Atlas Shrugged Producer John Aglialoro on Ayn Rand's Enduring Impact

[Brant Gaede]

Oh well, qua guard he wasn't very good anyway.

--Brant

I didn't weep for him

[Guyau]

Michael, I’m with Barbara on the hatred-development idea for Dagny. Roark tells Dominique at one point that she will be fine and they will be fine when she learns to “stop hating all this,” referring to the small grungy town and his working there, where he has won a project. Roark is portrayed as without hatred. Galt likewise: Rand has him say he thinks about evil only so long as necessary to fight it. When Dagny gets to him alive in the torture chamber, then it is he express to her that sentiment (which she had said to him when first they had met) “we never had to take any of it seriously, did we?” Remember Galt’s line near the end of his speech “Do you hear me, my love?” There he states certain things he wants Dagny to waken to about herself and about some evil of people, but he doesn’t invite her to hatred.

Ellen, it seems to me there are a number of sources of necessity for elements in a plot. The large theme of the book is leading some large structure of the story, but beyond that you might want to create scenes to convey certain ideas besides the main theme (such as the party with the mini-speech about good will, mind, and money) and to bring closure or development to some of the things you have earlier set up in the characters and situations. What are the sources for the necessity of Galt being captured in the first place? Was it the only way to satisfy those necessities? If not, then in a sense, it’s dispensable. Having Galt be captured is a setup for quite a few things, I expect, though I doubt it’s the only setup that might have worked for them. Similarly on down to particulars of his eventual torture and rescue. The ideological point and the development of Dagny shown in her scene with the guard is given in the text Jerry quoted. I don’t think those are gratuitous in the sense of not warranting, for Rand’s ideological program and character elaboration, conveyance somehow or other, though that way of conveying them would be dispensable were there alternative possible conveyance for them. (That is not to say, in my view anyway, that the warranted is no larger than the necessitated.) If we try to let plot have its structure with some sort of necessity somehow merely internal to it and then ask whether some scene is dispensable, I think we have little idea without getting drawn back into characters and events and themes.

I have been struck a number of times by novels, movies, and operas that have one scene too many. I mean they had the consummate ending for their project at the close of the next to last scene. The Ballad of Baby Doe is that way. Moby Dick should end when the narrator says “then all collapsed, and the great shroud of the sea rolled on as it rolled five thousand years ago.” Stop. Cut. Silence. Many end perfectly where they should, of course, such as One Hundred Years of Solitude. I think Rand’s Atlas ends where it should, with Galt’s decision that it’s time to go back to the world. Is it a necessity to be included in the story? Well, it is warranted (and previewed in Galt’s speech), and I’m glad she didn’t end the story with an indefinitely long disowning of the wider world.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Stephen,

I'm not too happy with the word, hatred, either, but it takes more than contempt to shoot someone dead in cold blood after a calm one-two-three count-off. That was an execution, not a true action scene where the good guy kills the bad guy during a shootout.

I'm still refining my idea. Maybe revulsion is a good term. So far, hatred--but not an all-consuming hatred, instead a contextual targeted hatred--is what I am working with. But it is strongly mixed with indifference to the "subhumans." What farm people feel for vermin is close to the emotion I am thinking about. They don't think of vermin unless they have to deal with the critters. Then they take action to exterminate the varmints. The sadistic among them may get fun out of that, but I think the more serious farmers feel a kind of hatred for the pests that destroy all their hard work.

Maybe I need to come up with my own word.

I think Galt would have shot the guard, too, if Dagny were in the torture chamber. I don't think he would have done a volition quiz and count-down, though. In my view, he wouldn't have given the guard a chance to make a choice.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

What if the guard had revealed himself not to have evaded "the responsibility of consciousness" but, "I'm sorry lady. I can't let you in"?

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

What if the guard had revealed himself not to have evaded "the responsibility of consciousness" but, "I'm sorry lady. I can't let you in"?

