Dagny and the Guard

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There was a time in the far far past when I was a member of SoloHQ and tried to defend the rude obnoxious behavior going on as some kind of virtue to a recent arrival (an extremely kind and gentle soul, by the way) who was totally perplexed. (Oh... the blessings of innocence... What tragedy to lose it and learn the contemptible nature and small petty moral stature of an impostor one admires!...) The quote below is from here and was made on June 18, 2005.

Even so, on rereading this, I did get a chuckle. There actually are times when you need to turn into Godzilla and Rand certainly did not shy away from the task when duty called!

You talk about Ayn Rand and her teaching. Well, let's look at what she wrote. I presume that you have read more than the Playboy interview. If you read The Fountainhead, for instance, there is a rape scene between the two main characters - the good guy and the girl. Both heroes by the way. So, um... you postulate that there might be a form of rape that can be done with civility? And that such would be the Ayn Rand "civil" form of rape? Another good guy - Mallory the sculptor - tried to assassinate a person (Toohey) because he disagreed with him in general - not even in person. This was another hero. (How's that for non-initiation of force for you?) Dagny, at the end of Atlas Shrugged, shot a man dead in cold blood because he would not make a decision. Now how's that for good manners?

Nowadays, I would rephrase some of that and redirect where it applies to a more credible and worthy target, but the intent behind those observations is still true. People have limits and, when exceeded, they pop. The devil is in the details of what those limits are.

Michael

[Selene]

That you shouldn't criticize an art work if you couldn't make something similar is of course complete bullshit. Do you have to be a composer to criticize a certain composition? Rand told us repeatedly how she detested An der schönen blauen Donau - how many compositions did she write herself? Do you have to be a painter to say what you don't like in a particular painting? How good could Rand paint? After all she had severe criticisms of a Rembrandt painting and told us that the impressionists were "silly".

Further it's rather presumptuous to call people of whom you know little or nothing "dwarfs" if you yourself can't spell even the simplest words: homile, complainents, atempts, ellevate. Where did you get your education?

My my, did I touch a nerve. Actually I entered college at 16 and began teaching Rhetoric at 20 at the same University. I believe you missied my point.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I, for example, will make criticisms of Rand and of her writing from time to time, but it's balanced against praise for the power, skill, moral qualities, and breakthroughs involved in one of the towering achievements in world literature and at the same time in philosophy.

Which dwarfs the complaints.

Phil,

You're assuming a particular evaluation of Atlas Shrugged which isn't necessarily shared by just everyone. The "power" and "skill" of Atlas, I'd 100% agree with, and I have praised and many times more than once. The "moral qualities" required, I don't agree with. The description as "one of the towering achievements in world literature and at the same time in philosophy," I think is overstated. I do think it's an extraordinary achievement, but I wouldn't say, really, "in philosophy." I think it's quite an impressive attempt in philosophy, but that isn't the aspect from which I would praise it. Why I think it's remarkable, along with the skill of the writing and the largeness of the theme, is in its being a self-conscious attempt to dramatize a new morality. But I think that, through so self-consciously trying to dramatize a moral code, she didn't fare so well as a strictly literary achievement. E.g., I consider Milton's "Paradise Lost" or Goethe's Faust or Dante's The Divine Comedy, which are comparable in scope, and pertain to a similar sort of area because of their dealing with powerful mythos issues, better as literature.

Also, I see no reason why anyone should be expected to preface any criticism of Atlas with words of praise. Or to strive for some sort of balance, as if injustice is involved when saying what one doesn't like about a work without a preamble as to what one does like.

Re, this from a later post:

And on another occasion, replying to Ellen:

Regarding Eddie Willers, Ellen asks whether "whatever is right" is a good answer for a ten-year old or whether it shows a lack of adventurousness. Part of the answer is Barbara's point that there is a distinction between taking something literally and literarily. Ayn Rand is not writing realistic fiction but stylized fiction. [Etc.]

[and then I went on to explain this in some detail.]

