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

Pierssen Consulting ^ | Fred Pierssen

[Taka No Kimi]

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.

Too true, too true!

[Euro-American Scum]

Bump for future reference.

[Gorjus]

...according to Rand it's not...

Another assumption - which is to say, a faith statement. Frankly, I would not have said that was her philosophy, based on reading Atlas Shrugged. (I haven't read the Fountainhead.) Instead, her rationalist hero John Galt, was willing to sacrifice himself for the benefit of the other 'good' (= competent) people. The key is that John Galt had selected a group for whom he was willing to sacrifice that wasn't the same as the degenerate society as a whole had declared to be worthy. Ultimately, I support his right to make that choice himself, rather than having others force that choice on him because they have the 'knack' (as Plato put it) of manipulating the masses.

In the end, I guess it becomes essentially semantics. She (or you) may declare that it's not a 'sacrifice' if one is willing to make it - but that's not the way I would use the word 'sacrifice.' I would say that it is giving up something of value. Sometimes we do that in return for something we consider of even higher value, but I'd still call it a sacrifice. And so, I believe that John Galt (Ayn Rand) had some valid value judgments because I share some of the underlying premises even as I disagree with others, but the basic premise that one can make an entire philosophy that is purely rational without underlying faith-based assumptions is wrong.

[Taka No Kimi]

Oh dear. It's the "meaning of the word" again!
Actually, John Galt himself said in his three-hour long radio speech (which didn't need to be that long, I think) that if a man dies fighting for his country it's not a sacrifice. But, as I've said before, to each his own.

[Liberal Classic]

I can't be the only libertarian who hasn't read Rand.

[Androcles]

I like Tolkien and Rand, but they would have loathed each other's books. While Tolkien's characters are fairly formal in speech and manner, that is written in the style of the sagas and early histories. Rand's dialogue and characters are so wooden you'd think she was creating roles for Pinnochio.

There's also the key issue - Rand would have loathed the LOTR because it shows the triumph of the masses she rallies against in her works. Consider the Hobbit - a story of an ordinary little fellow nicking an object owned/created by others and using it to steal things from those who've worked hard to acquire them (ie Smaug, the Ellfking).

In LOTR proper, we see that Sauron went to a great deal of trouble building a solid well-defended state and a number of artifacts. he has added something to their world. It may be fear, pain, misery, etc but at least he has given the world something. On the other hand we have the Elves/Men/Hobbits and Dwarves who seem to be very good at pulling the great ones down (Saruman, Sauron) but not quite so good at putting anything in their place.

Ah, but what of the great individuals who were 'good', I hear you cry! Who? Elrond - supposedly a mighty half-elf lord. Why then has he spent millennia in his equivalent o f a hippie shack smoking Longbottom and listening to bards. Sounds like the alternative lifestylers of the welfare state to me! Galadriel - a new age overbearing woman who prances round the woods in impractical dresses and is likewise unwilling to accompany them. Aragorn - supposedly a truly great fellow yet he bases his struggle on the belief that his blood gives him the right to a throne which he hasn't been too concerned about for the last few centuries, thank you very much!

Then, once Sauron is defeated what happens? The principal 'wreckers' bugger off to the Grey Havens with their ill gotten gains, the Grey Havens no doubt being the Elvish equivalent of the Bahamas!

On a more serious note, Tolkein was a genius and a great writer and lover of language. Rand may well have been a genius but she was stilted and wooden. Despite my musings above, Tolkein's a far better book. I do believe however that Rand would have favoured Mordor and Isengard with their factories and their work ethic over the rural ordinaryness of the lands of Middle-Earth. Tolkein believed in individuals who were ordinary folk and cherished their communities. Rand believed only in strong-willed indidividuals who would forsake their fellows and view in dividuality as more important than the welfare of their friends, family and so forth.

[Taka No Kimi]

Hmmm...I must disagree on a couple of points. First, Smaug did NOT work hard to gain his wealth - The dwarves, Thorin's family and so forth, were the ones who created the treasure - which Smaug then proceeded to take by force from the creators. How different is this to the mentality and methods of the "looters" in Atlas Shrugged? Also, I doubt Ayn Rand would have preferred Mordor, Isengard and all their technology to the "masses of little people". She was a technology lover and Tolkien a Luddite, but Sauron and Saruman sought to use their technology to rule people by force, something Rand disapproved of. Remember also that the ring-making "technology" was invented by the Elves for nonviolent purposes but stolen by Sauron to make the One Ring, a weapon of control - Compare this to Project X, invented by State scientists using methods and theories invented by Dr. Stadler just for pure science's sake. Just my brain running off on "analysis" mode...

[Androcles]

Welll, I was being tongue-in-cheek re Smaug as in much of my comment, but I doubt she'd have liked the little folks.