--Brant

That would have been far more realistic. There are numerous instances of deliberate unreality in Atlas. Hugh Akston flipping hamburgers, for instance, with his name on the mailbox. It's a wonderful scene, but totally unreal. John Galt employed as a Taggart track worker with his name on the company payroll and the mailbox of his apartment, anonymous to Eddie The Blabbermouth after years of highly personal and company confidential chats in the cafeteria? Ragnar delivering a bar of gold? Great stuff, melodramatically. But airhead POTUS Thompson sitting still for a 3-hour lecture and then panicking about grapefruit juice?... about as realistic as The Diamond as Big as The Ritz

The Gulch in Fiction

I'm doing this from memory, without checking the text of Atlas, so please laugh if I get something wrong. Midas lives in Chicago, but he decides to buy a big chunk of Colorado, an entire mountain valley and two or three sections on either side. Who did Midas buy it from? Which county recorded the deed? How did he build a house without hiring a construction crew who arrived by road? Okay, maybe they dynamited the road after building a house, a septic tank, and an air strip. Everyone was sworn to secrecy — long before Galt persuaded Midas to close his bank and subdivide the secret valley in Colorado that no federal, state, or county official knew anything about. Maybe there was a convenient bonfire at the county courthouse and the plat maps and deeds were destroyed. Nobody knows anything about the valley except Midas and a pilot who can find it VFR.

To have any sort of community, there has to be infrastructure. At a minimum, they need water. Okay, maybe the valley has a creek that could be dammed high enough to create a reservoir. That implies concrete construction, because sticks and stones wouldn't survive the first winter. The spring melt is a torrent. Okay, Midas is a genius. He anticipated community development and the construction crew who was sworn to secrecy built a dam and a sluice and did some grading before they went home and erased all evidence of road access. Later on when it became Galt's Gulch, someone flew in everything needed to distribute water and power (pipe, wire, transformers, condensers), Midas' car, foundry tools, steel tanks, light bulbs, kitchen stoves and plate glass. Nobody had to order any of this stuff from a factory or a distributor. No one saw it loaded on a cargo plane to be air dropped after clearing 12,000-ft peaks on oxygen. It all parachuted perfectly into the valley drop zone without mishap, and all the air crews were sworn to secrecy. Nobody ever blabbed about what was happening in Galt's Gulch and there were no forest rangers or neighbors.

[COGIGG, p.4]

[Brant Gaede]

My, my, Wolf. Midas was really Daddy Warbucks.

--Brant

thought you knew that

[Wolf DeVoon]

Libertarian Kurt Russell would have been a great Midas Mulligan, about the right age now (63)

...and who is (should have been) John Galt?

[Selene]

Great movie - I never tire of seeing it.

If you have ever played on a championship team, or, served on a military team, at any serious

competitive level, or, combat operations, you understand the degree of discipline and integrity that

winning requires.

Others, have been involved in other teams, an orchestra, a scientific, or, other professional team.

It is always about character, clarity and a willingness to be committed to a team effort to achieve

the goal.

Within a team, some individuals will excel because they are just flat out better than some of the

others. However,supported by the others, makes the team the best that they can be.

A...

[Wolf DeVoon]

The Dagster (Best Supporting Actress Oscar for Fantine in Les Misérables, 2012)

...in a perfect world, Hank Rearden

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nbVB-K1U50

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen, it seems to me there are a number of sources of necessity for elements in a plot.

I agree with you there. In fact I think that Rand's strictures regarding "plot," and her entwining of plot with "Romanticism" (her idiosyncratic meaning thereof) as implying volition, are artificial constructs geared to supposedly supporting her morality-laced views on art. However, taking her own strictures as a basis, I see no need for that scene - unless, as you and Michael indicate, it was to show some closure for Dagny's development. But if that's what it was for, then I think it was ineptly handled.

I just yesterday re-read the whole sequence (while checking to see if there was only one door to the building). I've felt ever since I first read the book (June 1961) that the whole sequence seems corny and even silly, grade C adventure movie, a big come-down from the level of the rest of the book. I felt that way even more so yesterday - a kind of squirmy discomfort.

You ask:

What are the sources for the necessity of Galt being captured in the first place? Was it the only way to satisfy those necessities?

I think it was that Rand wanted a torture scene. There are multiple hints and indications in biographical material that the sources of the scene go back to The Mysterious Valley (features of which Rand had misremembered).

If not, then in a sense, its dispensable. Having Galt be captured is a setup for quite a few things, I expect, though I doubt its the only setup that might have worked for them. Similarly on down to particulars of his eventual torture and rescue. The ideological point and the development of Dagny shown in her scene with the guard is given in the text Jerry quoted. I dont think those are gratuitous in the sense of not warranting, for Rands ideological program and character elaboration, conveyance somehow or other, though that way of conveying them would be dispensable were there alternative possible conveyance for them.

