Why do Hanks hold on to Lillians?
Why do Hanks hold onto Lillians?
I have searched my entire life for my Hank, and have yet to find him. Well, at least not available. I do see Hanks around and they seem to always have a Lillian hanging on. Why? I see this as a contradiction. How can someone live a happy, fulfilling life with a contradiction like this? I will not compromise or sacrifice myself, and don't don't want anyone to compromise or sacrifice for me.
Lillian has no respect for Hank, his work or his business as demonstrated when he gives her a bracelet made from the 1st heat of his new metal, mockingly saying: “You mean,”...”it's fully as valuable as a piece of railroad rails?” She jingled the bracelet, making it sparkle under the light. “Henry it's perfectly wonderful! What originality! I shall be the sensation of New York, wearing jewelry made of the same stuff as bridge girders, truck motors, kitchen stoves, typewriters, and – what was it you were saying about it the other day, darling? - soup kettles?”
Lillian is not particularly interested in Hanks money, of course until she has none, but she is very interested in her position and image. Hank has no other value to her. She uses him as a pawn to gain position and pull as demonstrated when attending James Taggart's wedding.
Then there are family members.
Hank's mother: “The intention's plain selfishness, if you ask me,” said Reardens mother. “another man would bring a diamond bracelet, if he want to give his wife a present, because it's her pleasure he'd think of not his own. But Henry thinks that just because he's made a new kind of tin, why, it's got to be more precious than diamonds to everybody, just because it's he that's made it. That's the way he's been since he was five years old – the most conceited brat you ever saw – and I knew he'd grow up to be the most selfish creature on God's earth.”
Philip: “By the way, Henry,” Philip added, “do you mind if I ask you to have Miss Ives give me the money in cash?” …...”You see, Friends of Global Progress are a very progressive group and they have always maintained that you represent the blackest element of social retrogression in the country, so it would embarrass us, you know, to have your name on our list of contributors, because somebody might accuse us of being in the pay of Hank Rearden.”
Here is AR on Contradiction (From The Virtue of Selfishness): The Law of Identity (A is A) is a rational man’s paramount consideration in the process of determining his interests. He knows that the contradictory is the impossible, that a contradiction cannot be achieved in reality and that the attempt to achieve it can lead only to disaster and destruction. Therefore, he does not permit himself to hold contradictory values, to pursue contradictory goals, or to imagine that the pursuit of a contradiction can ever be to his interest.
Does your significant other respect and value you and your philosophy of life? If not, why are you still there?
I have searched my entire life for my Hank, and have yet to find him. Well, at least not available. I do see Hanks around and they seem to always have a Lillian hanging on. Why? I see this as a contradiction. How can someone live a happy, fulfilling life with a contradiction like this? I will not compromise or sacrifice myself, and don't don't want anyone to compromise or sacrifice for me.
Lillian has no respect for Hank, his work or his business as demonstrated when he gives her a bracelet made from the 1st heat of his new metal, mockingly saying: “You mean,”...”it's fully as valuable as a piece of railroad rails?” She jingled the bracelet, making it sparkle under the light. “Henry it's perfectly wonderful! What originality! I shall be the sensation of New York, wearing jewelry made of the same stuff as bridge girders, truck motors, kitchen stoves, typewriters, and – what was it you were saying about it the other day, darling? - soup kettles?”
Lillian is not particularly interested in Hanks money, of course until she has none, but she is very interested in her position and image. Hank has no other value to her. She uses him as a pawn to gain position and pull as demonstrated when attending James Taggart's wedding.
Then there are family members.
Hank's mother: “The intention's plain selfishness, if you ask me,” said Reardens mother. “another man would bring a diamond bracelet, if he want to give his wife a present, because it's her pleasure he'd think of not his own. But Henry thinks that just because he's made a new kind of tin, why, it's got to be more precious than diamonds to everybody, just because it's he that's made it. That's the way he's been since he was five years old – the most conceited brat you ever saw – and I knew he'd grow up to be the most selfish creature on God's earth.”
Philip: “By the way, Henry,” Philip added, “do you mind if I ask you to have Miss Ives give me the money in cash?” …...”You see, Friends of Global Progress are a very progressive group and they have always maintained that you represent the blackest element of social retrogression in the country, so it would embarrass us, you know, to have your name on our list of contributors, because somebody might accuse us of being in the pay of Hank Rearden.”
