Is the Dude lazy?

[BikerDude]

That's a huge stretch.
I don't see any evidence that the intro is meant to be anything other than pure character development.
I just can't imagine the writers deciding to put that in with any purpose other than providing background to the audience in order to introduce the dude. Since the dude is fictitious he is whatever the author's make him. It seems clear what the intent was.

I suppose the case could be made that the big L is the classic "hero's journey" sort of story arc. A change arc. But if so to my thinking it seems to flip the idea on its ear. The dude is certainly forced to change by external conflict but in the end it seems to be more of a cautionary tale rather than transformative. Rather than finding a new dude by the end the lesson seems to be that the dude returns to his former self. Just trying to keep his head down and make the finals. And sort of making the case that he's better off just like that.

I guess we might call it a growth arc. That holds water if we say that the dude has grown into a better person.
If we take the "dude abides" line as an indication of the dudes growth then it works. The lesson the dude learns is to not rock the boat. To abide. No more "this aggression will not stand". He's learned to never make that mistake again. Which in the end would do little to upset his bid for laziest in the world except to make it more entrenched.

[BikerDude]

I'll tell you this discussion points up how very odd the device of the stranger is. It's a common literary device to use a narrator that may or may not be an actual person. The over voice. However the stranger is very unusual in that he interacts in the story while maintaining a third person omnitiant perspective. He's not just a guy at the bar. He knows there's a little Lebowski on the way. This very unusual. And I'm f'ing telling you the big Lebowski is based on the fairy tale theater version of "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" where Hoyt Axton plays "The Ranger" It's a wandering daughter job. The thing is the Ranger intros the story just like the stranger does and at the end he does interact with the characters. But he is also a sort of all knowing narrator. Bunnie is Goldilocks and well the three bears are obvious.

Part one stranger intro
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UKEhWZc9M24
Last part.  Stranger wraps her all up.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zgx5x6cyzgo

Goldilocks and the three bears is one version of "The Story of the Three Bears"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldilocks_and_the_Three_Bears

Anyway
Lost my train of thought

[jgiffin]

Dude, to a large extent, you're pushing against an open door.

My point is just, essentially, that we can't take what the opening narrative of the movie says as gospel despite what we later see the characters actually do. You say the opening is pure character development. Okay, then, is it just circumstance that is made with the voice and speech patterns of the Stranger? If not, then it's just a variation of the fallacy of authorial intent. If so, then you still have all the work to do (e.g., you have to prove the point espoused, not just rely on the fact someone else said it).

I fully agree the Stranger is an odd cat. He shifts narrative qualities and perspectives throughout the movie and even interacts with the characters. But I haven't seen anything to indicate his perspective, much less his commentary, is dispositive. What I'm saying, man, is take the movie as a whole to develop and support your opinions - don't just rely on sound bites from this part, that part, or another part of the movie.

[mnale0507]

Absolutely, the Dude is lazy.

That's what makes him so idolized by our society--he does and acts in a way that sometimes we can't.

Like not working and somehow still paying for that sweet pad--yeah, yeah, I heard that Rubiks cube story and I think this bit of trivia is taking our community for a proverbial "ride."

[delmiss]

The Dude looks for the bare necessities, a trophy life. He does what he needs and nothing more, answers to himself and is content. Maybe, he just knows that some things just aren't worth the effort.
And for some, just tying your shit together, is a day's work in itself!

[BikerDude]

I believe that the central question posed is "what makes a man"?
And there-by what constitutes courage and character.
Lazy in this sense is more a question of conviction than habits.
Does the Dude stand on his convictions or is he "Lazy"? (albeit intellectually/morally/spiritually lazy)
We are told both that the Dude is Lazy and we learn later that he is an author of the port huron statement (not to beat a dead horse about this point but IMO it is salient).
He is presented with a conflict in the arc of the story. He is assaulted and his rug is pee'd on.
Does he let it go or stand on his convictions (this aggression will not stand).
His natural inclination is to let it go but he is redirected by Walter.
And off we go.
Bunny, nihilists, Jackie yadda yadda.
And in the end the Dude comes back around to Abiding.
Where does that leave us?
What is it that makes a man?
Is it. . . is it, being prepared to
do the right thing?  Whatever the
price?  Isn't that what makes a man?
Or is it just keeping your head down and keeping your Johnson attached?

[HnauHnakrapunt]

Go to the ant you sluggard!
Consider it's ways and be wise.

Somewhere around Terence Hanbury White's The Once and Future King? If it means here what I remember from that book - well, ants look there like the most undude creatures on the earth. That kind of work is certainly harmful - do things like a machine and do not ask any questions.