Thoughts on James Taggart

Posted by SamMikhailBrowning 2 months, 1 week ago to Books
14 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I would like to share a few thoughts, questions, observations and perspectives on Jim Taggart, both upon my first reading and through the years.
I remember when starting Atlas Shrugged for the first time, feeling a bit of sympathy towards James because despite being the eldest son and heir to TT, he was obviously not viewed that way to others, and from the beginning, it seems that it was no secret. It seemed to me that the guy had spent his entire life being punked by his little sister. That has to sting. Even in modern times, any red blooded American male would feel a certain sting at being outshined in a traditionally masculine endeavors by a woman, so imagine a man in the WWII era and how that would stick in his craw. Secondly, when reading about James meeting Cheryl, and during their early courtship, I held out a glimmer of hope for James having a sort of redemption arc, in the sense that his love for Cheryl would inspire him to be who she thought he was.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Lucky 2 months, 1 week ago
    Those ideas make sense to me, but one big qualification-
    his love for Cheryl

    James Taggart did not love Cheryl. He did not 'love' himself, he had the same disdain for himself as he had for everyone, that is what makes him so despicable.

    His motivation in life was not even narrow minded self-interest, he was a virtue signaller, moral posturer, all fake attempts in showing off to his circle what a fine noble generous etc person he was. But instead- he was not even working for himself, it was all destruction.

    He selected Cheryl as she was far socially inferior and he could pretend to be caring about her. The pretense was all that mattered, recall how Cheryl took speaking/elocution lessons but Jim was disdainful, sneered?

    Now I say that Jim T is an uninteresting character, to read about, and follow.
    The idea comes to me that the creation of Jim T was a brilliant move by Rand. When Rand was thinking and writing, the 40s, 50s, 60s, things existed as seeds and were not seen by most.
    But now, Jim T represent DeepState, the epitome of our political and executive classes. There is good education and intelligence there, not apparent from what they say and what they do. The over-riding themes we see are fake- concerns for the environment, for the planet, for refugees, for the disadvantaged, handicapped, unmotivated, and furthermore the problem is due to 'us'. The 'us' who must pay and suffer. The outcome of those policies, whatever they are named as- collectiveism, socialism, do-good-ism, is destruction.

    One fictional character in Atlas Shrugged, James Taggart, represents the entire evil edifice dominating the world today.

    There is an optimistic idea, Jim T destroys himself, but none too soon.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by VetteGuy 2 months, 1 week ago
      Re: Cheryl. Jim's concept of 'love' was similar to what a lot of us were taught growing up. 'Love is unconditional' etc. I think from Cheryl he was looking more to BE LOVED than to love her. He thought she would be so grateful for being pulled out of her meager lifestyle that she would love him without looking too deeply into his character.

      Jim's disdain at Cheryl's attempts to improve herself exposed a very dark turn in their relationship. In Jim's view, she was only a worthwhile spouse if she was worthless and dependent on him (and grateful to him) for everything. That's pretty sick, in my opinion.

      I agree that in today's terminology, Jim, along with Mouch and a couple others represent 'the elite'.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
      On my first reading, I noticed the incident about Jim being upset with Cheryl about the party where she killed it socially, but it was when I re read it that I really was starting to see the malice in his motives with Cheryl. One thing , I think upon first reading, despite Francisco's money speech being a highlight of the book, The whole wedding scene made me feel a mix of pity and disgust with James. On one hand, I feel sorry for a guy who got punked that bad, not only in front of his wife but on their wedding day On the other hand, I look at James like a little bitch for not doing something, anything, throwing a bottle at Francisco, even. I know Francisco is supposed to be a badass alpha, and obviously James isnt, but I think that evn a George Mcfly/Screech type character would try to get violent about that, no matter how bad the odds. It's been describes as the brains going to the balls. after that, I looked at James as being broken.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by VetteGuy 2 months, 1 week ago
    Interesting perspective.

