Grant Bowler as Henry Rearden from Atlas Shrugged
I’m re-reading Atlas Shrugged
One thing I remember discussing in college is the opinion that Ayn Rand’s ideas would be much more popular and accepted if her style were not so abrasive. I tend to agree, but re-reading the book, I’m having a hard time putting my finger on the problem.
So, in a business etiquette blog, I have to ask- what is it that people find so abrasive?
Here’s an excerpt of an exchange between Hank Rearden and Dr. Potter of the State Science Institute.
I’d like to know – what is it about this exchange, for example, that crosses the line from “direct” to “abrasive?”
“The State Science Institute is a scientific establishment, not a commercial one,” said Rearden. “What is it that they’re so afraid of?”
“You’re using ugly, unnecessary words, Mr. Rearden. I am endeavoring to suggest that we keep the discussion on a friendly plane. The matter is serious.”
“I am beginning to see that.”
“We are offering you a blank check on what is, as you realize, an unlimited account. What else can you want? Name your price.”
“The sale of the rights to Rearden Metal is not open to discussion. If you have anything else to say, please say it and leave.”
The man leaned back, looked at Rearden incredulously and asked, “What are you after?”
“I? What do you mean?”
“You’re in business to make money, aren’t you?”
“I am.”
“You want to make as big a profit as possible, don’t you?”
“I do.”
“Then why do you want to struggle for years, squeezing out your gains in the form of pennies per ton – rather than accept a fortune for Rearden Metal? Why?”
“Because it’s mine. Do you understsand the word?”
The man sighed and rose to his feet. “I hope you will not have cause to regret your decision, Mr. Rearden,” he said; the tone of his voice was suggesting the opposite.
“Good day,” said Rearden
No related posts.
I suppose what bothered me most about Ayn Rand (when I first read the book and now) is that I agree with a lot of her ideas but she seems to show such apparent contempt for people who disagree with her. Of course sometimes, as Gordon mentioned, intense focus can be mistaken for coldness.
Understandable considering her background, but she certainly could have been more persuasive if she had chosen a different style. She gave the impression that it wasn’t worth the time and energy to be persuasive because people who disagreed with her were not worthy of the time and energy to try to talk to.
That said, I thought the movie was timely, and reading the book again is showing some definite parallels with issues today!
It’s “abrasive” because it’s phonily, contrivedly absolutist–and every hand is dealt from a stacked deck. The heroes are demi-gods and the villains are scum. “I hope you will not have cause to regret your decision, Mr. Rearden,†is worthy of Auric Goldfinger (BOND: Do you expect me to talk? GOLDFINGER: No, Mister Bond. I expect you to DIE.) It’s crap-thriller and bodice-ripper writing, in a novel that claims to trumpet the truth about “man” and “reality.”
To read a more fun critique, spring for 99 cents and read my parody. Having read the original (twice!), you’re in a perfect position to derive the maximum laffs from it. It shows what happens to Dragnie Tagbord and John Glatt and the others are up to, ten years later, in the “secret sequel.”
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/54707
You might find that scene from the movie interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1jLbGSngRE [disregard the commentary]
I think this is a good movie. I will download this one. – Instant Tax Solutions Scam