15

Why do Hanks hold on to Lillians?

Posted by $ rockymountainpirate 10 years, 7 months ago to Philosophy
105 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

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?


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 4.
  • Posted by kevinw 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    But Hank was conflicted. He was raised with a sense of duty forced upon him toward his family and those around him. That's how he could end up with a Lillian. He could not fully accept it but he would not openly oppose it either, a little bit of acceptance of unearned guilt I suppose. You know you're right but you don't know why you're right and everybody around you says you're wrong.
    After 40 years of living my life that way before being introduced to objectivism I understand completely.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Snezzy 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, it is fiction. I have seen people fail at Objectivism by adopting a fantastic "WWJD" approach: 'What would Galt do?' Or 'What would Rand do?' But the rational philosophy called Objectivism is not based on imitation. It is not a variety of Pragmatism. Rand's fiction is not Naturalism, and her characters are not based on observation but on abstraction.

    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."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    yes, she really is. she has told us the most fascinating careers she's had. anything from training navy pilots, working as a DEA agent, showing horses, running a P.I. business to fighting wildfires. and a whole lot of other things in between. oh, and playing bass. I think either-or has a point. "early-book Hanks."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am sorry for your loss temlakos.
    I completely agree about the anti-villian concept. I had not given a term to that type of character but it is fitting.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 7 months ago
    When I was young, even though I read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, I hadn't absorbed the philosophy. I just knew it made me feel good. I married a woman who I thought wasn't as smart as me, who I could boss around and who would serve my needs more than her own. Long story short -- she studied my profession. Went to professional schools and learned the skills. She became better at it than me. Reappraisal time! I grew. She grew. We grew together. Lillian(s) don't grow. Hank(s) marry them for the wrong reasons and those reasons hang on. Hank grows, Lillian remains.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I see your point, but I also know there are "lillians" everywhere. I think intellectual elites pontificating about how everyone else should live their lives and how most americans can't take care of themselves.-there needs to be government management. Their disgust for individuals assuages their own deep inner conflicts and immoral actions-sleeping around, stabbing business partners in the back, making crony deals to destroy their competition. oh they exist all right-and in pure form
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by slfisher 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That's the real question. Why did he marry her in the first place? Surely she didn't completely change her personality after marriage.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Ripside 10 years, 7 months ago
    I was married to a Lillian of sorts, and these character's relationship always rang some bells for me. My Lillian had no skills other than swiping a credit card, while I provided a damn fine life for her, new house, new car, jewelry, trips, credit cards for more stores than I can list here.

    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."

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by coaldigger 10 years, 7 months ago
    I believe they hold on to Lillians by default. Most real people are combinations of the characters that AR created to illustrate her philosophy. A "Lillian" is not a "Lillian" all the time and neither is Hank. When something is constant, a rational mind can identify it and make a decision of it's value to his happiness. When there are reversals and mood swings, there is reason to believe that one can influence the other person to settle into the better side of themselves. Focus on a career and producing wealth is very absorbing and takes a toll on the energy needed to optimize one's family life.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Shakespeare. If Lillian was upset that Hank was "married" to his business that's one thing. But to openly engage in undermining his efforts by the friends she chose, condoning certain family members' actions which also were undermining-these actions she owns herself. Hank's affair with Dagny was completely moral because he was married in name only.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 10 years, 7 months ago
    You've got me. You really need to ask: why did Hank Rearden marry Lillian in the first place? Was it just because she conformed to the worldly standard of beauty and sophistication? Was it that important to him? If so, it was a fearful lapse of judgment.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ EitherOr 10 years, 7 months ago
    Hank is with Lillian because he believes he has made a valid choice in marrying her- he could conceive of no better option at the time. I think he is the one (possibly only?) character who really develops in the novel. He realizes after the marriage that Lillian makes him uncomfortable, but he's not sure why. If not for Francisco and Dagny's moral nudges he may never have seen Lillian for what she really was. Then by to your quote from Rand, Rearden was not always a "rational man", but became one.

    Maybe all these Hanks you're finding are early-book Hanks, and they need an education from Dagny ;)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Married" to his work...which fed and clothed and kept Lillian (and the rest of them) comfortable. He was passionate about his work, he used his mind and was good at it, and she did not appreciate any of that. Why didn't she want to help him succeed? Why was she not interested in his accomplishments? She was married to the clout and abhorred the creator at the same time.. A was not A with any of them. His money was good for what they wanted to use it for, but the mind that made it possible was looked down on as greedy. Hank was the only one NOT conflicted.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 11
    Posted by LetsShrug 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Just to make sure I understand what you just said...cuz sometimes you're cryptic... the 'rub' was not part of the 'satisfying sex'?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 12
    Posted by $ 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't think the change over time thing is really right. Sure, people do change, but their core usually doesn't. Lillian used subterfuge and guile to hook Hank in the first place and he didn't see it.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo