The quality that comes through most to me in this book is strength of character. Rand is observing that most people go with the flow, but the only real achievements are from people who have the strength of character to swim against the tide of public opinion and be true to their own vision. She says this is rare, and the world is collapsing as a result. Strength of character was what enabled America's Founding Fathers to have a vision of freedom that turned the USA into the greatest nation on earth. But this vision has been betrayed by mass culture.

I fear the situation is even worse now than when Rand wrote more than fifty years ago. Mass media is brainwashing people into an idiotic sameness. The Matrix is coming true, with people plugged in to a computer that tells them how to think. Ayn Rand is a beacon of integrity. That is why she is celebrated as one of America's greatest authors, and why she is loathed by people who promote conformity. Creativity requires individual greatness.

I've just finished reading chapter one. I wanted to join in on the discussion of this book because of how many people have, in the past, tried to explain the book to me with glossed-over eyes - as though hypnotized by the holy spirit. I thought some of the messages that people told me about the book were very good and others were extremely dangerous.

So I've already got some preconceived notions about what the book is going to be about and I already see some absurdities... such as the male taggart's unique humanitarianism. Hehehehe. He wants to give smaller companies a chance and help struggling nations? A company wants to do this? I'm sorry but a board approved the decisions based on THAT? A whole board of shareholders? How did this man ever get the job? Obviously he was born into it? I can see a good message here.

But, if his sister really made such great decisions... wouldn't she already be the head of the company? Wouldn't the board already be seeking advice from her because she made them the most money? Ok, maybe not.. maybe this is her big break. This entire time the railroad has been floundering but all of a sudden she's decided to finally do something about it despite her job title has enabled her to do so in the past - like a robot - she has been activated.

Since when does humanity infiltrate the upper echelons of a corporation??? That's the last place you'll find it. Tying incompetence with humanitarianism and competence with capitalism is the message of chapter one for me. That's unacceptable because it's not correct and it's wrong to insinuate it.

And to mention Steinbeck in a thread about Rand made me smile.

Thanks for joining in everyone - things are picking up..... Some of you are better at picking out broader themes than I am, so keep it going!

President Comancho, we're going to get a much larger dose of "humanity" infiltrating the boardroom in Chapter 3. That's where it started to bother me, so stay tuned, there's work to be done...

President Camacho wrote:I've just finished reading chapter one. I wanted to join in on the discussion of this book because of how many people have, in the past, tried to explain the book to me with glossed-over eyes - as though hypnotized by the holy spirit. I thought some of the messages that people told me about the book were very good and others were extremely dangerous.

Atlas Shrugged is about establishing capitalism as a religion. That is why it is such a controversial book. The theme of rugged individualism speaks to the American mythology of the frontier, but it needs to be tempered by recognition of the harm of unregulated freedom.

So I've already got some preconceived notions about what the book is going to be about and I already see some absurdities... such as the male taggart's unique humanitarianism. Hehehehe. He wants to give smaller companies a chance and help struggling nations? A company wants to do this? I'm sorry but a board approved the decisions based on THAT? A whole board of shareholders? How did this man ever get the job? Obviously he was born into it? I can see a good message here.

Ayn Rand may have originated the notion of political correctness, and at least had a major influence on it. Jim Taggart is a caricature of a politically correct businessman, unwilling to make decisions, convinced that all power rests with government, weak and stupid, obsequious towards left wing political argument, and therefore a complete failure at building his firm.

But, if his sister really made such great decisions... wouldn't she already be the head of the company? Wouldn't the board already be seeking advice from her because she made them the most money? Ok, maybe not.. maybe this is her big break. This entire time the railroad has been floundering but all of a sudden she's decided to finally do something about it despite her job title has enabled her to do so in the past - like a robot - she has been activated.

Dagny Taggart has been held back by her sex, but she is just as selfish and career focussed as any successful man. Rand seems to observe the idea that a founder makes the wealth, his son keeps it and his grandson wastes it.

Since when does humanity infiltrate the upper echelons of a corporation??? That's the last place you'll find it. Tying incompetence with humanitarianism and competence with capitalism is the message of chapter one for me. That's unacceptable because it's not correct and it's wrong to insinuate it.

And that is precisely why Atlas Shrugged is so controversial. Rand is portraying mainstream culture as infected by communist values of too much sharing, in contrast to the capitalist values of creating wealth that built America.

I noticed a likeness between the oak tree and the Taggart Transcontinental. Willers sees it as something that will always be there and strong. This is also how he saw the tree before it was knocked down. I also found it interesting that, as Dagny came into the station, she saw the Taggart building as having roots underground and feeding the city. These roots would also be hollow like the trees. I know nothing about this book, having never read it before, but this all leads me to believe that Taggart is going to fall.

I did not see Jim as an idealist or wanting to be involved in humanitarian efforts. I see Jim as having given up. I think he is worn down and not up for a fight. This makes him feel like he is walked all over by the board. Dagny appears to want to get things down and continue to grow the company by doing things like using Rearden Steel. I see her as a doer and Jim as someone who just guesses and hopes for the best.

I sympathize with Rearden. He can't seem to do anything right with his family. His mother seems to see him as a lost cause and his brother cannot even accept his generous offer of the money. Even if he wants the money in cash, he cannot even be excited about it. If he is so concerned about this cause, he should be excited that he has the money to do it. I know that most places that fundraise do not want to accept from just anywhere, but this is his brother.

