Phillip and Hank's mother seem resentful possibly because they live in a society that is conflicted about success and wealth. They may have to do a lot of fund-raising and support for the *oppressed* in order to justify their existence among the elite of their society. They get to live well, but they have to make it clear that they didn't engage in selfish money-grubbing to get to their position. Phil and Mom are living in the lap of unearned luxury, are insecure because of this, conflicted, as said above and this makes them unbearably passive aggressive. Poor Hank. If only he could pretend to be sensitive to the lower classes, the family could be absolved of their angst.
Lillian is too arch and coy to be borne. She likely could be mollified if Hank spent time at benefits and was a patron of the arts and benefactor of the poor, but Hank is driven, something their society abhors. Evidently, it is all right to *have* wealth, it just isn't seemly to work hard to earn it and one must ostentatiously give back. Both the generationally wealthy and the newly successful struggle with *accomplishment guilt*.
Hank's father does seem absent or perhaps he died from overwork in the mines or a mill. I disagree that grit, et al doesn't arise without DNA, a mentor or example. IMO, these are inborn, but not necessarily inherited, traits. There are plenty of children of the motivated and successful who could not be less interested in emulating their parents or grandparents and others who arise out of mediocrity to attain great heights.
Rand is given to overblown character portrayal, almost charictature. People only sometimes speak normally. Much of the dialog is declamation and that includes the internal dialogues. I do appreciate her physical descriptions of surroundings and the bit players. It is very noir, an apt physical setting for the decline and decay of the society she is illustrating.
Ping to Chapter 2.
Now that prompts a bit of thinking. Even today in British society, a gentleman is not a man who engages in trade -- that's so middle class, not upper class -- but a man who doesn't work for a living due to inherited wealth.
We haven't gotten that decadent yet, but in Rearden's family the British viewpoint seems dominant.
The people who have not earned it and know that they have not earned it are the ones who are conflicted about their wealth. It's that way in the book, too.
I think you hit the nail on the head with this statement. Hank's mother says, “What would happen to Henry's vanity if he didn't have us to throw alms to? What would become of his strength if he didn't have weaker people to dominate? What would he do with himself if he didn't have us as dependents?” Of course, by now we know enough about Hank to see that this isn't the case at all. He's driven by the satisfaction of achievement, not an egotistic desire to dominate others. The lengthy description of how he has done nothing but work hard since boyhood to build and expand his business stands in stark contrast to the moochiness and entitlement displayed by his family. He doesn't need them, but they need him - and that makes them angry and resentful toward him. Instead of finding ways to contribute and make the relationship more equitable, they behave like “bewildered, unhappy children.”
I wonder if there isn't a parallel here to the class envy and and resentment we see in the world today. People who are not working hard to pay their own way and are instead relying on the hard work of others for their survival must feel insecure in this, and the insecurity must, on some level, lead to resentment. Those who have worked hard to get where they have are not evil villains who are just out to oppress their fellow man - but they are portrayed as such by the culture, confirming the idea that government is justified in taking away their profits and redistributing them to those who need the money more - but who should not be any more grateful for it than Hank's family is.
Look at how our culture vilifies the pharmaceutical industry, for example. People who would not be alive were it not for the years of research and development that went into their heart medicine will turn around and express outrage that the drug companies are making a profit and not just giving the drugs away for free. And when the companies DO give the drugs away for free, donate them to 3rd world countries, etc., no one celebrates them for it. It's akin to Philip's asking for the $10,000 donation in cash because it would look bad if they took the money from an evil capitalist like Hank. (But he still takes the money.)
I loved the symbolism of the chain - especially as it continues in the story. The chain represents for Hank his years of work, the obstacles he has had to overcome, as well as his hope for the future success of his business. He wants to give the chain to his “wife” - but he realizes that it is not Lillian with whom he wants to share his success - she could never understand the value of it to him and she sees the chain as nothing but a piece of junk.
Interesting question about the value of the individual and the collective accomplishments of society - well, without those individuals, the collective accomplishments wouldn't exist, would they? It's almost as if he's saying, if Thomas Edison hadn't invented the light bulb, someone else would have anyway, so Edison isn't so important. I wonder how Apple will fare without Steve Jobs...
Rand is given to overblown character portrayal, almost charictature.
I share your opinion. The conversations read like a 1950's-era stage play where all the characters overact. But, I guess her point does get across that way...
My impression of those-who-don't-need-to-work are often involved in a lot of charity work - especially the women. And yet, the uber-rich (and I don't know for sure as I am not one of them) seem very empty at the soul level.
Meanwhile, I've met many people who have little themselves, yet are active in charity work and they are filled with joy. The most joyful ones are active in their church.
I think doing good for others to justify yourself is a dead end. Doing good for others to glorify God is what brings true joy.
Since she was an atheist, this point certainly won't come out, but she nailed the empty-souled rich very well.
I recall hearing somewhere that children of great people rarely achieve similar greatness, however, grandchildren are more likely to carry over those traits. I've wondered if the children are too close to the original and subject to comparisons that are intimidating.