A wet nurse is a woman who breast feeds an infant when its mother won't or can't. Aside from the titillating imagery the title's apparently intended to evoke, perhaps the only way that old men are able to obtain arousal, what's the explanation for calling the government agent a "wet nurse?"
On Oct 7, 4:47 pm, reilloc <reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/7/2012 2:31 PM, calvin wrote:
> > Here is a clip from the movie, which starts Friday.
> > Admirers of the book will enjoy this, and it makes
> > the movie look promising.
> > 'Rearden and the Wet Nurse'
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d3iVaGfEsg
> A wet nurse is a woman who breast feeds an infant when its mother won't
> or can't. Aside from the titillating imagery the title's apparently
> intended to evoke, perhaps the only way that old men are able to obtain
> arousal, what's the explanation for calling the government agent a "wet
> nurse?"
Maybe if you weren't so literal you could imagine it.
Some of the workers in Rearden's steel mill call
the government agent that. Rearden calls him
"Non-absolute", but his real name is Tony, we
learn late in the story.
The point of the clip is not what the character
is called. At any rate, I only expect admirers of the
book to be especially interested in the clip. The
story of Rearden and the Wet Nurse is the most
touching sub-plot of the book, in my estimation,
but their best scenes are in Part III.
"calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>On Oct 7, 4:47 pm, reilloc <reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/7/2012 2:31 PM, calvin wrote:
>> > Here is a clip from the movie, which starts Friday.
>> > Admirers of the book will enjoy this, and it makes
>> > the movie look promising.
>> > 'Rearden and the Wet Nurse'
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d3iVaGfEsg
>> A wet nurse is a woman who breast feeds an infant when its mother won't
>> or can't. Aside from the titillating imagery the title's apparently
>> intended to evoke, perhaps the only way that old men are able to obtain
>> arousal, what's the explanation for calling the government agent a "wet
>> nurse?"
>Maybe if you weren't so literal you could imagine it.
>Some of the workers in Rearden's steel mill call
>the government agent that.
How could it be meant any more literally than the imagery of suckling at the government's teat?
I guess the moral of the story is that people need to grow up and not breast feed off the government.
> On Oct 7, 4:47 pm, reilloc <reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/7/2012 2:31 PM, calvin wrote:
>>> Here is a clip from the movie, which starts Friday.
>>> Admirers of the book will enjoy this, and it makes
>>> the movie look promising.
>>> 'Rearden and the Wet Nurse'
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d3iVaGfEsg
>> A wet nurse is a woman who breast feeds an infant when its mother won't
>> or can't. Aside from the titillating imagery the title's apparently
>> intended to evoke, perhaps the only way that old men are able to obtain
>> arousal, what's the explanation for calling the government agent a "wet
>> nurse?"
> Maybe if you weren't so literal you could imagine it.
> Some of the workers in Rearden's steel mill call
> the government agent that. Rearden calls him
> "Non-absolute", but his real name is Tony, we
> learn late in the story.
I guess that "literal" isn't important in writing, eh? That's the "Randian" style.
> "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >On Oct 7, 4:47 pm, reilloc <reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/7/2012 2:31 PM, calvin wrote:
> >> > Here is a clip from the movie, which starts Friday.
> >> > Admirers of the book will enjoy this, and it makes
> >> > the movie look promising.
> >> > 'Rearden and the Wet Nurse'
> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d3iVaGfEsg
> >> A wet nurse is a woman who breast feeds an infant when its mother won't
> >> or can't. Aside from the titillating imagery the title's apparently
> >> intended to evoke, perhaps the only way that old men are able to obtain
> >> arousal, what's the explanation for calling the government agent a "wet
> >> nurse?"
> >Maybe if you weren't so literal you could imagine it.
> >Some of the workers in Rearden's steel mill call
> >the government agent that.
> How could it be meant any more literally than the imagery of suckling at the
> government's teat?
> I guess the moral of the story is that people need to grow up and not breast
> feed off the government.
What you say could be applied to other things, but in this
story the young man is assigned by the government to
watch the activities in Rearden's steel mills and keep
Rearden informed of current government regulations
and procedures and, by implication, to keep the
government informed of Rearden's activities. He, the
government agent, is doing the nursing, not being nursed.