As to the technology, it reminds me of The Fountainhead where the hero rails against his professors for only using classical designs instead of using the new materials, tech, etc to apply new concepts. I think of Sauron's rings as being his own usage and spells. After all the Elvish ones weren't control oriented, so his was innovative. As to Project X, well, Sauron did most of his own work on magic items. As to his orcisah forges and weapons smiths, how diufferent is that from the Gondorian arsenals? NB - As an odd note, bear in mind that had Sauron been absent, it is likely the Goblins/orcs woul dbe hunted slowly to extinction. Hard to see the shire happily accepting Orcish refugees....

[Taka No Kimi]

Sorry about my misunderstanding. I've never read The Fountainhead - only Atlas Shrugged and Anthem and a few essays - so I guess I didn't see where you were coming from.

[Androcles]

Not a prob. I thought it was a great posting article, I just think they're so dfferent that any comparison may as well be a little humourous.

Fountinhead is not without it's charms allthough I found some scenes less pleasant then Atlas Shrugged.

[PatrickHenry]

Tolkien and Rand were talking about different evils, so the struggles they wrote about were entirely different. I'm not sure what Tolkien thought of altruism, but Rand thought it was destroying the world. And I'm not sure what Tolkien thought about individualism, but Rand thought it was the antidote to the world's problems. So these are two very different works, by very different authors, with very different messages.

[gorush]

"John Galt, the protagonist and embodiment of Objectivism, is the leader of the war against Evil, a ringleader of a strike in which those shouldering the burdens of Evil shrug them off and step aside to watch the world collapse in order that they may rebuild it in a new age of freedom. "

The strict-constructionists among us (myself included) understand that our diminished Constitution will never be reinstituted at the ballot box. No, I'm not voting for Kerry to hasten a purifying revolution, I'm just saying that voting for GWB isn't going to delay the inevitable by all that much.

[numberonepal]

I can't be the only libertarian who hasn't read Rand.

Don't do it, it'll ruin your life. Waaay too much reality. Most of it ugly.

If I recall from reading stuff written by folks in her inner circle, she wasn't all that easy to get along with. Too much of that Hero Worship stuff made expectations too high. I mean, have you ever seen or listened to Peikoff? (Hint: rhymes with fork) This cat living up to the expectations of John Galt or Hank Reardon were next to nill. Who is John Galt? Not Peikoff, that's for sure. Martha Stewart might have gotten along with her, though. Except I can't see her taking Miss Rand on the railroad tracks.

[Tench_Coxe]

bookmark

[numberonepal]

Rand's primary problem is that she had no faith in anyone or anything higher than herself.

The simple fact that her philosophy was void of humor is evident of the above. She created a Platonic "World of The Forms" just like the one she so scathingly criticized.

However, I must admit when it comes to logic and defining reality, she did quite a good job. The axioms of the philosophy are solid, however Aristotlean. And her writings on Capitalism and ideas about government are unsurpassed in our age. It's just that her idea of everyday life was unrealistic. People require relaxation, humor, and a little non-sense to be their best and be their most productive. She didn't get this at all.

Rational selfishness? Sure, I'll buy it. But, you gotta let me have a cold beer and veg on some TV once in a while.

[numberonepal]

if a man dies fighting for his country it's not a sacrifice.

This is consistent with the philosophy. More pointedly, it's a value judgement.

When Rand talked of sacrifice she meant the surrender of a value for the sake of a lesser value or nonvalue. If a man values his country more than his life, it is indeed, not a sacrifice. Jumping on a grenade to save your buddy is a sacrifice.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Simply put, Ayn Rand was an orc.

[Skywalk]

not COMPLETELY different.

The Scouring of the Shire shows, in micro, what Tolkien was getting at with his story. It wasn't really the unshakeable evil of the orc that was the threat, it was the evil of men who wished to ruin and hold sway over others, but for no other reason than they deem themselves superior. Saruman was an example of this. THe RIng but a symbol of the corruption of power, ESPECIALLY absolute power.

Also look at how socialist "Sharky" and his band of thugs had made the Shire, when before it was a place damn near without authority(except a ceremonial Mayor and the shiriffs) and where a hobbit had his own wealth and enjoyed a good smoke and a good meal. Sharky turned it into a socialist heaven, with machines not so much representing technology, but representing Saruman(or any evil one) and his will to dominate and corrupt and destroy.


For Rand, perhaps she worshipped a kind of power, but it was not the power over other men. On this, Tolkien and Rand would have agreed.

[Taka No Kimi]

Heeeeey...Rule No. 1: Don't insult the author of Taka no Kimi's favorite book.
Rule No. 2: Don't personally attack people.
Rule No. 3: Don't say anything negative to me! BWAHAHA!!!

(Tongue firmly in cheek)

[SuziQ]

Bump for later reading.