]

Perceptive article.

[GeronL]

Yep, it hits pretty close to dead center

[RedStateRocker]

As with Tom Clancy and Robert Heinlein, it's the villains that are often the most interesting characters and the heroes that seem flat and unsympathetic.

[r-q-tek86]

I decided to read Part I again in preparation for the movie... I couldn't stop. So I am reading the closing chapters of the book last night and I come to Wesley unveiling “The John Galt Plan for Peace, Prosperity and Profit” at the end of Part III, Chapter VIII. It was frightening.

“The John Galt Plan will reconcile all conflicts. It will protect the property of the rich and give a greater share to the poor. It will cut down the burden of your taxes and provide you with more government benefits. It will lower prices and raise wages. It will give more freedom to the individual and strengthen the bonds of collective obligations. It will combine efficiency of free enterprise with the generosity of a planned economy.”

Isn't that almost word for word what Obama said last week?

[Gondring]

I got 1/3 of the way through the latter some years ago, and literally threw the book across the room, screaming, "there are no people like that!"

From The One Argument Ayn Rand Couldn't Win:

[...] Toward the end of her life, Rand listened as a prominent psychologist stood onstage and dismissed her fictional heroes—those idealized steel barons and physicists and composers—as implausible. Soon she’d had enough and stood up in the crowd, outraged.

“Am I unreal?” she shouted. “Am I a character who can’t possibly exist?”

She intended this, one suspects, as a refutation. It strikes me as maybe the most profound question she ever raised.

[NoGrayZone]

Thanks for my next book!

[Taxman]

Perhaps the most perceptive review I have seen yet.

With that review in mind, I’m going to go see the movie again, and take a FRiend who has not read the book. I’ll be interested in his take.

I’m just guessing, but I’d hazard a guess that Atlas Shrugged will be an item of conversation in the Popular Culture for a while.

I sure hope so!

And, I’m hoping (and cannardly wait) to learn of individual LIEberals admitting that they are moving FRom the Dark side to the Light side because of the AS movie.

Since the movie exposes the LIE they have been living, it should cause many of them to confess the error of their ways and “Come Out!”

[higgmeister]

...a hack writer who could of done much better if she put effort into it.