In this and previous comments you seem eager to think
this story is about 'worthless' people living on the government
dole. But that's not what it's about. It's about government
and corrupt businessmen hamstringing free enterprise and
thus creating a multitude of bad effects; and among those
bad effects the eventual reduction of ordinary people to the
level of starving savages. The book is not about the common
people sucking at the government's teat, but it has a lot to
do with the government and corrupt businesses helping
out each other at the expense of the honest producers,
at every level, and at the peril of the functioning of the
country.
I know the book. People from whom you seem to be
getting your information obviously (to me) don't. The
greatest falsehood about the book, bleated by the liberal
media whenever the subject of the book or its writer
comes up, is that ... but wait ... let me give you Rachel
Maddow's exact words:
"In Ayn Rand's novels she leads her readers to see the very
wealthiest
people in society as heroes, heroes who must be protected from taxes,
from the government, from regulation, from bureaucracy, from anything
that rich people might find restrictive in any way toward them
becoming
more rich. The rich are heroes and everybody else is a 'taker', and
the
more the rich have, the better, the better for everyone."
In this book the very wealthiest people in society are both
the good and the bad, the most able and honest producers
and the most corrupt and incompetent 'crony capitalists',
though that term is not used, as well as the most corrupt
government officials. There is no moral value placed on simply
having money, though there is much moral value placed on
competent production and thus honestly making money.
And this applies as much to people of modest means as to
the most successful industrialists.
I know the book, but believe Rachel if that is what you prefer.
Google Groups' ridiculous margin problem messed up
Rachel Maddow's comments. To do them justice I'll
repair the damage here:
"In Ayn Rand's novels she leads her readers to see the
very wealthiest people in society as heroes, heroes who
must be protected from taxes, from the government, from
regulation, from bureaucracy, from anything that rich
people might find restrictive in any way toward them
becoming more rich. The rich are heroes and everybody
else is a 'taker', and the more the rich have, the better,
the better for everyone."
On Oct 7, 6:21 pm, reilloc <reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess that "literal" isn't important in writing, eh? That's the
> "Randian" style.
> LNC
Hint: to sabotage a thread you need to do a little
better than this. So far you're only making yourself
look ridiculous. You should take lessons from
'Obveeus'. He knows how to write just a few words
that get me to reply with several paragraphs, down
onto which vultures will stoop for a feeding frenzy.
"calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>On Oct 7, 5:52 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> >On Oct 7, 4:47 pm, reilloc <reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On 10/7/2012 2:31 PM, calvin wrote:
>> >> > Here is a clip from the movie, which starts Friday.
>> >> > Admirers of the book will enjoy this, and it makes
>> >> > the movie look promising.
>> >> > 'Rearden and the Wet Nurse'
>> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d3iVaGfEsg
>> >> A wet nurse is a woman who breast feeds an infant when its mother >> >> won't
>> >> or can't. Aside from the titillating imagery the title's apparently
>> >> intended to evoke, perhaps the only way that old men are able to >> >> obtain
>> >> arousal, what's the explanation for calling the government agent a >> >> "wet
>> >> nurse?"
>> >Maybe if you weren't so literal you could imagine it.
>> >Some of the workers in Rearden's steel mill call
>> >the government agent that.
>> How could it be meant any more literally than the imagery of suckling at >> the
>> government's teat?
>> I guess the moral of the story is that people need to grow up and not >> breast
>> feed off the government.
>What you say could be applied to other things, but in this
>story the young man is assigned by the government to
>watch the activities in Rearden's steel mills and keep
>Rearden informed of current government regulations
>and procedures and, by implication, to keep the
>government informed of Rearden's activities. He, the
>government agent, is doing the nursing, not being nursed.
Yes, exactly as I said. The government agent is the wet nurse...how much more literal could it possibly get than to label the government symbol in the story as 'wet nurse'?
>In this and previous comments you seem eager to think
>this story is about 'worthless' people living on the government
>dole.
Not really. My understanding was that the story was about the 'better people' deciding they were sick of taking care of everyone else and sick of the government trying to force them to do so.