You were replying quite out-of-context to the point of my own remarks, which was (at least if I'm recalling the context correctly) specifically whether Rand's characters would be plausible psychological exemplars if one were taking them literally. The response changed the whole point I was addressing. So I don't see it as defending against a negative evaluation which wasn't even made.

Ellen

___

Edited December 17, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Dragonfly]

*not paying attention - levying a charge without investigating to see if it is true*

> Those people who complain about the "lack of balance" might have a look at themselves. Why don't they write positive articles about AS to "balance" criticisms?

Dragonfly, like Baal, seems to have a reading disorder. I've done so on more than one occasion before. One time even directly replying to Dragonfly:

You mention no less than two posts! Well, why are you whining then about balancing criticisms? With so many positive contributions from you they must have been more than balanced!

I've also done this sort of thing on other boards, but why should Dragonfly acknowledge any of this since it conflicts with the attack he wants to make...?

What is the relevance of what you've done on other boards? Are you really that desperate?

I just reread the thread of your first example, and I had to laugh: what was your next important contribution? This one:

I'm disappointed in the -tone- this thread has taken in recent posts:

Victor, Ellen, and Michael are not using outright insult toward each other, but sort of a hostile, cutting, sarcastic tone in 'rebutting' each other.

It's not very edifying or helpful. Or worth reading. (And, no, it doesn't matter who 'started it').

I should have known, the usual pedantic berating of people...

[Dragonfly]

Phil,

You're assuming a particular evaluation of Atlas Shrugged which isn't necessarily shared by just everyone.

And that is putting it mildly.

Also, I see no reason why anyone should be expected to preface any criticism of Atlas with words of praise. Or to strive for some sort of balance, as if injustice is involved when saying what one doesn't like about a work without a preamble as to what one does like.

Yes, that is quite ridiculous, it is the typical demand of a cult member defending the Holy Text who is not interested in a real discussion, only in promoting the True Faith. Further Pompous Pedant Phil is accusing everyone of having a reading disorder, but he seems to suffer from the same disorder, otherwise he would have known that I have also praised some aspects of Atlas Shrugged on OL. For example, from the very same thread: "I found the beginning of the novel masterful" and: "What I found fascinating was the writing technique, the fact that every word in every sentence was meaningful. At a first reading you only grasp a small part of that. Therefore it remains fascinating after more readings, as you discover more and more meaning in the words."

[Philip Coates]

*Rand as a Writer - in the case of Atlas Shrugged*

> Also, I see no reason why anyone should be expected to preface any criticism of Atlas with words of praise. Or to strive for some sort of balance, as if injustice is involved when saying what one doesn't like about a work without a preamble as to what one does like.

Ellen, two points on this: I didn't say *preface* *any* criticism - I very carefully suggested that *at some point*, maybe even in postings a long time ago, one would name the positives...not in every breath or every criticism. I don't think there is any -moral- obligation to see the virtues of the book..one can simply be wrong. But there is an objectivity obligation or a perceptiveness obligation or a fairness obligation.

Also naming the positives as well as the negatives allows one to compare and contrast. Your post is a somewhat good example of this, even though I disagree with some of the points. (As opposed to some other shoot-from-the-hippers, I normally read your posts carefully because I sense an intent to be fair.)

> I think that, through so self-consciously trying to dramatize a moral code, she didn't fare so well as a strictly literary achievement.

This is a whole other subject, but, briefly, I have just been teaching the book in a high school classroom, so it's all very fresh. We're only a third of the way through the book, but what is noticeable is the inductive nature of the book as a mystery. And how the kids are trying to puzzle out the mystery and still not clear on what the author's wider points are going to be in a fully named way. Rand is not hitting them over the head with her ultimate conclusions about ethics, politics, psychology. She is raising a lot of questions about the world and people and society and doing a lot by implication. Why is the world collapsing? Who is John Galt? What is the secret behind Lillian? Why did James seem gleeful when someone he hates like Rearden or Dagny suffer a setback, even though it will damage him and his investments and his railroad? Even the 'meaning of money' speech is taken out of a full context and explores many of the issues raised by one concrete and leaves wider ethical issues somewhat to implication, lays some groundwork for longer discussion and a massive presentation to come.