Here is AR on Contradiction (From The Virtue of Selfishness): The Law of Identity (A is A) is a rational man’s paramount consideration in the process of determining his interests. He knows that the contradictory is the impossible, that a contradiction cannot be achieved in reality and that the attempt to achieve it can lead only to disaster and destruction. Therefore, he does not permit himself to hold contradictory values, to pursue contradictory goals, or to imagine that the pursuit of a contradiction can ever be to his interest.
Does your significant other respect and value you and your philosophy of life? If not, why are you still there?
Reality becomes the most important aspect of a relationship after about 1.5 years.
Reality becomes the most important aspect of a relationship after about 1.5 years.
I hesitate to call myself a Hank, but I did own a business, I was expected to make that business grow, to increase profits, in order to provide for her. But as with Hank's Lillian, I was chastised constantly at the same time for working too much. It was never enough, yet constantly too much.
I had become the means to her end.
I had been told for over a decade that it was my role to work and to provide. I became numb to it after while. I didn't want to upset the balance, I didn't want my business split up, I didn't want the children to suffer through the end of the family they knew. The relationship faded and turned into one of provider and taker, while we danced around each other and pretended in front of friends and family.
Fast forward 4 years - I'm happily married to an intelligent, beautiful woman, an objectivist who doesn't expect me to be the sole provider and slave to her desires.
There are real life Lillians, and real life Hanks. But there's light at the end of the tunnel - it takes strength to change - and the realization that your mind nor body should never be used as a tool for someone else's gains - even if you did "put a ring on it."
Remember that AS, and the characters that AR crafted, she did so as plot devices. Would a man like HR truly make a union with the like of Lillian? Not as they are by the time captured in the book, but that is 10 yrs after their initial union. Both were different people at the beginning of that union.
Why is it that a couple married for 20 or 25 yrs divorce? People change over time. Some change in ways that are no longer acceptable to their mate - as is the case with Hank and Lillian. One could just as rightly argued that Hank was married more to his work than to Lillian, and thus, had abandoned her long before she drove him away. A relationship requires both parties to work to maintain it.
To me, the key for a successful relationship is to #1 have a mutual goal, #2, realize that you aren't there yet, and #3 work together to get it. This is one of the reasons why Hollywood marriages (the butt of many jokes) never last - because they aren't in it for anything more than the photo shoot or the fleeting sex. The marriages which start on a foundation of communication, mutual respect, and long-term goals are the ones most likely to last simply because then the life-changing moments that come along don't necessarily derail us from our path. They become temporary exits or bumps in the road rather than termini.
After 40 years of living my life that way before being introduced to objectivism I understand completely.
How many of us have been there? Many in the Gulch I'm sure.
Okay, so, let's sign a contract. I'll hire you to write a game manual in exchange for a certain remuneration.
However, I get "lost" in the development, and keep changing the design. So you can't write a coherent manual.
So you take the money you've been paid thus far, and invest it in another game company.
Perfectly moral, because I failed to make your task match your ideal of that task.
Bottom line; unless they had some kind of weirdo modernist marriage ceremony, Rearden took an oath... and then when things got rough, the "for worse" part... he started banging someone else.
You're saying it's moral to break your word simply because someone else didn't meet your expectations, perhaps even broke theirs.
A man of character doesn't care what the other person does; if he gives his word, he keeps it. And not just when it's easy.
I'm not quite sure why your comment was hidden as the explanation by the sites moderator makes little if any sense.
As to your comment, I do believe that your reasoning is certainly reasonable even though it seems to ignore some facts in evidence as to the Rearden's marital relationship.
You state that no matter what Lillian has ignored in their marital obligations, Hank Rearden should honor his oath of marriage.
A legitimate argument can be made as has been by some posting on this site, that Lillian’s actions of being non-supportive of her husband's needs and implied loyalty in her oath of marriage made their marriage contract null and void. In this particular presentation of their marriage, I would agree with them that his actions do not reach the level of adultery or any other version of betrayal of his obligations. The story makes clear that she despises her husband and that one of the requirements of any marriage, love, has long ago ceased to exist. Considering that religion plays little if any part in the authors concept of marriage, no adherence to that "oath" can be expected.