I don't really see that the entire sequence does much in ideological or character development, although there is the bit where John Galt tells his captors how to get the torture machine to work, ironically underscoring the need of mind even for the purpose of operating a torture device. And there's James Taggart's self-realization and consequent break-down.

(That is not to say, in my view anyway, that the warranted is no larger than the necessitated.) If we try to let plot have its structure with some sort of necessity somehow merely internal to it and then ask whether some scene is dispensable, I think we have little idea without getting drawn back into characters and events and themes.

There, again, I agree, and think the point you make stands in accurate contrast to Rand's stated strictures regarding plot. I.e., I think that the way she said plot is supposed to be done - even her definition of plot - aren't adequate to the construction of any work of literature, including her own most-ideologically-dominated work.

Coincidentally, yesterday, because I was looking up the reference in The Passion of Ayn Rand to the original title of The Fountainhead (Second-hand Lives), I came across material about Rand's work on that book which is pertinent to several current threads and issues. I want to type in a chunk from Barbara's discussion. But where to put the excerpt? Probably it fits best in the "Romanticist Art..." thread.

Ellen

[Jonathan]

Jonathan,

I generally don't use the word collectivist as a synonym for group.

Yeah, I don't use "collectivist" as a synonym for "group" either. I use it to mean judging people collectively rather than individually. In other words, judging them according to a group that they don't actually belong to -- putting them into a group based on misidentifications/definitions-by-non-essentials.

Maybe this is a nuance for some, but there is a difference. I don't find collectivist thinking as part of Dagny's mental processes. In fact, a contrary case could be made where she was totally collectivist in her benevolent attitude toward humanity as a whole and became more discerning as she went along from dealing with sleazy and/or unthinking (etc.) individuals, one by one. (I don't agree with that, but the case could be made reasonably.)

Also, I don't characterize Dagny's final judgment as unfair.

So, you think that it's fair to kill people if they work as security guards for people who they don't know are committing crimes? When killing someone who is having a tough time making a decision while having a gun waved in his face, you think it's a fair judgment to view killing him as affecting you less than when killing an animal? Logically, don't you think that you'd need quite a lot more information about the guard and his normal state of cognitive existence (outside of his job as a security guard in which he has been hired to obey orders and not make decisions for himself, just like all security guards in reality) before condemning him as a sleazy, unthinking individual, judging him to be less than an animal, and sentencing him to death rather than to being bound and gagged like the rest of the guards?

That doesn't actually sound like you. And it sounds nothing like Objectivism. It sounds like a little hate/punishment fantasy.

I'm only mentioning that because those are your thoughts, not mine.

In fact, (and I don't mean this in a snarky manner), I'm not really interested in the whole Rand was right/Rand was wrong perspective.

I'm not offering a Rand was right/Rand was wrong perspective. I'm offering logical analysis of an aspect of one of Rand's works of art. I find it very interesting that certain people who profess to love her philosophy don't mind deviating from it in this case. They're not disturbed by the idea of killing someone who doesn't know what's going on, has no power, and has no logical means of successfully navigating his way out of the predicament that Dagny has put him in. And some Objectivish-types seem to really love the idea of the guard being lethally punished for what they believe is his crime of not thinking properly, or not taking responsibility for his own existence (while having a gun waved in his face and being told that he must think for himself while not being allowed to think for himself). I'm fascinated by that irrational thrill that they experience.

My real interest is to follow a writing technique I discern in a work I admire, one that I am uncovering on my own, and see if I can apply the good stuff I learn from it to my own work.

I feel the same way. So much so that I like considering whether aspects of Rand's art, such as the guard scene, are mistakes, or displays of true colors despite Rand's explicitly stated philosophical views to the contrary, or a little of both.

J

[Wolf DeVoon]

I would have played the scene exactly as written. War is war, suspension of civilian values.

 

WARNING: STRONG VIOLENCE

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So, you think that it's fair to kill people...

Jonathan,

This is one of the reasons I did not want to get in this discussion of Rand was right/Rand was wrong. You say you are not doing this, but you are. It's like going into a discussion about abortion or Israel or something like that. When one side is committed body mind and soul, he just can't see any deviation that does not result in the hated other side.

But it's a false dichotomy.

Here's what I mean.

I don't think it's fair to kill people (yada yada yada what you said). And, frankly, it's insulting to presume I do.

