Dagny and the Guard

[Ellen Stuttle]

But it's not as though Rand created a situation in which the guard was confronted with a realistic dilemma, or even a coherent one. He wasn't given a choice between good and evil. He had no idea why Dagny was there pointing a gun at him and demanding that he make a decision which, from his perspective, would have been irrelevant (since he had to assume that she was likely to kill him no matter what he did).

[....]

The entire scene is about Dagny intimidating and threatening the guard, and then judging him as sub-human because he doesn't think for himself when being bullied and having a gun pointed in his face. "I order you to think for yourself, or I'll kill you! But you can only choose from the options that I've given you. Hurry up! Why aren't you thinking for yourself? You're despicable. You're less than an animal!" Blam!

As the scene is written, Dagny made the guard her victim and then held him in contempt because he behaved like a victim.

Good description, IMO (including the parts I left out for brevity).

[i feel] that Rand may have overlooked the difference between what she intended to say and what the details of what she wrote communicate, or how they can be reasonably interpreted.

My belief as to why Rand included the scene is, as I've said before, that she wanted to show Dagny as the calm, impersonally unemotional deliberate executioner of a less-than-animal human. Why else would the scene be there? What is the point of the scene if this wasn't Rand's goal? It was hardly necessary for advancing the story's action for her to introduce a guard who blocked Dagny's entrance and whom Dagny ends up shooting, still less after some drawn-out dialogue.

I don't think that Rand was a hypocrite because of the scene in which Dagny kills the guard. I just think that it didn't occur to her that she wrote a scene in which Dagny didn't have sufficient information about the guard's psychology, ethics or anything else before judging him as being worthy of less respect than an animal. My point is an aesthetic criticism of the logic of the scene, not a moral judgment of Rand.

My point is partly an aesthetic criticism of the logic of the scene, but it does include an aspect of moral judgment because Dagny is being presented in the tale as a moral and psychological exemplar. I think that the details of Dagny's procedure and emotions as described aren't those of someone I would consider morally and psychologically exemplary. See below re the description "hypocrite." Re it's not occurring to Rand about Dagny's not having "sufficient information," that's a detail which as I read the book the first time was among those adding up to the view that the book's author was strangely "naive," for so extremely accomplished a writer, about psychology. (And by the time I was done with the book, I'd come to think that she could be hugely unfair in judging, with her wholesale analysis of "the soul of the mystic.") In subsequent years I came to think that not realizing when one lacks sufficient information for judgment was a prominent characteristic of Rand's. (Thus, projecting later knowledge back in time, I no longer find it puzzling that she wouldn't have seen that Dagny didn't know enough to assess the guard's moral status).

Michael,

As to your claims about people misreading the scene and your charges about the motives of "most" of those who object to the scene, here is a little factoid for you in regard to my objecting: I first read Atlas Shrugged the summer after my freshman year of college. I had no opinion whatsoever of Ayn Rand before I read that book. I'd never heard of Ayn Rand before I read that book. I found the scene jarring and peculiar on first reading, in process of first reading. I've subsequently thought a fair amount about why the scene disturbs me (and why other scenes which I dislike also disturb me).

Re:

A variation is an attempt to discredit those who like Objectivism by claiming/insinuating that they are making logical pretzels to defend Rand when she was a hypocrite.

If that's a reference to my statement that I think you are going to significant lengths in explaining away the details of the wordings Ayn Rand used in writing the scene (when you describe it as Dagny showing "species solidarity," etc.), there's no "attempt to discredit those who like Objectivism [etc.]" on my part. You are you, individually, not "those who like Objectivism" collectively. And I'm not attempting to discredit you, whatever you mean by that. I do suspect that you're working hard at it trying to cast the scene in a good light.

Re the charge of Rand's being a "hypocrite": A "hypocrite," as I think of that description, is someone who gives lip service to standards the person's behavior contradicts. I don't think of Rand as having been hypocritical, but this might come down to a fine definitional point, since I think that she did unbeknownst to herself engage in double standards more than occasionally. I think the scene is an instance which exhibits an attitude which crops up in Rand's writing and is at variance with stated aspects of her philosophy, and even with her own expressed attitudes in other contexts. I think that Rand was a very complicated and by no means emotionally (or philosophically) consistent person. I've said this a number of times more than once on other threads in other contexts. I wouldn't expect it to surprise anyone who's read my posts over the course of this site's existence.

Ellen

___

[Newberry]

Barbara wrote: "But she clearly was referring to those who mindlessly obey orders -- any orders -- who obey them without question because they believe it is not their responsibility to think, to question, or to have any convictions about good and evil."

