Good and Evil: A Comparison of Atlas Shrugged and The Lord of the Rings

Pierssen Consulting ^ | Fred Pierssen

[Taka No Kimi]

Just thought you might like this. (passes out)

[BibChr]

Huh?

[Corin Stormhands]

I don't know what to think about this, but here's a ping with the pancake bunny.

[Taka No Kimi]

Awwww...That's so cute. Thank you.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The Bad Guys in Atlas Shrugged are much more evil than those in Lord of the Rings.

[JenB]

Er... well... let's see. I've read Lord of the Rings dozens of times. I feel asleep working my way through Atlas Shrugged. Tolkien and Rand really wouldn't have liked each other at all.

What's "Taka"? Are you an anime buff?

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/involved?group=409

[Taka No Kimi]

Jen, I agree that Tolkien and Rand wouldn't have liked each other much. But that doesn't mean that both didn't have something important to say.
"Taka" means hawk in Japanese. I was interested in anime for a while, but not right now.

[JenB]

Mm, perhaps. I take Rand more as a warning - that libertarianism and Objectivism aren't for me. It wasn't "Atlas Shrugged" that convinced me, but a philosophy professor who suggested I read "The Fountainhead" if I really wanted to understand Rand's philosophy...

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if I knew people like Rand's characters, I'd avoid them. But people like Tolkien's heroes keep the world from going completely to bits.

[Taka No Kimi]

I like both Rand and Tolkien. There's a lot of both that I disagree with, but to each his own.

[laishly]

Very interesting analysis! I might add the thought that scum bucket Clinton's administration was a sequel to Atlas Shrugged, which his evil Mistress-of-Darkness concubine is seeking to continue. I think they may have found another ring!

[jdege]

Rand believed that you could determine the proper rules for society by a simple rational process.

She was, to put it plainly, wrong.

Hayek makes it clear - human societies are far too complicated to manage in any kind of rational manner - they are an evolutionary construct.

[ecurbh]

Ring Ping!!

The Hobbit Hole :: Troop Support Projects

Anyone wishing to be added to or removed from the Ring-Ping list, please don't hesitate to let me know.

[EternalHope]

Interesting.

Thanks for posting it.

[Gorjus]

Rand believed that you could determine the proper rules for society by a simple rational process.

Actually, it was more of a logical process, in that she had embedded assumptions from which she drew conclusions. However, there is no rational basis on which one can prove those initial assumptions. (That's what makes them assumptions.)

If you accept as stated in the article that Rand's objectivist philosophy is: 'Good = that which is free, productive, etc.' then you may draw logical conclusions from that premise. But what if 'Good = that which provides the longest, healthiest life for the most people'? Or, if one accepts the existence of a higher power than mankind (which Rand rejects), then the proper premise is: 'Good = that which helps man to achieve Salvation/Paradise.'

In fact, Rand's philosophy as expressed in 'Atlas Shrugged' is inherently illogical. Those who 'shrug' off the burden of the unproductive (giving up their productive wealth and power to withdraw to the mountain hideaway) in fact are making a sacrifice which will (ultimately) benefit others - which is doing exactly what the unproductive want. It's a different group who benefit (perhaps the descendents of those who 'shrug' off their burden instead of the multi-generation unproductive) but it's still sacrificing for others. The ultimate example of this is when John Galt tells the torturer how to fix the machine they are using to torture him. He sacrifices so that they may achieve their desire, even though that desire is undeserving. Shouldering the burdens of the unproductive/incompetent.

And in that way 'Atlas Shrugged' and 'Lord of the Rings' do show a strong parallel. In each case, the fight against evil requires self-sacrifice.

Rand's primary problem is that she had no faith in anyone or anything higher than herself. Her ego got in the way of accepting faith as a 'rational' basis for action - yet it is an inherent aspect of the human animal to have faith in things not provable (for example: Love) and she based her own philosophy on faith in a particular premise on the definition of good and evil. She rejected part of humanity in an attempt to show what she considered the highest form of humanity, and so - as you put it so plainly - she was wrong.

[Junior]

One of the most unique aspects ...

I got this far and gave up. "Unique" is an absolute. Nothing can be more unique or less unique than something else. "Most unique" is logically and grammatically incorrect. Writing is a window onto thinking; if this writer is this sloppy in his writings, his thinking must leave much to be desired.

[Fedora]

"Tolkien and Rand really wouldn't have liked each other at all."

That was pretty much my first reaction as well. Interesting post, though--makes me reflect on the nature of good and evil in the two novels. I'll leave it to others to comment on Rand since my area is Tolkien, but IMO for Tolkien evil is portrayed as a corruption of what was once good, per the Christian theology of sin as privation--Morgoth is a fallen Valar, Sauron is a fallen Maia, Orcs are corrupted Elves, the Wraiths are corrupted Men, Gollum is a corrupted Hobbit, the Ring tempts by appealing to a desire to use it for good, etc. Also IMO for Tolkien evil is conquered through self-sacrifice--Frodo's suffering, Sam's willingness to die for Frodo, the Fellowship's willingness to protect Frodo at all costs, the sacrifices at the Battles of Helm's Deep and Gondor; and ultimately through grace, for in the end, Frodo gives into the temptation to claim the Ring, but despite his failure, Gollum inadvertently destroys the Ring, not through his own intent but through a fortuitious quirk of fate foreseen by Gandalf way back in Chapter 2 of "Fellowship": "Behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was *meant* to find the Ring, and *not* by its maker. . .For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many--yours not least."

[Mamzelle]

Tolkien's is a tragic vision replete with the tradition of Origianal Sin. The humans and other mortals depend, in large part, on the help of spiritual guidance. Those guides, themselves, fall into sin--sin generally based on greed.

Rand would have hated LOTR. Tolkien would not have even noticed the existance of Rand.

[Taka No Kimi]

That's a good analysis, but I think you made a bit of a mistake. If a man dies in fighting evil, according to Rand it's not a sacrifice - He values goodness so much he is willing to die for it. So logically, this applies to religion as well - Everyone has some good points and bad points. This includes Rand, no matter what her personal or philosophical faults were.

[IronJack]

I think the comparison is strained; even the author draws no real similarity -- other than the broad theme of Good vs. Evil -- between the two works. But I agree with his analysis of each work individually.

I wouldn't make too much of the symbolism in LOTR. In the end, it is a myth. A very complete and compelling myth, to be sure. But a story as old as Time, populated by mysterious sylvan creatures and shadowy, looming demons. A ripping good yarn.