Replies

>>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.

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...

So it has been a couple of days since your post.

I truly appreciate your assessment of the Reardon Steel chain that Hank gave to Lillian. I simply missed the potential of all the when I first read the book last year. You really nailed it for me. I am often slow on such things. Thanks for posting.

Admittedly I rushed through the book because I suppose that I felt somehow denied that I had not read the thing 20 or 30 years ago. Bad me.

I'll be reading it again soon.

I think that your post concerning the issue is profound.

Thanks again.