I have only read the most recent posts here, and was happy to find this quote of Barbara's. That is how I thought of the scene.

I seem to come back to a particular perspective. Rand created an epic novel,

that is a successful work—I would be much more interested in how details work with in the whole. Not liking something, or thinking that something is not right—doesn’t help one grow see how it fits. Greats are not infallible but they are the best people to study to find out how things are done well.

Michael

Edited December 26, 2007 by Newberry

[Selene]

Barbara wrote: "But she clearly was referring to those who mindlessly obey orders -- any orders -- who obey them without question because they believe it is not their responsibility to think, to question, or to have any convictions about good and evil."

I have only read the most recent posts here, and was happy to find this quote of Barbara's. That is how I thought of the scene.

I seem to come back to a particular perspective. Rand created an epic novel,

that is a successful work—I would be much more interested in how details work with in the whole. Not liking something, or thinking that something is not right—doesn’t help one grow see how it fits. Greats are not infallible but they are the best people to study to find out how things are done well. In this case, romantic literature.

Michael

Precisely.

I have spent too many all nighters talking and arguing about the intent of the author. On a total work of the author theory it is valuable argument. However, in my experience in a number of movements, campaigns, referenda, etc. when we begin to parse particular paragraphs and postulate possible intentions we do ourselves and independent thought a disservice.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If that's a reference to my statement that I think you are going to significant lengths in explaining away the details of the wordings Ayn Rand used in writing the scene (when you describe it as Dagny showing "species solidarity," etc.), there's no "attempt to discredit those who like Objectivism [etc.]" on my part.

Ellen,

I almost did not make my comment in order to not give the impression that it was a response to you personally. It wasn't. I was merely commenting on a general pattern I have perceived. For the record, your comment fits my comment loosely, but it is not a great fit. Ditto for some others.

I do think there is a glaring lack of the Principle of Charity in many of the interpretations I have read. I can only presume that people are entertaining pet theories.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Ayn Rand was NOT a God!

She developed her philosophy over time and no matter what warts you might refer to on the way she ended up with a great, albeit in many ways "flawed"--i.e., not perfect--but GREAT novel extolling human virtue and achievement. Too bad she had the guard shot after something of a philosophical give and take! I'd have shot him out of hand! And so what if Dagny discerned this or that--shoot! She did! Thank Good! Please, look at Rand's bottom line! If you don't like it fix it! If you can't fix it at least say so and let me! I've got the tools--or will make them if not use them. BUT AYN RAND IS A SERIOUSLY BENEVOLENT FORCE IN THE UNIVERSE!!! Otherwise, there is no OL, only OC: Objectivist Carping.

--Brant

edited for spelling, edited for grammer, edited for something substantial: what the f___ is the difference!? I just edited it for the hell or something else of it! Go drink some more beer!

Edited December 26, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[John Dailey]

MY LAST WORD ON THIS SUBJECT (believe it, or not):

~ To paraphrase a recently faddish question...

---- "What would BAUER do?" ----

LLAP

J:D

[Brant Gaede]

If that's a reference to my statement that I think you are going to significant lengths in explaining away the details of the wordings Ayn Rand used in writing the scene (when you describe it as Dagny showing "species solidarity," etc.), there's no "attempt to discredit those who like Objectivism [etc.]" on my part.

Ellen,

I almost did not make my comment in order to not give the impression that it was a response to you personally. It wasn't. I was merely commenting on a general pattern I have perceived. For the record, your comment fits my comment loosely, but it is not a great fit. Ditto for some others.

I do think there is a glaring lack of the Principle of Charity in many of the interpretations I have read. I can only presume that people are entertaining pet theories.

Michael

Michael, who in the f___ gives a s___ about the "Principal of Clarity"?, except Barbara? She's got as much "clarilty" as Ayn Rand! Have you noticed? To hell with Clarity! If you can't see it you can't muse it! Up with clarity!! (Carefull; I'm not as jumk as I mseem, including the nmis=spelling.)

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

That is a term used by the academics. Here is a quote from Wikipedia:

In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity is an approach to understanding a speaker's statements by interpreting the speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, rendering the best, strongest possible interpretation of an argument.

I suppose Uncle Scrooge can be found somewhere in there, but the intent seems to be Rationality on Earth and Goodwill Towards Men. I was just trying to serve Ayn Rand a dollop of it.

Michael

[RTB]

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

He should have known better. And If I was faced with the choice between me and my loved one....especially my lover, I'd do the same.

