Only the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad, the New York and Harlem Railroad, and the New York and New Haven Railroad...Grand Central Depot.
Ping! The thread has been posted.
Earlier threads:
Our First Freeper Book Club: Atlas Shrugged
Jim also represents the mediocrity that Galt & Co. shun. Left to his own devices, Jim Taggart could not make the railroad run, any more than the mediocrats in other industries can keep them working. Yet they reject the strict ethic that breeds excellence, in favor of a more inclusive, "democratic," egalitarian philosophy that ignores merit. It is that "altruism" that Rand considered the greatest threat to mankind's ultimate success. And it is a theme that will be repeated ad infinitum throughout the book.
BTW, with our next book, could we have a couple of week’s notice before the first ‘meeting’ to have time to get a copy of the book?
Your synopsis is great too. It’s a great way to remind me what I’ve read - I was wondering if I should take notes while reading because I have such a bad memory. Now - I don’t need to and can enjoy the book more.
IMHO, “the bottom line” has ruined this country.
For over 30 years, management types have looked for ways to increase profit and eliminate “waste”. Their underlings bonuses depended upon cutting costs, and jobs of others, wherever possible.
To me, there is no service any more. Very few will take a problem and solve it. Pass the buck seems to be the order of this day.
The beginning of the chapter reminded me of the old adage:
Nothing works, and nobody cares.
Bump for later reading.
This is foreshadowing. As Eddie passes, he is searching for the phrase that fits the calendar, but can't think of it. Then, Pop Harper uses the phrase about an old, technologically obsolete typewriter, but Eddie lost the connection.
"Your days are numbered."
I see this starting to happen in the "green" movement. Suddenly the highest purpose for both individuals and companies is "saving" the planet (from something unspecified at that).
That always brings to mind the words of my mountain climbing guide years ago: "Never say you conquered the mountain. The mountain let you climb it today - you might not be so lucky next time." Nature is a lot tougher than we give it credit for. But suddenly we must spend tons of money and give up many conveniences all for the sake of saving the planet. Of course, we know that that is just a smoke screen for more government control of our lives. But people really seem to buy (literally) into it. And the people telling us to pay money and give up stuff are the ones riding around in private jets.
LOL - I'm not sure what my point is. That's just what came to mind when I read that question.
Ah, James Taggart. One of my favorite villains in all of literature and, I tentatively suggest, Rand's greatest character creation. I'd place Reardon second, actually. He's an exception to my general rule that Rand's villains are more finely-drawn than her heroes and heroines. In Reardon she captures the conflict that will certainly occur in real people if Atlas really does shrug. More on him later.
But James Taggart - stem to stern, first chapter to last, you always know exactly what motivates him and you always want to choke the b@stard. The fellow who plays him on screen will have the meatiest role in the thing, IMHO. Infuriating, despicable, and delicious. Full marks to Rand on this one.
On the general topic of indifference - this is a different emotion from fear of involvement, actually, or fear of taking responsibility. Anyone who has ever worked in a large corporation has probably noticed that risk is regarded as something to be managed, to be evaluated on a more or less cost/benefit basis by persons paid to do so. That's why initiative tends to be discouraged. It has a cost. The challenge in managing a large organization is to allow for the toleration of a certain level of risk by absorbing the cost on its failure without penalizing the risk-taker. As organizations grow this tends to be more difficult to accomplish, one reason why a really good CEO is worth his or her weight in gold.
In the case of Taggart Transcontinental, one has to empathize a little with the listless employees. They'll be paid anyway, so why take the risk? Out of pride? That's the key to this one (and to any organization into which a really committed member commits more than time). Dagny certainly had her pride in it, as was only right inasmuch as her name was on it. But why should the employees? Lousy management has sucked it out of them.
Back to James Taggart and my comment about CEO's. And Dagny's astonishment at the whole thing does not reflect well on her own management abilities - if that's news to her, why? If her employees are risk-averse and intimidated, what has she done about it? The answer, that it's somebody else's job, is precisely the difficulty she notices in her people.
Could it be that Rand's fierce commitment to individualism gave her a bit of a blind spot on the issue? In Reardon especially (sorry to get a bit ahead of the chapter) we see an individual struggling to balance his own pride against the exigencies of family and a deck that is stacked firmly against him. But the object of his pride is, after all, his own creation. And so we return to the question of why Taggart's employees should have acted other than they did? Out of (shudder) altruism?
One of the complaints against Rand is that to her, only the people capable of the personal act of grand creation fully qualify as human beings deserving of respect. We see this in characters such as Eddie Willers - more of him in later chapters as I think he's a critical character in this narrative. Who will really be welcome in Galt's Gulch? How much of a god does one have to be to merit a place at the table in Valhalla?
I'd love to hear your comments on the above. May not be able to check back for awhile but it doesn't mean indifference. ;-)
Please add me to the ping list. Thx!
I am going to be back later to post my thoughts
Double ping for later. Great book.
Great discussions. Please ping me! Thanks.
The country had already begun falling apart when the book starts, it just hadn’t become all that apparent to the majority.
What bugs me is how the majority continue to be sheeple as they starve and their world collapses around them. Thats eerie and seems to be the case for realm life
As I was reading about the hollow tree I couldn’t help but think about the state of California (who now cannot afford to refund overpaid taxes), and all the Jim Taggarts that helped Ca. (and soon - NY) get to this point.
Only the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad, the New York and Harlem Railroad, and the New York and New Haven Railroad...Grand Central Depot.
Actually, Grand Central Depot was enlarged and renovated into Grand Central Station during 1899 - 1900. It was a virtually new building.
Some of the descendants of Cornelius Vanderbilt.
The contrast between Jim Taggart and the villains introduced later on is instructive.
The later villains, the Balph Eubankses and Claude Slagenhops and Wesley Mouches, are ideologues. They’re busily producing one bad idea after another; their life’s work is imposing their will on others. They are dedicated totalitarians, and they know exactly what they want.
Taggart, on the other hand, is a nonentity. He doesn’t have a brain in his head. He is not driven by ideology but emotion. Only emotion.
“It isn’t fair.”
“It seems to me we ought to give somebody else a chance too.”
“We ought to help the smaller fellows to develop.”
In place of reasoning he substitutes obedience to authority:
“The consensus of the best metallurgical authorities seems to be skeptical about Rearden Metal.”
That one has to sound familiar to anyone who’s ever tried to debate a liberal on Global Warming. It’s nearly impossible, because their argument always leads to “But the scientists agree! It’s a consensus!”
Taggart is, in short, your perfect Obama supporter. A puddle of thought, a sea of emotion.
I hope this isn’t hijacking the thread or getting in the way of its purpose, but I thought many Freepers who have read Atlas Shrugged would have a point of view from the contents of this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2166916/posts?page=11
Specifically, does this new appointee from Obama remind Freepers of any particular character in Atlas Shrugged?
It sure reminds ME of someone.