I don't think the concept of fairness is part of that scene at all. That's why I don't characterize Dagny's final judgment as unfair. It is neither fair nor unfair because fairness is not part of that context. In typical action stories, security guards get killed all the time. But fairness is not the point during those events. Getting past the guards is.

Yet you want to argue about what you perceive as Rand's distorted idea of fairness and how Objectivists are dorks for going along with it and the "irrational thrill" they feel.

My thinking is not part of any of that. So I don't know how to talk about it within these parameters. To repeat, I have no thoughts on fairness when I think about that scene. But I do feel the tug of loaded questions about fairness, Rand's errors and inconsistencies, Objectivist dorks, etc., and that throws me off where I want to be.

I'm somewhere else. The scene is the final turning point of one of Dagny's throughlines, i.e., a writing technique. That kind of thing is where I'm at.

Michael

[Jonathan]

The Dagster (Best Supporting Actress Oscar for Fantine in Les Misérables, 2012)

Physically, isn't Anne Hathaway way too soft, pretty, and doe-eyed for the part of Dagny? I'll have to go back an refresh my memory of Rand's description of her, but I could have sworn that Dagny was quite sharp and angular, and that people kind of had to work at it to find her attractive. I see Dagny as looking not only confident, but certain and intimidating, and maybe even verging on cold, hard bitch. Like Tilda Swinton.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Just read that sequence again after many years. (It's hard to believe I first read that novel in paperback with such small type.) There's something unbelievable right off the top I had not even comprehended before because I put in a gate between Dagny and the guard where there wasn't one. The guard is standing in front of a locked door with its key in his possession. That's preposterous.

But since he's there you shoot him immediately or he could warn the others.

But if the guard is only shot in the shoulder in the movie it's stupidity plus the preposterous.

Rand wanted a conversation. Cold-blood shooting the guard is exactly what you do there. The job requires it. The novel requires the conversation. The job requires killing the poor SOB. This whole conversation we are having is an argument about Rand's bad attempt to mix up oil and water.

One way to have improved the whole scene is to have the guard behind a locked gate. You have the conversation so you can find out a way to get that key to get through the gate. Once you see the way you kill the guard if that is the way. I'd have the guard seduced, so to say, with the conversation, to open the gate then Dagny pulls the gun and gets instant compliance so it's not necessary to kill him. Etc.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan. In peacetime it's wrong to kill the guard. In wartime it's not--if you're on the good guy side.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

I would have played the scene exactly as written. War is war, suspension of civilian values.

The scene as written includes a discussion with the guard before shooting him. The dialogue is transcribed in post #147.

Since I just re-read the whole sequence yesterday, I can say it isn't done according to "war is war" procedure. Using that procedure, they'd have killed the guard at the door using a silenced rifle with a telescopic sight, and probably likewise with the other four guards around the perimeter - and no leaving Dagny to approach the guard at the door by herself and maybe be shot.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

I would have played the scene exactly as written. War is war, suspension of civilian values.

The scene as written includes a discussion with the guard before shooting him. The dialogue is transcribed in post #147

Since I just re-read the whole sequence yesterday, I can say it isn't done according to "war is war" procedure. Using that procedure, they'd have killed the guard at the door using a silenced rifle with a telescopic sight, and probably likewise with the other four guards around the perimeter - and no leaving Dagny to approach the guard at the door by herself and maybe be shot.

Ellen

Kinda like having Dominique involved with the dynamiting. Was Rand honoring her masculine side or her version of feminism?

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Jonathan,

This is one of the reasons I did not want to get in this discussion of Rand was right/Rand was wrong. You say you are not doing this, but you are. It's like going into a discussion about abortion or Israel or something like that. When one side is committed body mind and soul, he just can't see any deviation that does not result in the hated other side.

But it's a false dichotomy.

Here's what I mean.

I don't think it's fair to kill people (yada yada yada what you said). And, frankly, it's insulting to presume I do.

I did not presume that you think it's fair. I specifically said that it "doesn't actually sound like you." I asked questions about what you thought. I applied logic to your previous statements and asked for clarity.

Yet you want to argue about what you perceive as Rand's distorted idea of fairness...

I'm not saying that Rand had a distorted idea of fairness. Rather, I'm saying that in this specific fictional case, she deviated from her wonderfully rational notion of fairness, perhaps unintentionally. Or she may have had a little hate/punishment fantasy going on. The nice thing is that, if that's what it was, she kept it fictional.

...and how Objectivists are dorks for going along with it and the "irrational thrill" they feel.