'Ba'al Chatzaf'. I'm new to this forum but have been reading your postings. I think there's something fundamentally wrong with you.

[Chris Grieb]

RTB; In regard to your posting about Baal some of the rest of us have come to same conclusion. I know I have.

I think I am in agreement with you about Dagny and the guard.

[BaalChatzaf]

He should have known better. And If I was faced with the choice between me and my loved one....especially my lover, I'd do the same.

'Ba'al Chatzaf'. I'm new to this forum but have been reading your postings. I think there's something fundamentally wrong with you.

It was a commando operation. If I had to take out the sentry to make the mission succeed, I would not care a whit whether he was virtuous or not. To make a surprise attack one must silence the sentries (most efficiently done by a silent kill). My concern over the scenario was not that the sentry was killed, but the reasons given.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Ellen Stuttle]

Barbara wrote: "But she clearly was referring to those who mindlessly obey orders -- any orders -- who obey them without question because they believe it is not their responsibility to think, to question, or to have any convictions about good and evil."

I have only read the most recent posts here, and was happy to find this quote of Barbara's. That is how I thought of the scene.

I seem to come back to a particular perspective. Rand created an epic novel,

that is a successful work—I would be much more interested in how details work with in the whole. Not liking something, or thinking that something is not right—doesn’t help one grow see how it fits. Greats are not infallible but they are the best people to study to find out how things are done well.

Michael

Um, well, I daresay that one thing I am saying, and I believe Jonathan is saying also, is that the detail doesn't "work within the whole," that it is not "done well." Very possibly, I think, Barbara's interpretation is what AR was trying to convey. The fact remains, I do not think she succeeded if that's what she was trying to do. I found the scene among the jarring notes in the book, when I first read it. I've continued to find it thus ever since. I saw then and see now no proper aesthetic reason to include the scene. People who talk as if Dagny really was in the situation leave out of account that Rand is the person who created the situation. Sure, if Dagny was a real person on a real rescue mission and a guard is in the way, shoot him if you can't overpower him and render him harmless quickly -- and without wasting time on talk. But why is the scene there? What is its point? Matus, and Laure, have given an interpretation; MSK another; BB another. My belief is that the point BB suggests is on target -- pun acknowledged -- and doesn't work, instead shows Dagny in an unflattering light rather than making the guard look like a "hiss, boo, bah" personage. That's how I felt about the scene on first encounter, and still feel about it. Fact.

Ellen

___

Edited December 27, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[BaalChatzaf]

'Ba'al Chatzaf'. I'm new to this forum but have been reading your postings. I think there's something fundamentally wrong with you.

What do you think is wrong? Is it that I am literal minded? Is it that I am devoid of compassion (except for my family)? Is it because I am a pain in the ass? Is it because of my Mission from God, viz. to tell the Emperor that he is nekkid? It can't be because I am irrational. I am very rational which rubs some folk the wrong way. I have been called many things (some justly), but never stupid or irrational. That is just plain wrong.

If you are going to criticize other people, please be plain as to why. It is only just and fair.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited December 27, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Newberry]

Ellen: "But why is the scene there? What is its point?"

One point is that I see it as a variation on the theme...in Rand's world if you don't think your are as a good as dead. ;)

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Ellen: "But why is the scene there? What is its point?"

One point is that I see it as a variation on the theme...in Rand's world if you don't think your are as a good as dead. ;)

Michael

Not thinking or not thinking effectively will lead to one's demise in due course. Life is full of hazard and danger and he who does not think is likely to fall victim or prey to such hazard. That is a far thing from using the inability to think on some occasion as a justification for homicide.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[william.scherk]

I found the scene among the jarring notes in the book, when I first read it. I've continued to find it thus ever since.

By the time I got to the guard shooting, I was not capable of being jarred any longer. I think by that point I grokked the book, and began to enjoy it as a read. Before that point I had the same problem I have with science fiction: "Huh?!"

A few of the mildly jarry notes along the way, without page numbers and likely filtered by sloppy reminiscence:

- so the countryside is blighted and dark and black, reflecting the breakdown of the world. Huh?

- so the baddish people get crushed in a tunnel

- so the perpetual energy machine is, um, the engine of the world.

- so the skyscrapers begin to decay as soon as the strike is well underway

- so the farmers no longer know how to farm.

- so a 'forcefield' protects Galt's Gulch

- so Dagny likes to make love in railway tunnels

- so all the villains are worse than Skeletor and the Psychlos

- so the cigarettes in Galt's Gulch are made by a . . . um . . . the cigarette factory? Huh?

- so . . .