Several points:

1) Too often people forget the first part of the book and that Rand or her characters get explicit only in the last part of the book when the pieces all have added up and fallen into place...and that this kind of 'inductive' dramatization is very skillful because it is -showing- her philosophical views are right, not telling for now. Leading up to them.

2) The proper way to judge this book is as a -hybrid-. Not as purely a literary work and not as purely a philosophical work. Does that mean that there are long speeches or elaborations of philosophical points that the plot does not (fully) require. In part, yes. But the plot and mystery are in part -philosophical- ones. What is the motor of the world and what happens if..... And so on.

3) You can find places where a comment is unnecessary literarily - about the anti-life or anti-reason attitudes of the people in the tunnel disaster or the guard who simply -cannot- make a decision to save his life. But, on the other hand, understanding philosophy is in part needed to understand this book and, philosophically, some of Rand's comments and telling rather than showing -do- underscore with a very bright spotlight the consequences of philosophical mistakes, of evasion, of hatred of man & her extreme archetypes of bad guys -do- make clear the types of people, the effect on the world and on themselves of certain epistemologies and courses of action. And that's of enormous value. And the time to do it is when you have the novel in front of you and are learning, as in a laboratory, about types of people and consequences. And I don't think it detracted from the reading of the story for millions of people reading it for the first time.

4) My one (literary, not philosophical) objection on this score is repetition. Although the book's multiple aims are ambitious, I don't think it needs to be a thousand pages to fully accomplish them. I would have to go over the book with a fine tooth comb, but literarily it is not necessary to make the same point a half dozen different ways or show that the same philosophy operates in so many different people. But, philosophically, this is the first time these points have been made in the history of the world, and she would rather err in the direction of making it too crystal clear by the time you get to the last third of the book, not of subtlety or understatement.

5) Finally, Rand’s overall style –- inductive, stylized with very extreme types of character as central - the motors and touchpoints of the story, crystal clear in her answers...eventually explaining and elaborating and summarizing in detailed speeches –all- the key points and mysteries – is not the *only* style one can validly write fiction in, but it is a very necessary, very valid and powerful one. And if you want to challenge the thinking of millennia, you have to use dynamite against the cultural presuppositions and mistakes, turn on the full glare of the spotlight of a mind’s full power . . . and go full throttle, full steam ahead like the rushing express freight train on the John Galt Line -- not use implication or allow for any confusion on what are often confused issues.

Doing all of that also conveys (is necessary to fully convey?) her sense of life, which is unique and not something an author should allow to be diluted or understated. Certainly not in a book with this kind of super- ambitious theme and purpose.

[Philip Coates]

> I have also praised some aspects of Atlas Shrugged on OL. For example, from the very same thread: "I found the beginning of the novel masterful" and: "What I found fascinating was the writing technique, the fact that every word in every sentence was meaningful. At a first reading you only grasp a small part of that. Therefore it remains fascinating after more readings, as you discover more and more meaning in the words."

My apologies, Dragonfly, you sting like a bee but you also produce honey. Allow me to provisionally remove you from my harmful insects list. :-)

[Chris Grieb]

Phil; Once again two very good posts. I wish I could sit in on your course.

[Matus1976]

Amazing how so many people could have written Atlas Shrugged better than Rand, and amazing how few have done anything remotely similar.

Yes Dragonfly, anyone can criticize anything, but would you take criticisms as 'constructive' from someone on something you are an expert on and which they know little to nothing about? I have been designing and building a motorcycle for some 7 years now, and I still get morons 'criticizing' the most superficial details based on their complete and utter lack of understanding about motorcycle design and physics. Sure, they can criticize, but their criticisms are neither constructive nor legitimate.

I found no issue with the scene in which Dagny shot that guard, I only had to imagine myself in that situation with the love of my life on the other side of that door.