I didn't call anyone "dorks," nor do I think that anyone who experiences the "irrational thrill" is a dork. I think, at worst, it's possibly a minor flaw in their moral thinking and/or psychology. Stephen, for example, likes the scene. I don't think he's a dork. I don't think that he'd experience the "irrational thrill" if it were to happen in front of him in reality, but would be revolted and would recognize the irrationality and unfairness of it.

My thinking is not part of any of that. So I don't know how to talk about it within these parameters.

I'm somewhere else. The scene is the final turning point of one of Dagny's throughlines, i.e., a writing technique. That kind of thing is where I'm at.

I'm fine with that. And what I'm saying, translated to your wavelength, is that in judging the pure writing technique, the scene doesn't succeed as a final turning point of what you see as Dagny's throughline. It's forced and not-well-thought-through. The guard would somehow need to demonstrate to Dagny that he knew that Galt was being held and tortured -- she would have to discover that he actually had the mindset which would be the culmination of her throughline. Purely in its writing, the scene is not logically constructed. Its details don't add up, and that's why people continue to talk about it over and over again in O-land.

J

[Jonathan]

This whole conversation we are having is an argument about Rand's bad attempt to mix up oil and water.

Yes.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

I'm fine with that. And what I'm saying, translated to your wavelength, is that in judging the pure writing technique, the scene doesn't succeed. It's forced and not-well-thought-through. The guard would somehow need to demonstrate to Dagny that he knew that Galt was being held and tortured -- she would have to discover that he actually had the mindset which would be the culmination of her throughline. Purely in its writing, the scene is not logically constructed. It's details don't add up, and that's why people continue to talk about it over and over again in O-land.

For the bolded part to occur, there has to be a conversation, which would mean that there'd need to be a plausible pretext for conversation occurring at all, which there isn't in the set-up as described.

Ellen

[Jonathan]

I'm fine with that. And what I'm saying, translated to your wavelength, is that in judging the pure writing technique, the scene doesn't succeed. It's forced and not-well-thought-through. The guard would somehow need to demonstrate to Dagny that he knew that Galt was being held and tortured -- she would have to discover that he actually had the mindset which would be the culmination of her throughline. Purely in its writing, the scene is not logically constructed. It's details don't add up, and that's why people continue to talk about it over and over again in O-land.

For the bolded part to occur, there has to be a conversation, which would mean that there'd need to be a plausible pretext for conversation occurring at all, which there isn't in the set-up as described.

Ellen

While sneaking through the shrubs at the perimeter and hidden in the shadows, Dagny overhears the guard discussing with another guard the torture that Galt is receiving, both of whom think that it might be wrong, but who are they to decide. Or perhaps one or both are laughing about the torture, and saying that that's what you get when you're a dangerous independent thinker who only thinks for himself and doesn't care about society and majority opinion. Then the second guard leaves to go about his rounds. Now the first guard is alone for Dagny to deal with. No need for her to converse with him, or give him morality tests or lessons.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

I'll once again reference a movie I talked about a time or two in way earlier discussions of the guard scene. I strongly suspect that this movie was influenced by Atlas Shrugged. It contains a shooting-the-bad-guy-after-conversation scene, set up and carried through with all i's dotted and t's crossed:

The River Wild.

Ellen Stuttle

[Wolf DeVoon]

I would have played the scene exactly as written. War is war, suspension of civilian values.

The scene as written includes a discussion with the guard before shooting him. The dialogue is transcribed in post #147.

Since I just re-read the whole sequence yesterday, I can say it isn't done according to "war is war" procedure. Using that procedure, they'd have killed the guard at the door using a silenced rifle with a telescopic sight, and probably likewise with the other four guards around the perimeter - and no leaving Dagny to approach the guard at the door by herself and maybe be shot.

Ellen

The problem with that is making too much noise, raising alarm. Commandos are quiet. Dagny (a well known celebrity) walking up to the front door and calmly, quietly scrambling the guard's mind was a tactical solution. It's melodramatic and unreal, but the entire book is.

A silenced rifle? that never misses from 400 yards?

[Brant Gaede]

That was well done, Ellen. I also liked the scene where the bad guy cop was taken down by a long gun. Absolutely cold blooded. Absolutely an execution.

--Brant

edit: oops!--the wrong movie: I was thinking of Legends of the Fall

Edited September 17, 2014 by Brant Gaede