Of course, my own belief, that in fact the entire story of "Atlas Shrugged" in truth mirrors the concept of Christianity and how to treat people creates my own conflict as to this issue.
In my many previous posts on this site, when I have mentioned the concept of Christianity, I ended up engaged in many debates with those that do not believe in the concept.
I of course am familiar with Ayn Rand's claim to being an atheist while my personal understanding of her novel clearly identifies with many aspects of Christianity.
One of the many misunderstandings by atheist is that Christians act on behalf of others by their own choice and understanding of their faith, so it in no way conflicts with John Galt's oath.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
What you're suggesting is that it is okay to make yourself the law; that, without a court hearing or other legal procedure, you can take upon yourself to decide that the other party was in breach of the contract, and therefore you do not have to uphold your end of it.
I repeat, the proper way to deal with it would have been to divorce Lillian (and deal with the subsequent scandal and inevitable persecution by her allies) and *then* bang Dagny.
Exactly *how* did she violate the oath before he did? Who was *she* banging before he started banging Dagney?
As I recall the marriage oath, "For richer, for poorer, for better, for WORSE, in sickness and in health... til death do us part."
No where in there does it say, "but hey, if she's not the woman you thought she was, if she's changed, if she undermines your lousy business ambitions, if she uses you financially, if she hangs out with people you don't like... oh, well hell, then you're not bound by the oath YOU voluntarily took to cling only unto her.
Now it's clear why America in the 21st century is so screwed up. The campaign to undermine American morality was wholly successful.
If marriage is only about sex, then wives are nothing but prostitutes. You like that philosophy being part of Objectivism, go for it.
Any man who lets a woman control him because of his Johnson deserves everything that happens to him. Especially if that man is supposedly otherwise a master of industry. And I never got that Lillian was that much of a siren.
And, with Rearden's wonderful interpersonal skills... all of his companies probably would have come to naught without her networking skills... because the Wesley Mouches of the world didn't just pop up fully fledged one day. For centuries a big part of success has been not just what you know, but who you know. And how you know them.
You don't know what machinations she did at her various events to make and keep the connections that allowed him to build his empire. You just know what happened when the powers that be put him on their shit list, and so the social environment necessary for his success dried up.
I'm not saying it's right or good... just that that is the way it is (and why Objectivism is a utopian ideal).
What she brought to the table earlier in the game, while he was still building his business, was her social networking abilities.
Also, imagine what his home and life would be like if running the household were up to him, while he was busy building his empire.
And after her husband cuckolded her.
Maybe all these Hanks you're finding are early-book Hanks, and they need an education from Dagny ;)
If "she" was training navy pilots, I fully expect our days of air supremacy to end as soon as our enemies acquire equivalent hardware.
DEA agent... you mean in that war on drugs so many here delight in declaring a failure?
Lesson 101: other people are only worth having around for the sex.
Lesson 102; whenever you grow bored, or you find someone who gets you hotter, it's perfectly okay to dump the person you're with to pursue someone else who makes you hot, with no regard to their feelings.
Yeah, she'd be a great educator. Dagny was an impressive businessman, but a lousy human being. Like most of AS's protagonists.
In 1998, I married a woman who was as lovely as I could ask for, and who also not only respected but shared my philosophy of life. I made a judgment that I must not hide who I am for anything, that beauty is not worth giving up that much self-respect.
In the eight years and nine months before she died of cancer, my wife was not the supercilious married "escort" that Lillian was. She was as much friend as lover. And a very good friend.
Someone else said below that Hank is the only character who develops in the novel. I would dispute that; I would say Dagny Taggart also has some developing to do, if only a realization that she cannot reach her society, and it is better to build another railroad, if that is the price of living.
But this comes to a point I realized when I decided to review AS extensively. The heroes of AS are not Dagny and John, but Dagny and Hank. John, Francisco, and Ragnar are anti-villains. Like all literary villains, they appear fully developed; unlike them, they serve a just cause, not an evil one.
I suppose Cheryl Brooks/Taggart develops too, but I don't count her as a main character.
I don't view Dagny's realization that she can't reach society as development, merely an acknowledgement that her more-skilled opponent (Galt) has won. They're like two great athletes playing tennis with the fate of America throughout the book. Galt keeps striking balls towards her that are harder and harder to return, until she realizes she's not going to win this game, but like the badass she is, go down fighting.