I did have an issue with the scene in which Galt did not let anyone warn Rearden about, but only because his persistent flying around would be endangering him, a practical matter not necessarily needing consideration in a fictional book.

There is a famous economics experiment in which the location of Steel plants can be directly predicting by hanging strings from resource locations with lengths equal to the bulk transit value of the required material (energy or raw ore, etc) Where the strings meet almost directly predict the locations of steel plants when they meet next to water. Shipping costs on water are much cheaper than land, so steel plants are always located next to large bodies of water.

Edited December 17, 2007 by Matus1976

[Dragonfly]

My apologies, Dragonfly, you sting like a bee but you also produce honey. Allow me to provisionally remove you from my harmful insects list. :-)

Apology accepted. Just don't focus too much on single criticisms. I've on this forum for example also made strong criticisms of some works by van Beethoven, nevertheless I think he is a great composer, and I like to play some of his works myself. About Rand: I think The Fountainhead is a masterpiece, though not without flaws. I used to think in the past that Atlas Shrugged was an even greater masterpiece, but in the course of the years I've revised my opinion. From a purely technical, stylistic viewpoint it's even more brilliant than The Fountainhead, but there are other aspects, in particular the way its message is conveyed which I find more and more irritating and sometimes even revolting. I now can understand much better why some people (and certainly not only collectivists) dislike the work.

[Dragonfly]

Amazing how so many people could have written Atlas Shrugged better than Rand, and amazing how few have done anything remotely similar.

I don't know whom you are referring to, but I haven't claimed anything even remotely resembling what you are saying.

Yes Dragonfly, anyone can criticize anything, but would you take criticisms as 'constructive' from someone on something you are an expert on and which they know little to nothing about?

And what about Rand's numerous criticisms of paintings and musical compositions? Was she an expert in painting and in composing?

I have been designing and building a motorcycle for some 7 years now, and I still get morons 'criticizing' the most superficial details based on their complete and utter lack of understanding about motorcycle design and physics. Sure, they can criticize, but their criticisms are neither constructive nor legitimate.

That depends. Someone can have no understanding about motorcycle design and physics, but still be an experienced motorcyclist. Such a person may have very legitimate criticisms of the motorcycle with regard to its behavior on the road. I don't drive a motorcycle myself, but I can very well discern what is good and what is bad in a car, even if I don't know what technical aspects are responsible for its behavior. So my criticisms may be very constructive and legitimate, unless I pretended to know what technical details caused the bad behavior.

I found no issue with the scene in which Dagny shot that guard, I only had to imagine myself in that situation with the love of my life on the other side of that door.

Then you've missed the whole point of that passage. I wouldn't have had any problem if there had been a shoot-out in which a dozen guards were killed. It is the moral message that Rand here explicitly makes that I find revolting (and that message is not that you may have to kill people in an emergency situation, I'm really amazed that people think that that is the point).

[bmacwilliam]

Such a person may have very legitimate criticisms of the motorcycle

Not the least of which that its been under contruction for 7 years :-)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is a whole other subject, but, briefly, I have just been teaching the book in a high school classroom, so it's all very fresh. We're only a third of the way through the book, but what is noticeable is the inductive nature of the book as a mystery. And how the kids are trying to puzzle out the mystery and still not clear on what the author's wider points are going to be in a fully named way. Rand is not hitting them over the head with her ultimate conclusions about ethics, politics, psychology. She is raising a lot of questions about the world and people and society and doing a lot by implication.

Phil,

You just touched on something crucial in understanding the impact of the book on the young. The inductive suspense technique Rand used that you mentioned gets the young (and sometimes not-so-young) fired up to question everything mankind has held dear. I find it fascinating that you are seeing this unfold right before your eyes in a classroom.

Rand's technique also works hand-in-hand with an urge to start over that surges in all of us at one time or another (and is one of the reasons the "born again" experience is so effective in Christianity). By coincidence, I was just reading dot.con by John Cassidy (trying to make sense out of the Dot.com meltdown that happened right before 9/11, and the Internet in general) and I came across the following passage not one hour ago that I underlined (p. 324). Cassidy was talking about how the speculative bubble came to be.:

The Internet appealed to the same human proclivity that spiritual sects and political fanatics have exploited down the ages: a desire to toss out received wisdom and embrace a new creed.

