Posted on 06/27/2009 7:38:16 AM PDT by Publius
Hey pub, don’t be so down. I don’t always post, but I read every week and think over the topics. You guys are doing a great job.
“Nobody calls me Lebowski, I’m the dude, man!”
It also tore cities asunder, but that wasn't intentional.
Before the civil rights revolution of the Sixties, black neighborhoods in American cities had black doctors, lawyers, morticians and other successful businessmen. These people functioned as role models for black children.
When laws outlawing job discrimination were passed, urban blacks joined the middle class and moved to the suburbs. (Added to this, the term "urban renewal" was simply a code word for "Negro removal".) Those who stayed behind in the cities formed an underclass with its own set of values built around victimization, dependency and Afrocentrism. The only role models available were drug dealers and pimps.
Before the Great Society programs, 90% of blacks lived below the poverty line. Afterward, only one-third lived below the poverty line, but they concentrated in the cities, changing them for the worse.
It's the law of unintended consequences.
I keep forgetting to say thanks. I read every one of your analyses of the chapters and enjoy them very much.
Chapter 27, now, that one's a real head-cracker. I'm hoping folks stick with us at least until we reach that one, "This Is John Galt Speaking," because there we have to comprehend 60 very dense pages before we can even begin to debate Rand's philosophy. Publius and I are going to try to make that a little more accessible, and I'm hoping we don't ruin it in the process. Or ourselves. ;-)
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I haven’t missed a week. I tend not to want to post unless I have something interesting to say, which isn’t always the case. Your work, and Bill’s are always appreciated thought.
Oh gosh. (blush blush) Thanks.
I liked Cherryl, a lot, and when her character was first introduced, I was confident she'd figure out the game eventually. Rand seemed to hint broadly at that in some of the things Cherryl said to Jim and to Dagny. I was hoping for a better end for her though. Maybe matched up with Rearden after being dumped by Dagny or a second tier but honest player like Eddie. Oh well, you can't always get what you want. ;-)
To the first and second questions, James Taggart is running out of things to destroy. A man unaware of the nature of John Galt’s plan would believe that he won. He wrecked Hank Rearden’s greatest successes, in his business and in his personal life. He has just destroyed D’Anconia Copper. The other railroads are collapsing under the burden of James Taggart’s schemes.
The story begins with James Taggart as the envious brat among Dagny, Francisco, and Eddie Willers. Francisco makes a fool of him with the speedboat and Dagny and Eddie ignore him. In a monarchy, James would be the acknowledged leader by virtue of his birthright. In a meritocracy, James is the bottom rung of the children's hierarchy. It made me wonder how the Taggart family could raise two children of such disparate abilities and attitudes. It was New York, therefore Mrs. Taggart was secretly banging the proto Eliot Spitzer. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
James never had to destroy Eddie Willers because Eddie wasn't a threat to his ego. He attacked his own sister through the theft of Rearden Metal. A blow to Rearden was a blow to Dagny. His friends will steal everything Francisco has. Now what can he do? Destroying little people has no meaning for him. He considers them insignificant. They were never more than objects to be used in his schemes.
The beggar serves several purposes. He is the antithesis of Franciso’s money speech. Francisco praised money as a tool to enable trade between men of minds and men of labor. He said that the value of money was not in the gold it represented but in its ability to allow men to establish an objective value and trade to each others’ benefit. James gives a hundred dollar bill to a bum, similar to perhaps a few thousand dollars today. Neither man even acknowledges the gift. They have nothing to offer each other. As a consequence, the money is meaningless.
Now James is confronted with the effects of his public speeches about the evil of money and his hypocritical actions in accumulating it. He is now profoundly wealthy. But his wealth came by destroying people like Wyatt, Rearden, and D’Anconia. Who now is worthy of destruction? James convinced the world that money had no value, making sure to acquire it on the sly. His schemes have concluded. He convinced everyone that money has no value. His own money has no value. He doesn't care. He realizes that he was destroying men for the sake of destroying them, not for personal gain.
Cheryl identifies him. James Taggart is a killer for the sake of killing. That fogbound alley, a staple of monsters and murders in the days of black and white films, is the place where the killer reveals his true identity when he destroys people who lived by trust. The headlight is the light shone by the men who pursue the killer, whether townspeople with torches or police in patrol cars, when they finally realize what they are fighting. Rand's cinematic background shows through.
Ding ding!! Best line of the thread!!
I wondered too how Jim and Dagny could be the same blood, but it happens all the time.
Or maybe summer has finally arrived and some of us spent the day outdoors and away from computers and now we’re getting around to tuning in. But a day in the great outdoors with beer flowing freely makes one very sleepy. Too tired to write.
Both you and Bill have given us a lot to think about. Cheryl deserved so much better.
I actually know exactly where they went, but I can’t tell you. :)
I hear “Dude,” and think “Dud.”
On the money, FRiend. You nailed that one.
Ditto here. I haven't been posting because I have nothing more to add; also, I tend to arrive too late to the discussion. But, I do read, enjoy, and appreciate each thread.
I plowed through the book at the beginning, and I looked forward to sharing thoughts with everyone here. Now, either I can't remember all of those thoughts, ;-) or they've already been covered by everyone else before I arrive. As time passes, I may be forgetting those comments I wanted to share after each chapter, but, on the other hand, with time the book's message seems more profound than it did when I was reading it.
The fact is, Atlas Shrugged sat on my bookshelf for years. If you hadn't started this freeperbookclub, I would've never found time to read it. Thank you again.
I will be looking forward to your analysis on Chapter 27.
I recommended AS to a friend of mine a while back and told him we he got to the Radio Address to just skim through it and then go back to read it later:-)
Maybe #27 would work as a 2 parter?
Oh BTW thanks for the weekly threads, it gives me something to look forward to, especially when I have to work on the weekends.
Regards
alfa6 ;>}
I’ll add my agreement. This whole discussion is a lot of fun and reminds me of things I forget today, that were more important years ago when I first read AS.
One great benefit has been my wife reading AS. She stalled for over thirty years, saying she would read it but not now. She finally started it while taking the train back and forth to work. Other passengers were appalled that my wife would read such trash, and the other was her comment to me that she wished she had read it years ago and it was one of the best books she has ever read. Nice comment from a woman with her masters in English. Of course, all I could say was “it’s about time” winning her scorn. LOL
Like Tired of Taxes, I enjoy reading the analysis and comments weekly. It’s been enjoyable, especially the parallels drawn to society and government today.
I was out of town for 2 weeks and we reviewed the threads over the last few weeks. I just got back in and we had to catch up last night by finishing this chapter. My wife is anxious to finish it now that we’re getting within sight of “The Speech”. :-)
I liked Cheryl, too, and was inwardly yelling to her to stay and spend the night with Dagny. It was tragic, and I felt like her journey of enlightenment was the bulk of society’s journey in microcosm. I hated to see her go.
Bill,
I agree. I read it in 1992 and find it much more fascinating this go-around. Of course, your and Pub’s synopses and commentary certainly account for a significant portion of the improvement!
My wife is working it along with me and her fascination with it and her views of Rand have grown during the reading. I recall many times her bemoaning the repetition of themes earlier (with “I get it, can we move on?”), but now she is telling me how spot-on Rand’s observations are and sees reasons for the repetition and nuance among them. I’ve been trying to get my liberal brother to read it (or the Cliff Notes), but can’t get him to get beyond a gutteral “ugh” when mentioning it. Maybe some day...
Probably not. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.