Also, it sounds like you and your wife had almost nine wonderful years together. Sorry it couldn't have been more.
Cheryl Brooks Taggart does develop, all right. But that development ends in death.
But you're right about the thoroughness of Hank Rearden's development.
I always figured Hank ended up marrying his secretary, Gwen Ives. She understood him almost as well as did Dagny.
Similarly, D'Anconia and the others whom Galt persuades to quit also develop. But it would be redundant to put them on stage when we do get to watch the whole change unfold in the cases of Hank and Dagny.
Second, there's Lillian's point of view, too. She felt that Hank didn't really love her, he's always blowing off things she wants to do, not particularly interested in spending time with her, etc. That makes it tough on a partner, and it doesn't surprise me that the partner would start lashing out.
I agree, they probably shouldn't have married in the first place, but the fault isn't one-sided here.
I completely agree about the anti-villian concept. I had not given a term to that type of character but it is fitting.
But in literature, a hero either develops as a character or else changes his or her perspective in a striking way. A villain does neither of these. He looks at life with single-minded striving toward his goal. Nothing short of death or overwhelming defeat will stop him.
Well, if an anti-hero is a character who develops and ends up serving an evil cause, an anti-villain is a single-minded striver for a just cause.
In my definition, a hero is someone who strives beyond what he believes he's capable of. The way I usually put it is, "A hero is inadequate; someone so scared he's pissing his pants, but he stands and fights anyway".
If you're not afraid, if you're not striving beyond what you think you can achieve... you're not a hero. In my opinion.
Superman and all associated "heroes" are what the dog leaves behind on the lawn, (also imo).
"Serving a just cause" is a subjective measure. And a bit anti-objectivist, since objectivists are supposedly opposed to "serving".
"Achieving a just goal" might work, however. Then a villain would be one who strives to achieve an unjust goal.
Example; hero wants money. He gets 3 jobs and lives on just what he needs to survive. This is achieving a goal justly. (e.g. trading value for value)
Villain wants money, he robs a bank. This is achieving a goal unjustly. (e.g. not trading value for value)
And sharing the intimacy of your body with a 3rd party in violation of your oath is moral, but cheating at business is not?
You can't be honest in business and dishonest in your personal relationships. Divorce Lillian, THEN bang Dagny.
What Hank did not understand until Dagny is that love, admiration and sex are inextricably interwoven. He had split off sex as a somewhat shameful need which reluctantly drove him to his frigid wife's bedroom. Lillian serviced him as the price of her social position. She was a whore. It was James Taggart who most shared her sense of life.
Having seen the light with Dagny, Hank would never have gone back to Lillian; *that* would have been infidelity. Note that both Francisco and Hank, notwithstanding their love for Dagny, stepped aside respectfully when John entered the picture, as he was the most worthy. Whether these two former lovers of hers would ever find another qualified woman is unlikely. Who could equal Dagny if she was indeed the highest value?
(It occurs to me that Ayn Rand got some vicarious pleasure out of seeing her heroine loved by the three greatest men in the world.)
Hank might have taken some comfort from his adoring secretary, but she could never fill Dagny's place in his heart and mind. The same holds for the unfortunate and worshipful Eddie, who knew his place as a devoted assistant and would have given his life for Dagny but never aspired to be the man she would choose as life mate.
On a personal note, my life mate and I have been joyfully together for 44 years and treasure each day. For all you wanna-be Hanks and Johns and Dagnys, I recommend a sense of humor in addition to the heavy philosophical baggage. "We never had to take any of it seriously, did we?"
EXAMPLES of how she abandoned her vows?
I see, we just kind of mumble over the "...for worse" part of the marriage oath, huh?
"Do you promise to cleave unto him in sickness and in health <--- for richer for poorer <-- for better for worse.... all of them refer to the status of the relationship, NOT "outside conditions".
Are you suggesting that "for richer, for poorer" is purely a matter of chance, from outside forces over which each member of the couple has no control?
:snort:
I love it when Objectivists try to justify evading moral responsibility.
Aside: We're already seeing the incentive effect of this change in the law. Marriage is becoming as rare as "permanent" jobs in places like France that make it difficult and costly to fire people, even with cause.