While Objectivism is not a sect (except for a few small pockets of individuals), part of its appeal comes from this inner drive. And Rand catered to this drive in a masterly manner in Atlas Shrugged.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> in particular the way its message is conveyed which I find more and more irritating and sometimes even revolting. I now can understand much better why some people (and certainly not only collectivists) dislike the work.

Dragonfly, you haven’t said if this is what you find most objectionable, but many people make the mistake of taking literally the total condemnation of people as evaders, villains, totalistically unable and unwilling to think or admire the good in the book. They don’t realize it is not meant to apply literally to today’s people and world, but to an imaginary world much further along the road to collapse than ours. She had to project or focus on the extremes to make it a good story. And not a –two- thousand page book! You have to be selective, to essentialize, to “stylize”. The book is already, as Rand herself put it, “almost too long”.

Aside: This is not about literature, but it’s true that Rand - and too many of her followers - sometimes go overboard and apply the sweeping moral denunciations to “the masses” in our world. THAT is what I object to because it is psychologically false. But she, at least, balanced it in other essays by referring to the healthy American sense of life, the healthy, common sensical, ambitious, un-self-immolating, “uneaten, unskilled alive” traits of the average man on the street in a free and prosperous country. And so on) She did this, for example, in one essay comparing the average American to the average Russian. [i don’t remember the essay title or the book it appeared in.]

(She seems to have perhaps thought the masses of people even in America are weak - mentally / psychologically - as opposed to being evil. Which would also be a mistake or overstatement...but that’s a whole long topic.)

> fired up to question everything mankind has held dear. I find it fascinating that you are seeing this unfold right before your eyes in a classroom.

Thanks, Michael. It’s also been fascinating to compare how the three novels are received. I’ve now taught Anthem, Fountainhead, and Atlas in the last three years. Atlas is so far pretty much the best received, the most enjoyed of the three novels by the students. They’re not put off by the ‘extremism’ or excoriation of the world or of the populations created...a common way of writers from mythology to Orwell to J.R. Rowling. Sort of counter-intuitive, but after being surprised I now understand why . . . . .

[Matus1976]

Amazing how so many people could have written Atlas Shrugged better than Rand, and amazing how few have done anything remotely similar.

I don't know whom you are referring to, but I haven't claimed anything even remotely resembling what you are saying.

You ought to choose your words with more care then, you said

This is indeed the most perverse passage in AS.

According to dictionary.com

per·verse

- willfully determined or disposed to go counter to what is expected or desired; contrary.

- persistent or obstinate in what is wrong.

- turned away from or rejecting what is right, good, or proper; wicked or corrupt

Counter to what is expected, or persistent in what is wrong, rejecting what is right, etc. i.e. YOU think it SHOULD have gone differently, and it was WRONG to have gone THIS WAY.

I say again, amazing how so many people (including you) could have done a better job writing Atlas Shrugged, even though you've accomplished nothing of the sort. Perhaps I am wrong and you have, care to elaborate?

Yes Dragonfly, anyone can criticize anything, but would you take criticisms as 'constructive' from someone on something you are an expert on and which they know little to nothing about?

And what about Rand's numerous criticisms of paintings and musical compositions? Was she an expert in painting and in composing?

She was an expert in philosophy, which pertains to aesthetics, which includes art. To the extent which her criticisms pertained to the philosophical nature of art, her criticisms would be valid, to the extent which they pertained to the functions or specifics of tools of the trade, they would not have been. Are you an expert in philosophy, and aesthetics of novelization?

There is a big difference between asserting that you don't like something, and why you do not, and proclaiming that something is fundamentally incorrect. You did the latter.

I have been designing and building a motorcycle for some 7 years now, and I still get morons 'criticizing' the most superficial details based on their complete and utter lack of understanding about motorcycle design and physics. Sure, they can criticize, but their criticisms are neither constructive nor legitimate.