> But that's not what it's about. It's about government
>and corrupt businessmen hamstringing free enterprise and
>thus creating a multitude of bad effects; and among those
>bad effects the eventual reduction of ordinary people to the
>level of starving savages. The book is not about the common
>people sucking at the government's teat, but it has a lot to
>do with the government and corrupt businesses helping
>out each other at the expense of the honest producers,
>at every level, and at the peril of the functioning of the
>country.
Nothing in what you just wrote conflicts with what I said above.
Meanwhile, the faulty logic solution remains strategies like 'trickle down economics'.
>I know the book. People from whom you seem to be
>getting your information obviously (to me) don't. The
>greatest falsehood about the book, bleated by the liberal
>media whenever the subject of the book or its writer
>comes up, is that ... but wait ... let me give you Rachel
>Maddow's exact words:
>"In Ayn Rand's novels she leads her readers to see the very
>wealthiest
>people in society as heroes, heroes who must be protected from taxes,
>from the government, from regulation, from bureaucracy, from anything
>that rich people might find restrictive in any way toward them
>becoming
>more rich. The rich are heroes and everybody else is a 'taker', and
>the
>more the rich have, the better, the better for everyone."
>In this book the very wealthiest people in society are both
>the good and the bad, the most able and honest producers
>and the most corrupt and incompetent 'crony capitalists',
>though that term is not used, as well as the most corrupt
>government officials. There is no moral value placed on simply
>having money, though there is much moral value placed on
>competent production and thus honestly making money.
If you believe what you are peddling as the entirety of the novel's thesis, I assume you would think that it is perfectly reasonable for the government to balance its budget (an extremely limited budget, I am sure), but having a 100% inheritence tax? After all, why should people get money for nothing?
>And this applies as much to people of modest means as to
>the most successful industrialists.
>I know the book, but believe Rachel if that is what you prefer.
Why would I believe her blanket statement as to what the propaganda of the book entails? (...even if I did believe your implication that she believes that the book is *only* about rich people who should not be encumbered).
> On Sunday, October 7, 2012 3:31:41 PM UTC-4, calvin wrote:
> > Here is a clip from the movie, which starts Friday.
> > Admirers of the book will enjoy this, and it makes
> > the movie look promising.
> > 'Rearden and the Wet Nurse'
> I can't wait for Part III: Henry Rearden vs Freddy Krueger in Nightmare on Wall Street . . .
And if that's successful, Henry Rearden vs. Jason Vorhees in Black
Friday the 13th.
After that, the Human Centipede knock-off, where the moochers in the
back parts of the centipede are living off the hard work of the human
at the front.
On Oct 7, 6:58 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> If you believe what you are peddling as the entirety of the novel's thesis,
No, I thought it was quite clear that I was disputing
what Rachel Maddow said. Let's just leave it at this.
Your 'peddling' remark is too offensive for me to maintain
interest. Think what you like. I always regret responding
to you.
> On Oct 7, 4:11 pm, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 7, 2012 3:31:41 PM UTC-4, calvin wrote:
>>> Here is a clip from the movie, which starts Friday.
>>> Admirers of the book will enjoy this, and it makes
>>> the movie look promising.
>>> 'Rearden and the Wet Nurse'
>> I can't wait for Part III: Henry Rearden vs Freddy Krueger in Nightmare on Wall Street . . .
> And if that's successful, Henry Rearden vs. Jason Vorhees in Black
> Friday the 13th.
> After that, the Human Centipede knock-off, where the moochers in the
> back parts of the centipede are living off the hard work of the human
> at the front.
That's as good a description of "trickle down economics" as any I've heard.
> > A wet nurse is a woman who breast feeds an infant when its mother won't
> > or can't. Aside from the titillating imagery the title's apparently
> > intended to evoke, perhaps the only way that old men are able to obtain
> > arousal, what's the explanation for calling the government agent a "wet
> > nurse?"
> Maybe if you weren't so literal you could imagine it.
> Some of the workers in Rearden's steel mill call
> the government agent that. Rearden calls him
> "Non-absolute",
Reardon also calls him "Wet Nurse." As does the narrator. As does Rand. Why do you think she chose this term?
> On Sunday, October 7, 2012 5:09:16 PM UTC-4, calvin wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 4:47 pm, reilloc <reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 10/7/2012 2:31 PM, calvin wrote:
> > > > Here is a clip from the movie, which starts Friday.
> > > > Admirers of the book will enjoy this, and it makes
> > > > the movie look promising.
> > > > 'Rearden and the Wet Nurse'
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d3iVaGfEsg > > > A wet nurse is a woman who breast feeds an infant when its mother won't
> > > or can't. Aside from the titillating imagery the title's apparently
> > > intended to evoke, perhaps the only way that old men are able to obtain
> > > arousal, what's the explanation for calling the government agent a "wet
> > > nurse?"
> > Maybe if you weren't so literal you could imagine it.
> > Some of the workers in Rearden's steel mill call
> > the government agent that. Rearden calls him
> > "Non-absolute", ...
> Reardon also calls him "Wet Nurse." As does the narrator. As does Rand. Why do you think she chose this term?
I don't think so, but perhaps you're right. Can you identify an
instance of it? The book has no narrator. It is written in the
third person with no intermediary between the author and the
story. Why do you distinguish 'narrator' and 'Rand'?
I have nothing more to say about the choice of the term.
> > > > A wet nurse is a woman who breast feeds an infant when its mother won't
> > > > or can't. Aside from the titillating imagery the title's apparently
> > > > intended to evoke, perhaps the only way that old men are able to obtain
> > > > arousal, what's the explanation for calling the government agent a "wet
> > > > nurse?"
> > > Maybe if you weren't so literal you could imagine it.
> > > Some of the workers in Rearden's steel mill call
> > > the government agent that. Rearden calls him
> > > "Non-absolute", ...
> > Reardon also calls him "Wet Nurse." As does the narrator. As does Rand. Why do you think she chose this term?
> I don't think so, but perhaps you're right. Can you identify an
> instance of it? The book has no narrator. It is written in the
> third person with no intermediary between the author and the
> story. Why do you distinguish 'narrator' and 'Rand'?
> I have nothing more to say about the choice of the term.
You are the one who brought the term up in your original post. You have interesting insights regarding the book which you readily impart. I thought perhaps you might want to give your insight into Rand's choice of this term.
On Oct 8, 11:27 am, bermuda999 <bermuda...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Monday, October 8, 2012 11:07:39 AM UTC-4, calvin wrote:
> > I have nothing more to say about the choice of the term.
> You are the one who brought the term up in your original post. You have interesting insights regarding the book which you readily impart. I thought perhaps you might want to give your insight into Rand's choice of this term.
Okay, but let me look at a couple of books about
Atlas Shrugged and get back to you. Some of the
writers of essays in those books might have some-
thing to say on the topic.
I always assumed, maybe erroneously, that a wet
nurse was someone, other than the mother, who
took care of a baby. I had never thought about
the breast-feeding angle. To me, the term in the
book just means a person, superfluous from the
Rearden steelworkers' point of view, sent by the
government to oversee people who were far more
competent than the senders.
In the story, the Wet Nurse gradually becomes more
interesting to Rearden and to the reader, and toward
the end is shown as a poignant contrast to Rearden's
brother Philip and finally is part of one of Rand's most
deeply affecting scenes, which I don't want to spoil.
In the clip I just like the way the character is initially
presented, for example in his greeting to Rearden, his
ernestness in mouthing popular bromides, his furrowed
brow when hearing Rearden's words, the way he softly
says, "I'm not a looter."
I just hope the rest of the movie is as attentive to
detail as this promising scene is.
From a pre-release review of AS II in Forbes magazine:
"Rest assured, the movie will be savaged by the leftist
press, mocked by the cultural intelligentsia, and derided
by the political operatives and crony capitalists that
Ayn Rand so well portrayed in the characters of Wesley
Mouch, Bertram Scudder, Kip Chalmers, Owen Boyle,
Floyd Ferris, and many others."
"calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> From a pre-release review of AS II in Forbes magazine:
> "Rest assured, the movie will be savaged by the leftist
> press, mocked by the cultural intelligentsia, and derided
> by the political operatives and crony capitalists that
> Ayn Rand so well portrayed in the characters of Wesley
> Mouch, Bertram Scudder, Kip Chalmers, Owen Boyle,
> Floyd Ferris, and many others."
Just before the text quoted above, the author raves about his longterm love of the novel and writes:
'This movie, released a mere three weeks before the election,
deserves your support. Vote for it with your movie dollars,
if nothing else but to protest the statist madness engulfing us. '
So, the sales pitch here is to see the film as a way of sticking it to 'the man'.
What better form of movie going welfare system could there be?
> "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > From a pre-release review of AS II in Forbes magazine:
> > "Rest assured, the movie will be savaged by the leftist
> > press, mocked by the cultural intelligentsia, and derided
> > by the political operatives and crony capitalists that
> > Ayn Rand so well portrayed in the characters of Wesley
> > Mouch, Bertram Scudder, Kip Chalmers, Owen Boyle,
> > Floyd Ferris, and many others."
> Just before the text quoted above, the author raves about his longterm love
> of the novel and writes:
> 'This movie, released a mere three weeks before the election,
> deserves your support. Vote for it with your movie dollars,
> if nothing else but to protest the statist madness engulfing us. '
> So, the sales pitch here is to see the film as a way of sticking it to 'the
> man'.
Not my 'sales pitch'. My interest is in how well the
movie represents the book, which I'll know by this
time Friday.
> What better form of movie going welfare system could there be?
"calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>On Oct 8, 3:26 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> > From a pre-release review of AS II in Forbes magazine:
>> > "Rest assured, the movie will be savaged by the leftist
>> > press, mocked by the cultural intelligentsia, and derided
>> > by the political operatives and crony capitalists that
>> > Ayn Rand so well portrayed in the characters of Wesley
>> > Mouch, Bertram Scudder, Kip Chalmers, Owen Boyle,
>> > Floyd Ferris, and many others."
>> Just before the text quoted above, the author raves about his longterm >> love
>> of the novel and writes:
>> 'This movie, released a mere three weeks before the election,
>> deserves your support. Vote for it with your movie dollars,
>> if nothing else but to protest the statist madness engulfing us. '
>> So, the sales pitch here is to see the film as a way of sticking it to >> 'the
>> man'.
>Not my 'sales pitch'.
The sales pitch of the Forbes article.
> My interest is in how well the
>movie represents the book, which I'll know by this
>time Friday.
I'm more likely to see ARGO or SEVEN PSYCHOPATHS, both of which will also be easier to find given the wider releases.
>> What better form of movie going welfare system could there be?
>I have no idea what you mean by that.
Going to see a movie because the movie is suspected to be good: capitalism/(quality reward) in action.
Going to see a movie in an effort to make a political statement: welfare support for politics' sake.
The Forbes article author doesn't appear to have a firm grasp on the book's ideas/ideals, even if he loves the story.
"calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>On Oct 8, 4:13 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I'm more likely to see ARGO or SEVEN PSYCHOPATHS, ...
>What a surprise.
Other than the people who like light comedy (HERE COMES THE BOOM) and the
people who like horror (SINISTER), I'd bet that is true of nearly everyone
in America....except perhaps the people going to the theater to make a
political statement.
On Oct 8, 4:26 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >On Oct 8, 4:13 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> I'm more likely to see ARGO or SEVEN PSYCHOPATHS, ...
> >What a surprise.
> Other than the people who like light comedy (HERE COMES THE BOOM) and the
> people who like horror (SINISTER), I'd bet that is true of nearly everyone
> in America....except perhaps the people going to the theater to make a
> political statement.
... or perhaps the people going to see a movie made from
what we think is a great book.
> On Oct 8, 4:26 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>>> On Oct 8, 4:13 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> I'm more likely to see ARGO or SEVEN PSYCHOPATHS, ...
>>> What a surprise.
>> Other than the people who like light comedy (HERE COMES THE BOOM) and the
>> people who like horror (SINISTER), I'd bet that is true of nearly everyone
>> in America....except perhaps the people going to the theater to make a
>> political statement.
> ... or perhaps the people going to see a movie made from
> what we think is a great book.