Congratulations to identifying the major problem in relationships between men and women and more importantly between husbands and wives.
we still live in a society that has men providing the majority of income in a relationship and the problem you describe exists primarily among the doers of this world.
Some women will have a disagreement with my next statement, but so be it. The truth is the truth. Some women are influenced in their choice of a mate by his potential economic future. I don't claim that this is in any way wrong on their part, I only say it as a basis for my opinion. That choice is not always clear to the woman as it requires complete dedication of the man to his work. As a result the man does not always have the ability to p-lace his wife in the forefront of his concerns. This becomes an impossible conundrum for him to resolve. I don't mean to to say that therefore all women become as Lillian or as Hank Rearden's mother, but many will fall in that category as rockymountainpirate states in her commentary. By the way, I was surprised to find out that rockymountainpirate is a woman since the her screen name would not have led to assume that case.
You are indeed correct in questioning the premise that you did. I in turn sometimes find myself questioning where all the reasonable intelligent and logical women are?
The scene of Hank rearden giving his wife the bracelet was one of the most poignant to me as it represented the culmination of all his hard work and ingenuity. I felt that scene to be very personal.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
It could be that some of us have gotten screwed in the past into supporting a man who doesn't pull his own weight, and we want to be more careful next time.
I guess I could give them Anthem, but I wouldn't get the same read.
Once married, it is 'disloyal' to leave your dependent partner - especially if you cannot afford to endow her with an independent livelihood. And it is SCARY to do so and be 'on your own' emotionally; and feeling guilty too to boot. So, because it is 'scary' you rationalize and say that you cannot just dump the other person...and you continue with your life together with her.
These are my observations from people around me - a few of them tend toward Randism but none of them are emotionally capable of saying, "I swear by my life..."
Jan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcAMJENa2...
Hank's failed marriage is not for the purpose of making him "as human as any other average Joe." Instead it shows the consequence of a mistake of judgment, Because Rand drew "larger-than-life" characters, Lillian was Hank's larger-than-life mistake.
As for fantasy, all fiction uses fantasy. Rand tries to show what is possible in the real world. Some other authors show the impossible, or set scenes in unreal words, or both. Personally, I do not care for fantasy novels in which the plot (if any) moves through hand waving or through a series of dei ex machina. "Suddenly the magician appeared and waved his hand. The villain shrank into dust."
A lot of 'learning' may start with imitation, but when the lessons are internalized and owned by the student, they're operating independently and on a higher level.
Which is ok with me. I've done that with more than a few 'lessons' in my life.
Including a second marriage; this time to a woman who's willing to support my dreams and goals and whose dreams and goals I'm willing to support, too.
And 'support' doesn't mean 'provide funding,' necessarily... sometimes just some encouragement and positive words will do.
Took me two tries to find her; took her three at-bats to find me. 24th anniversary was in July of this year. Big :)
Bottom line: choose well and recognize that it isn't a one-time line of "I do", but the daily practice.
Yup. We're in it together. Going on eighteen years with the plan to never part.
In a world where Galt failed (or just took longer), and Rearden was in prison or hiding in the woods of Montana, Lillian would have been more than willing to 'marry up' to the rising star of the widowed James Taggert, I think.
Jan
You mean like Dagny.
Most everyone here loves the protagonists of AS. Most of them do, because, in my opinion, it justifies their own immoral behavior.
God forbid that the AS protagonists actually be whole 3D people who actually do bad things, as well as good, who actually act stupidly, or emotionally, as well as wisely or rationally. No, every "bad" thing they do was in response to some other "bad" thing someone else did, and so, being victims, as is so popular in modern society, they are absolved of responsibility for their behavior.
D'Anconia's vindictive, destructive behavior is okay, because the ends justify the means. Galt's targeting of resources Dagny needs in his acquisition of "Strikers" is okay, because the ends justifies the means (and the ends really weren't just forcing the woman he was stalking into turning to him... /sarc).
The property Ragnar took upon himself to destroy, including the ships and cargo that, while they may have not been the just property of those who possessed it, certainly were not *his* to seize or destroy... that all was okay, because the ends justify the means.
Obama screws the country over... that's okay, so long as his apologists can find examples where other occupants of the WH also screwed the country over. Same logic.