That depends. Someone can have no understanding about motorcycle design and physics, but still be an experienced motorcyclist. Such a person may have very legitimate criticisms of the motorcycle with regard to its behavior on the road. I don't drive a motorcycle myself, but I can very well discern what is good and what is bad in a car, even if I don't know what technical aspects are responsible for its behavior. So my criticisms may be very constructive and legitimate, unless I pretended to know what technical details caused the bad behavior.

Again, you are talking 'good and bad' i.e. you own particular preference. Perverse is a much stronger concept than merely "I didn't like" do you wish to change your assessment of the passage? An operator of a motorcycle can certainly present constructive criticisms regarding the operation of said vehicle, but even in that they are more often wrong (most motorcyclists are not even explicitly aware of the need to counter steer) To the extent of your knowledge of a car, you are justified in criticizing, say, the reversal of the gas and brake pedal, or the ergonomics of the steering column, but would you be justified in criticizing the dampening rate of the suspension system or the rise slope of the intake cam?

I found no issue with the scene in which Dagny shot that guard, I only had to imagine myself in that situation with the love of my life on the other side of that door.

Then you've missed the whole point of that passage. I wouldn't have had any problem if there had been a shoot-out in which a dozen guards were killed. It is the moral message that Rand here explicitly makes that I find revolting (and that message is not that you may have to kill people in an emergency situation, I'm really amazed that people think that that is the point).

So now not only are you an expert novelist but also a mind reader, able to telepathically divine exactly what Rand meant. Are you seriously contending that Rand is saying it is OK to kill someone because they can't make up their mind in a difficult situation about an important topic in a short amount of time? Do you think Rand would advocate walking the streets with a gun, approaching strangers, and demanding they decide between being a platonist or an aristotlean with a justifiable punishment of death for the wrong answer, or no answer? Cmon now.

[Brant Gaede]

It's one thing to note after reading AS that something here and something there might have been done better. It's another to claim that one can, will, could write a better novel. I have noted much stuff in AS that is contrived and wrong, but to "correct" would result in the complete collapse of the novel. I appreciate this monumental work as a great piece of literary art. Remember that Barbara Branden got Rand to depict Ragnar as married.

--Brant

[John Dailey]

~ Clearly Rand should have had Dagny show some Bruce Lee type super-fast Kung Fu (which is never risky we all know) to merely make the threatening guard (what guard isn't if you intend to get past him?) temporarily (hmmm...how long?) unconscious, rather than, as she did, spend 2-pages of debating/discussing with him as any of us (well, except me) would have, though time was of the essence. And, one would think there might be another guard or two farther down to discuss things (or out-martial-art) with.

~ She also should have dropped the whole Winston Tunnel scene instead of showing that there are parasites who take all of what others produce f-o-r g-r-a-n-t-e-d to the extreme (like, say, Mr. Thompson.)

~ Then we could discuss more important aspects of her psychology via her writing...like the trains going into the tunnels, or the verticality of the buildings, or...

~ Sheesh.

LLAP

J:D

Edited December 18, 2007 by John Dailey

[Alfonso Jones]

In -Atlas Shrugged-, Dagny confronts a guard and threatens him with a loaded gun in order to let the team rescuing John Galt in through the door. The guard cannot make up his mind so Dagny shoots him for NOT MAKING UP HIS MIND!!!!!..

Now that is damned strange. I can see shooting him to prevent him from warning the people inside. In fact, that might have been Dagny's only practical course. Slaying sentries is a time honored way in commando operations which the rescue of John Galt surely was. But killing the poor sod because he vacillated? That is perverse.

Ba'al Chatzaf

What in Atlas Shrugged, anywhere, suggests to you that Dagny Taggart is shooting the guard BECAUSE he didn't make up his mind? My read of the passage was that Dagny shot a man who didn't make up his mind - because he stood between her and Galt. Not because he didn't make up his mind.

The text says:

"But I can't decide! Why me?"

"Because it's your body that's barring my way."

Why not take the character at face value, for what she says - she shot the guard because he barred her from geting to Galt?

Alfonso

[BaalChatzaf]

In -Atlas Shrugged-, Dagny confronts a guard and threatens him with a loaded gun in order to let the team rescuing John Galt in through the door. The guard cannot make up his mind so Dagny shoots him for NOT MAKING UP HIS MIND!!!!!..

Now that is damned strange. I can see shooting him to prevent him from warning the people inside. In fact, that might have been Dagny's only practical course. Slaying sentries is a time honored way in commando operations which the rescue of John Galt surely was. But killing the poor sod because he vacillated? That is perverse.

Ba'al Chatzaf

What in Atlas Shrugged, anywhere, suggests to you that Dagny Taggart is shooting the guard BECAUSE he didn't make up his mind? My read of the passage was that Dagny shot a man who didn't make up his mind - because he stood between her and Galt. Not because he didn't make up his mind.

The text says:

"But I can't decide! Why me?"

"Because it's your body that's barring my way."

Why not take the character at face value, for what she says - she shot the guard because he barred her from geting to Galt?

Alfonso

Yes Alfonso, why not. Let us continue the text. This from pp 1066 of my paperback edition of AS

Calmly and impersonally she [Dagny], who would have hesitated to fire at an animal, pulled the trigger and fired straight into the heart of a man who wanted to exist without the responsibility of consciousness.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yup. Take the character at face value. The text went on to say her gun had a silencer. She she put her mission in peril by even talking the the guard. If she were serious about the mission she just should have shot him with no gab. In a commando mission the sentries must be silenced without raising an alarm. So either Dagny is an incompetent commando or she is Rand's sock puppet.

BTW, the piece I added, which you left out, is Rand speaking from the position of the Omniscient I, the unseen Narrator of the tale given her opinion of the scene just narrated.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So either Dagny is an incompetent commando or she is Rand's sock puppet.

Bob,

Dagny is not a commando in Atlas Shrugged. She is the Vice President of a railroad.

Using a gun and killing people is not a normal part of her job (for as strange as that may sound to you).

Michael

[syrakusos]

Dagny is not a commando in Atlas Shrugged. She is the Vice President of a railroad.

See, it's too bad that we cannot click that big red check mark, Michael.

I just posted over on RoR about a class I had in "White Collar Crime." It amazes some people to learn that all business people are not criminals, because we teach that they are. From grade school, through high school and into college, the message gets repeated over and over that corporations are criminal enterprises. Then, we wonder why real crooks really do go into businesses for their environment of opportunity.

[BaalChatzaf]

Dagny is not a commando in Atlas Shrugged. She is the Vice President of a railroad.

See, it's too bad that we cannot click that big red check mark, Michael.

I just posted over on RoR about a class I had in "White Collar Crime." It amazes some people to learn that all business people are not criminals, because we teach that they are. From grade school, through high school and into college, the message gets repeated over and over that corporations are criminal enterprises. Then, we wonder why real crooks really do go into businesses for their environment of opportunity.

Dagny was functioning as a commando during the rescue. And she did badly. Instead of talking with the guard, she just should have shot him dead with her silencer equipped pistol. In a commando raid, the sentries must be taken out silently so as not to raise an alarm. During WW2 commandos used piano wire nooses to cut the throats of the guards before they could sound out. Silent, swift, deadly, effective. On some raids the commandos used crossbow bolts for head shots.

Now stepping back from the text of the novel to the point that Rand was making. She said, in effect, it is quite alright to kill folks who cannot come to a decision.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Chris Grieb]

I haven't commented but Bob's last post forces me to.

The guard in addition to not being able to make up his mind was also involved in a conspiracy involving kidnapping a capital crime in some states. I have no great problem with the scene but maybe for Bob it would be all right if the guard has been a Muslim.

[Laure]

Well, I guess I'm "perverse," because my reaction to the scene was "You go, girl!!"

[Chris Grieb]

Larue; I can go with your last post. Thanks!