Some interesting things that I noted as well:

*The oak tree as a symbol of strength.
*Taggart Transcontinental as arteries or roots.
*The extreme differences in the Taggart and Rearden siblings.
*The constant mention of "Who is John Galt?"
*The whistled concerto.
*Owen Kellog's sudden resignation.
*Rearden's family relationships.
*The professor's quote of "Of what importance is an individual in the titanic collective achievements of our industrial age?"
*Paul Larkin's concerns about Washington and the public opinion.
*The idea that Rearden holds everyone in bondage.

I have not been able to make solid connections or thoughts on all of these as of yet, but am keeping them in my notes for reference, hopefully, at a later point.

Robert Tulip wrote:Atlas Shrugged is about establishing capitalism as a religion.

This is interesting because I see Hank Rearden almost as a Christ like figure. Although his familiy life leaves much to be desired, everything Hank touches is seen as perfect.He creates this Rearden metal that may change the world, the railroad world.

The above quote can also be seen when Hank gives his brother alms, money for charity. The brother doesn't seem to care about the people needing the money, it's just another business. He is worried about where the money is coming from and how it will look to this money making business of charity, and not the needs of those who need that charity.

sal10e wrote:I also like that Rand leaves little mysteries throughout the storty so far. Of course, there is "Who is John Galt?"

I love this! I'm now reading it like an expression like, "what the hell", "G.. D..." or maybe "J.... C....." but I'm sure there is more meaning to it. But who is John Galt? A business man?

I'm loving the characters. Rand makes them strong right out of the gate. Darby and Hank are the strongest and I am looking forward to some great entertainment from both of them.

Thank you for taking the lead LanDroid

Welcome to the discussion Pres, and as always, I am enjoying your insight Robert.

Robert,
Except that Rand disavowed all religions and was opposed to forcing people to take up a particular movement, which religions often do. She was quite a paradoxical person. She did not believe in forcing but ostracized anyone who didn't agree with her. She really was quite a Fascist in her personal life.

That type of heavy handed thinking comes through in her novel. You can see it in Dagny as she doesn't 'understand' the way most people do things. Rand paints her robot as productive and emotionally detached from humanity. I have a feeling she'll find a kindred spirit. I hope she does... but will that get in the way of her business? Will she find any enjoyment in family?

I can't think of how many movies are made and stories told of people who shut themselves up, are driven to keep others low and profits high, and then at the end of the day become husks of emptiness and bitter regret. Some, I guess, die knowing they 'kicked ass'. Others have moments of self realization when they see that friends, family, and the 'good life' were sacrificed for financial success and fame.

The connection she makes between wealth and ability, humanity and incompetence, and humanity with under-handed weaseling stings me a little bit. The aristocratic nobility of Frisco, Taggart, and the feudal serf Eddie ...also makes me uneasy. But, to be honest, I do agree with a philosophy on good breeding. I hope no one takes that the wrong way. I just feel that there are biological as well as nurturing forces which shape an individual and if both parents are lazy and stupid - the child will have a rough time breaking the mold. Everything in degrees, though. I perhaps have more 'faith' or hope than Rand probably did.

James. He isn't a smart business man with a big heart - he's an idiot. What if he only cared to make money? What if the only reason he built the damn San Sebastion lines was the mines?!?!?! He took a risk and failed. He's just a crappy business man. In order to save the company he pulls strings to get another company shut down. So he's a sneak thief, too. He's out to make money. He's doing it unethically.

In Greek mythology, Atlas (/ˈætləs/; Ancient Greek: Ἄτλας) was the primordial Titan who held up the celestial sphere.

In contexts where a Titan and a Titaness are assigned each of the seven planetary powers, Atlas is paired with Phoebe and governs the moon.[not in citation given][4] He had three brothers: Prometheus, Epimetheus and Menoetius.[5]

Hyginus emphasises the primordial nature of Atlas by making him the son of Aether and Gaia.[6]

Wikipedia

Just thought I'd throw in a sketchy backgrounder on Atlas. So, who in this book 'holds up the celestial sphere', or is that too literal a way to interpret the title? In the first chapter we have a couple candidates. Or maybe its John Galt? Is Rand constructing the perfect awesome man, god figure (who just happens to be an individualist and capitalist)?

Regarding comments on Dagny Taggart and her ability to get things done, kick ass etc. I feel its easy to cheer for Dagny, she is extremely competent and she is a woman succeeding in a male dominated business world. But whether its a man or a woman making the decision, I think that decision making can become arrogant recklessness at times ... its on a knife edge sometimes and requires extremely good judgement to walk that edge. The scene where she is stuck on the Taggart Comet and will be late for a meeting so she gives orders for the train to continue despite the red light is interesting. Rand has everything work out fine, the train arrives safely and on time, which makes Dagny come out smelling roses, but of course it could have been a very stupid and costly decision. We could see Dagny as strong and decisive or reckless and focused only on her own needs, terribly egotistical. I think Rand wants us to see the former Dagny but I think we have to acknowledge the latter as well.

Regarding President Camacho's post I think Robert addressed some of these issues quite well, but I would add it is important to remember that when Rand wrote this in the 1957 - just having Dagny working outside of the home would have been a stretch for most readers of that time period as white wealthy or middle class women rarely worked outside the home. Even today thinking about it there are very few women CEOs or executives of large corporations...the glass ceiling is still in place (sadly).

I think we are seeing humanitarism infiltrate more and more corporations, Liberty Mutual has a whole campaign ad series about them being a company "and doing the right thing." Of course they want you to still buy insurance from them, but their ads rarely mention insurance any more. Also I think we see this in the push companies make for volunteering, green buildings, etc. It's everywhere now, and with the mass media the way it is many companies are very conscious of their actions and how they portray themselves and what values they show.