SlumLord
Unwanted
Verne is materialistic to the degree of his time. He uses clockwork mechanics as a vector for classical tragedy and its humanist themes, while Rand delves into an entirely detached, analytical mindset in order to probe societal constructs (and come to an entirely erroneous conclusion).
Also, if you think 20k Leagues (or Master) and Atlas Shrugged are in any way similar, you missed the point of both... and by a mile.
Rant incoming:
Randian heroes are painted in opposition to the world around them and excel in their own capabilities just so Rand can use the ensuing contrast (between them and the pedestrian cattle surrounding them) to browbeat the reader into agreeing with her original premise - that everyone in society who doesn't belong to the apex 1% should hate themselves for their lack of divine gifts (a trait shared by many jews). And in doing that, she makes a fatal flaw of reasoning, thinking people's (and by extension, society's) flaws are brought on by malice, when in reality they're only byproducts of natural limitations placed upon humanity by genetics. Because the only way society can move forward is if the genetic elite sacrifice a part of their autonomy by providing a framework within which even the lowest idiot can contribute meaningfully to the rest of civilization.
Verne is different. His heroes are byproducts of unavoidable tragedy that buries them, despite their desire to help those beneath them. His works are stuffed with classical pathos, and extol the virtues of ascetic mysticism (the search for Truth, being the foremost among these).
Whereas Rand lionizes someone like Galt, who's a selfish, whiny, capitalist-materialist socially-myopic bitch that aggressively pursues atomization as a panacea for humanity's flaws. It's funny how anti-statist Rand is - she's the definition of a proto-Libertarian , but like all the other tards that ascribe to that failed philosophy, she fails to understand how cohesive large-scale groups always outcompete fragmented individualistic ones.
To finalize this unnecessarily long tangent: Rand and Verne are different on a fundamental level because the former concludes that society isn't worth saving and must be abandoned (defeatism), while the latter acknowledges its flaws but believes effort must be made nonetheless (laconic optimism). The two of them are as different as night and day.
Randian heroes are painted in opposition to the world around them and excel in their own capabilities just so Rand can use the ensuing contrast (between them and the pedestrian cattle surrounding them) to browbeat the reader into agreeing with her original premise - that everyone in society who doesn't belong to the apex 1% should hate themselves for their lack of divine gifts (a trait shared by many jews). And in doing that, she makes a fatal flaw of reasoning, thinking people's (and by extension, society's) flaws are brought on by malice, when in reality they're only byproducts of natural limitations placed upon humanity by genetics. Because the only way society can move forward is if the genetic elite sacrifice a part of their autonomy by providing a framework within which even the lowest idiot can contribute meaningfully to the rest of civilization.
Verne is different. His heroes are byproducts of unavoidable tragedy that buries them, despite their desire to help those beneath them. His works are stuffed with classical pathos, and extol the virtues of ascetic mysticism (the search for Truth, being the foremost among these).
Whereas Rand lionizes someone like Galt, who's a selfish, whiny, capitalist-materialist socially-myopic bitch that aggressively pursues atomization as a panacea for humanity's flaws. It's funny how anti-statist Rand is - she's the definition of a proto-Libertarian , but like all the other tards that ascribe to that failed philosophy, she fails to understand how cohesive large-scale groups always outcompete fragmented individualistic ones.
To finalize this unnecessarily long tangent: Rand and Verne are different on a fundamental level because the former concludes that society isn't worth saving and must be abandoned (defeatism), while the latter acknowledges its flaws but believes effort must be made nonetheless (laconic optimism). The two of them are as different as night and day.