    I had similar thoughts of Jim being "outshined", but by Francisco (especially the motorboat incident). Jim never seemed to be very capable, and maybe that's not his fault (lots of people are not particularly capable, which is no crime). The problem with Jim is that he was the heir to a railroad, and the position he inherited magnified his ineptitude.

    I guess the 'honorable' thing for Jim would have been to step down or accept a lower position and let Dagny be CEO. But ... a woman CEO was probably unthinkable in 1957. And I'm not sure Dagny would want the job - she LIKED operations. Hard to envision her schmoosing with the Board.

    Jim was a tough character for me from another reason. I think he really believed (at first) he was trying to do 'good' with the Mexican line, help the less fortunate, etc. Maybe he felt empathy with them from his upbringing as you point out.

    Jim really went over to 'the dark side' in my mind, when he started using his pull to get favors from his buds in DC.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
      Yeah the motorboat incident stuck in my mind too. A woman a a CEO in a book written in 57 would have been fine, during that time in the US, although highly improbable, it wouldnt be unimaginable to the readers. and truth be told, if not quite honorable, if he just tried to play the big dog and take credit for dagny's achievements behind the scenes in public, but didn't try to undermine Dagny, he would have been significantly less evil. Kind of like a Vasily Stalin type.
      Another thing that kind of made me feel sympathy for James but at the same time made me look at him as even more of a punk was his wedding. Imagine being on the receiving end of that. Francisco might as well have banged Cheryl doggystyle in front of him and everyone else. I understand that Francisco is supposed to be ultra masculine and intimidating, but James didn't even make an attempt to assert his masculinity. So I understand his hatred. If someone punked me like that in front of my wife, I would have to cause that person harm. Despite the brilliant speech, and despite knowing that James wasn't meant to be portrayed sympathetically in this part of the book, I felt like I was watching Biff bully George in his own home at the beginning of Back to the future.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 months, 1 week ago
        I had to read the book several times before I realized that James Taggart was meant to be the main villain (rather than just one of several .) I remarked to a few people that Jim Taggart had seemed like he couldn't be a real villain because he was such a snivel-nosed little snot. I was told that that was the point. As indeed it is. And I understood.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by VetteGuy 2 months, 1 week ago
          To me, the "main villain" in AS is the philosophy of collectivism, subjectivism, and lack of self-interest. Jim is a good target, as he embodies that philosophy, but so do many other, less detailed characters (Oren Boyle, Thompson, Stadler).
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by VetteGuy 2 months, 1 week ago
        I think by the time of his wedding, Jim had any remnant of masculinity beaten out of him. His childhood of always being upstaged by Frisco, made this just one more case of being upstaged by him.

        Also, everyone who really knew him knew HIS SISTER really ran the railroad, which had to gnaw at him. This was further emphasized by Dagny's comment to Cheryl. As a reminder, Cheryl told Dagny that she (Cheryl) was the woman in the family now, and Dagny replied something on the order of "That's fine, I'm the man of the family".

        And remember that in 1957, the context is much different than today. The "man of the family" was very much expected to be the head of the family. (Although behind the scenes that was not always true, most families at least 'kept up appearances').
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
          I think I might have been inclined to sympathize with Jim on my first reading of Atlas because about a month before I started I had been let go from a concrete plant after 3 weeks and told "kid, you try, but this is a real man's job, you should try college"
          That shit STILL stings 23 years later
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by mccannon01 2 months, 1 week ago
            Bad memories do have a tendency to stick, but many are just part of the growing process. Smile at it. The guy sounds like a low IQ bully full of useless opinions and life is full of them. Bump that old cement dust off your shoes and move on leaving him behind. My guess is he's still there doing the same as he ever did. The fact you are here and willing to join in intellectual endeavors indicates you passed the likes of him by a long time ago.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 2 months, 1 week ago
    Wasn't Jim the one who completely lost his marbles when Galt wouldn't be broken by the torture? Jim was a leftist, it seems, and that was his problem. Couldn't stand that somebody could adhere to excellence in anything beyond coddling government power and influence. Weak-minded.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo