This bothers me about "Atlas Shrugged"

[Texas Libertarian]

I am currently re-reading "Atlas Shrugged", and first of all I must say its even better this time around.But something still bothers me, and it is Rands portrayal of both Hank and Dagny's families as being the worst ones. I mean the way that Hank's family treats him as well as Jim Taggart's whole character are repulsive. What do you think made Rand use family members as uber-villians. I understand that family is a verb as well as a noun and that sometimes you have to cut family off. But what I dont understand is that not one family member of the heroes is cool. Why is Ellis Wyatt not a cousin or something. And the depth of hatred of both Jim and Hank's mom is sickening. Its one thing to sleep with your cousin's wife because he stole your porn back in high school, or even let your little sister do all the work and you take credit, or even hit one of your relatives; but it's another thing entirely to hate with such intensity your own flesh and blood, the flesh and blood that feeds you nonetheless. Does anybody see any significance of the fact that all of the family members are the bad guys, and wonder why Rand wrote it that way?

[D'kian]

Family is something that happens to you by chance. That is, you have no choice in what kind of family you're born into. Friends and associates, on the other hand, you choose according to yor values and standards. It could be that Rand was trying to illustrate that.

She did not treat family as an unmitigated negative in other works. Keating's mother is as despicable as Rearden's mother, but Dominique's father, though a phony and a blowhard, winds up in the right place in the end. In "We The Living," only Victor is a bad person. Kira's uncle ends up a tragic victim along with her cousin (Irina?). The rest of her family either gives up or joins the Communists by choosing to go along with them, but they're portrayed more as victims than as villains. Actually Leo is the only one who betrays Kira.

In AS, Dagny's sister in law is a sympathetic character. And you might see Eddie as a kind of adopted brother as far as Dagny is concerned. Certainly that's the way I see Dagny feels about him, even if he feels rather differently. The hint comes in Francisco's back story, where the narrator lets us know he regarded Dagny and Eddie as "the Taggart children."

[Zip]

So, are you trying to say that no matter how repulsive they behave, no matter how much they treat you like a cash cow, how much they use and abuse you, your family has some sort of right to be loved by you?

[Texas Libertarian]

So, are you trying to say that no matter how repulsive they behave, no matter how much they treat you like a cash cow, how much they use and abuse you, your family has some sort of right to be loved by you?

No, not at all. It just struck me that the immediate family of both Hank and Dagny are the worst characters in the book and the kind of vicious hate directed at both Hank and Dagny is worse and less understandable than almost any kind of "hate" of family members of anyone Ive seen or read about.

[Greebo]

No, not at all. It just struck me that the immediate family of both Hank and Dagny are the worst characters in the book and the kind of vicious hate directed at both Hank and Dagny is worse and less understandable than almost any kind of "hate" of family members of anyone Ive seen or read about.

How better to illustrate the persona's, though? Jim, I will say, had one redeeming quality. At the end he finally saw himself for what he was.

But really - what makes them worse than, say, Oren Boyle, or Cuffy Meigs (who blew up half the country?) Is it that their attitudes or worse? Or THAT they're family?

The lesson was that nobody, not even family, has the right to demand that you live for their sake, and they require the sanction of the victim to do it.

[D'kian]

No, not at all. It just struck me that the immediate family of both Hank and Dagny are the worst characters in the book and the kind of vicious hate directed at both Hank and Dagny is worse and less understandable than almost any kind of "hate" of family members of anyone Ive seen or read about.

Well, let's try to "understand" Jim Taggart.

He believes in all the right and moral things he's been taught. He practices such things, we can assume. Yet he's not happy, he's not satisfied with his life and actions. He knows he doesn't run the railroad even if he's TT's president. His plans to make money (the San Sebastian Line, the government favors) are disastrous. Hell, he can't even order rail successfully; and he lets himself be intimidated by lowly people like Eddie Willers.

To boot, he has spent his entire life watching as his sister, who does not believe in the right things and acts in a selfish manner at all times, goes from one achievement to another. She can make the railroad produce money (the John Galt Line). She runs the railroad despite being only the VP in charge of operations. She's not intimidated by her underlings, in fact they admire and respect her. The only time Jim gets any admiration is when Cheryl thinks he's responsible for Dagny's achievement.

So what's he going to do? Question the assumptions behind his beliefs? Examine his and Dagny's actions and determine while the former fail and the latter succeed? Or just hate and condemn his sister? This last option grants him the moral high ground and makes him a victim who's failed through no fault of his own, and further indicts Dagny as selfish and uncaring towards her brother who needs her so much. It raises Jim in his own sights, and offers Dagny a chance at "redemption." He has a chance to be morally superior and to be compassionate.

Of course, Rand chose this character to be related to Dagny. Why?

Well, I think someone had to work hard to ruin Taggart Transcontinental, and the only logical choice would be a descendant of the firm's founder, someone who could inherit his post.

Had Dagny been an only child, or had Jim been a competent, selfish man like Rearden or Wyatt, or even a regular guy like Eddie, he couldn't have ruined the railroad. No, in such a case he'd either run it well, or let Dagny run it while he does what he can to support her.

[Zip]

No, not at all. It just struck me that the immediate family of both Hank and Dagny are the worst characters in the book and the kind of vicious hate directed at both Hank and Dagny is worse and less understandable than almost any kind of "hate" of family members of anyone Ive seen or read about.

I don't understand. if the fact that they are family doesn't entitle them to special status (the question I asked, to which you responded "No, not at all") then why bring up the fact that they are family again at the end of your answer to me?

Seems to me that you are struggling with the idea no matter how much you deny it.

There are two questions you are trying to unsuccessfully ask. One is... "Do Jim Taggart and Reardon's Mother deserve the hatred directed at them?" the second is "Do they deserve to be treated that way by Dagny and Hank?"

By the way, the way I remember it it takes both Dagny and Hank a long time to go from repulsion, contempt and disgust of their families to the hatred you talk about.

My answer to both is a hearty "yes' by the way.

[FeatherFall]

The choice to use family as villains helps to present the idea that you don't have to live as a parasite's host for anybody. The book was about the men of mind going on strike - the fact that they even strike against their families sends a powerful message. Rand wasn't trying to say that you shouldn't care for your family or that families are evil. Think of the d'Anconias. There were generations upon generations of men capable of sustaining and growing a copper empire and willing to teach their children the things necessary to continue the legacy.

[Greebo]

Neither Dagny nor Reardon developed hate towards their family members. Disgust was always there - indifference, well - Dagny never struggled with that problem. Reardon did. Reardon's divorce wasn't based in hate, but in the recognition that he owed his wife, who from day one had not lived up to her side of the marital contract, a damn thing, and he went about getting out of it in the only way he could - he bought the judges. In a rational society, that would not have been necessary.

But anyway - never is it hinted at that either of them ever hated their family. The hatred was all one sided.

[Texas Libertarian]

Thanks guys. I guess ,to the poster who asked me why I thought Jim was worse than Orren, that it is because Jim is behaving that way toward his own sister.

[Greebo]

Thanks guys. I guess ,to the poster who asked me why I thought Jim was worse than Orren, that it is because Jim is behaving that way toward his own sister.

That was me.

So in reality, Jim, Phillip, Lillian and Mom Reardon were no worse than anyone else in the antagonist bunch, in terms of ideals. Agreed?

[Texas Libertarian]

That was me.

So in reality, Jim, Phillip, Lillian and Mom Reardon were no worse than anyone else in the antagonist bunch, in terms of ideals. Agreed?

Strictly in terms of ideas,no.

But they do not inspire the kind of revulsion that Jim and Phillip and Lillian do.

[punk]

I am currently re-reading "Atlas Shrugged", and first of all I must say its even better this time around.But something still bothers me, and it is Rands portrayal of both Hank and Dagny's families as being the worst ones. I mean the way that Hank's family treats him as well as Jim Taggart's whole character are repulsive. What do you think made Rand use family members as uber-villians. I understand that family is a verb as well as a noun and that sometimes you have to cut family off. But what I dont understand is that not one family member of the heroes is cool. Why is Ellis Wyatt not a cousin or something. And the depth of hatred of both Jim and Hank's mom is sickening. Its one thing to sleep with your cousin's wife because he stole your porn back in high school, or even let your little sister do all the work and you take credit, or even hit one of your relatives; but it's another thing entirely to hate with such intensity your own flesh and blood, the flesh and blood that feeds you nonetheless. Does anybody see any significance of the fact that all of the family members are the bad guys, and wonder why Rand wrote it that way?

Realistically, this probably gives you some insight into Rand's relationship with certain members of her own family.

Probably it is in the book because that is the way Rand looks at these things from her own personal experiences.

[aequalsa]

Realistically, this probably gives you some insight into Rand's relationship with certain members of her own family.

Probably it is in the book because that is the way Rand looks at these things from her own personal experiences.

Along these same lines, having both good and bad people come out of mediocre to bad homes helps demonstrate the notion that success is not necessarily a product of family environment. If the Taggarts had 5 children who all turned out to be fine, hard working, upstanding capitalists, it would seem to suggest that their achievements were not their own, but rather a deterministic result of having good, moral, wealthy parents.

While in real life it may often be the case that siblings are more similar then different, it is far from guaranteed and not useful in story telling this sort of story. Selective recreation of reality is essential and in this case, I posit that this particular selection was essential to telling a story about self-made men(and women).

[K-Mac]

Realistically, this probably gives you some insight into Rand's relationship with certain members of her own family.

Probably it is in the book because that is the way Rand looks at these things from her own personal experiences.

I thought her family was supportive of what she was doing here in America? I can't remember if it was a thread on this forum or what, but someone over at ARI, I forget the name, is translating letters or something to that effect.

[Seeker]

There were certain ideas that Rand needed to hit on the head and slavery-by-bloodline was one on them. Nowhere else than family is the evil of emotional guilt so pervasively used to control others. I've seen it in my own and countless other families. Particularly when times are close to the bone, or when survival-by-trade seems uncertain, people see making claims on family as a means of sustaining their lives. Farm families for example, were traditionally large for a reason - the parents felt entitled to the labors of their offspring to support them in their old age. Indeed socialism could be seen as the logical extension of this tribalistic principle when the nuclear family was no longer sufficient to make it work. A novel illustrating the role of man's mind in his survival, and the evils of such concepts as altruism and the sanction of the victim would have been incomplete without attacking the problem of family head-on, and Atlas Shrugged did so marvelously - if you don't see your own family members among the antagonists, consider yourself lucky. You are probably in the minority.

[Texas Libertarian]

Well , Ive gone a bit further on the re-read, and after reading Hank's converstion with the wet nurse, I understand better why Hank refused Phillip.

[tps_fan]

Also, let's not forget that Dagny had GREAT respect for Nat Taggart... but he was a business mogul... not a welfare case!

I just found this passage which is part of Nat Taggart's introduction into the story:

from page 60 SC:

"Dagny regretted at times that Nat Taggart was her ancestor. What she felt for him did not belong in the category of unchosen family affections. She did not want her feeling to be the thing one was supposed to owe an uncle or grandfather. She was incapable of love for any object not of her own choice and she resented anyone's demand for it. But had it been possible to choose an ancestor, she would have chosen Nat Taggart, in voluntary homage and with all her gratitude." (end of paragraph)

I love how that reads!

Edited June 16, 2008 by tps_fan

[JMeganSnow]

You might want to think of it from a literary perspective: would Dagny have been concerned with Jim in any way if they weren't related and Jim *wasn't* the president of Taggart Transcontinental? It's the novelist's job to create *conflict*, especially between the heroes and the villians. It's not that Ayn Rand believed that families are particularly bad. It's that they're a fairly universal phenomenon containing ties that everyone can understand.