Was a wonderful, lengthy work of fiction qua philosofiction. I got it, finally, and I even trudged through The Speech. I no longer quibbled over things like leaves withered and blackened by Unreason, or a magical metal, or even the idea that radio jamming and radio broadcast replacement was . . . well, Huh?

It is a great book of fiction shot through with Huh? moments. So what. It sells half a million copies a year, I am told over and over and over again, though it never makes the best seller lists at the end of the publishing year.

As for the guard, he deserved to die just as much as the trees and the tunnel people and the farmers and the other unthinking brutes.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I found the scene among the jarring notes in the book, when I first read it. I've continued to find it thus ever since.

By the time I got to the guard shooting, I was not capable of being jarred any longer. I think by that point I grokked the book, and began to enjoy it as a read. Before that point I had the same problem I have with science fiction: "Huh?!"

A few of the mildly jarry notes along the way, without page numbers and likely filtered by sloppy reminiscence:

- so the countryside is blighted and dark and black, reflecting the breakdown of the world. Huh?

- so the baddish people get crushed in a tunnel

- so the perpetual energy machine is, um, the engine of the world.

- so the skyscrapers begin to decay as soon as the strike is well underway

- so the farmers no longer know how to farm.

- so a 'forcefield' protects Galt's Gulch

- so Dagny likes to make love in railway tunnels

- so all the villains are worse than Skeletor and the Psychlos

- so the cigarettes in Galt's Gulch are made by a . . . um . . . the cigarette factory? Huh?

- so . . .

Was a wonderful, lengthy work of fiction qua philosofiction. I got it, finally, and I even trudged through The Speech. I no longer quibbled over things like leaves withered and blackened by Unreason, or a magical metal, or even the idea that radio jamming and radio broadcast replacement was . . . well, Huh?

It is a great book of fiction shot through with Huh? moments. So what. It sells half a million copies a year, I am told over and over and over again, though it never makes the best seller lists at the end of the publishing year.

As for the guard, he deserved to die just as much as the trees and the tunnel people and the farmers and the other unthinking brutes.

I've usually heard more complaints from non-Objectivists about Eddie being left in the middle of nowhere with a stalled train than the guard. The guard was guarding a torture chamber, just like the Nazis were only following orders. Dagny gave him more of a chance than he deserved.

Jim

[BaalChatzaf]

Was a wonderful, lengthy work of fiction qua philosofiction. I got it, finally, and I even trudged through The Speech. I no longer quibbled over things like leaves withered and blackened by Unreason, or a magical metal, or even the idea that radio jamming and radio broadcast replacement was . . . well, Huh?

It is a great book of fiction shot through with Huh? moments. So what. It sells half a million copies a year, I am told over and over and over again, though it never makes the best seller lists at the end of the publishing year.

I would buy every word of your positing if Ayn Rand had let her novel be just a novel. But she did not. She attempted to parley it into a philosophical/political movement with cultish and quasi-religious overtones. At which point her moral positions assume a stand-alone importance over and above any plot gimmickry in her novel.

Here is a similar thing. As long as L. Ron Hubbard confined himself to writing somewhat trashy science fiction I would not give him a second thought. But when he uses his clout as an author to set up an abomination like the Church of Scientology (thus claiming first amendment immunities) that has done some real damage to people, I object strenuously. Ayn Rand and her friends never went that far, but she and some of her friends proceeded a ways in that direction. And that is why I raised the issue in the first place.

You will notice that I do not analyze Robert Heinlein novels with Talmudic precision. I just enjoy reading them. That is because R.A.H. never started a Movement. He just told some damned good stories. R.A.H. never became a guru and he never organized a Collective. The only person I know of that tried to turn -Stranger in a Strange Land- into an action movement was Charles Manson.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Chris Grieb]

I agree with Jim H-N. Eddie is a much worse case than the guard. Eddie is a really good person.

Baal; Being an inspiration to Charlie Manson is worth at least some points against Robert Heinlein.

The point about the whole universe of Atlas is that Miss Rand is creating everything. Some people have said the time in the first scene is wrong. It would not be dark that early.

Edited December 27, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Brant Gaede]

Ellen: "But why is the scene there? What is its point?"

One point is that I see it as a variation on the theme...in Rand's world if you don't think your are as a good as dead. ;)

Michael

Not thinking or not thinking effectively will lead to one's demise in due course. Life is full of hazard and danger and he who does not think is likely to fall victim or prey to such hazard. That is a far thing from using the inability to think on some occasion as a justification for homicide.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Like I've said before, a guard at the border killed Kira at the end of WTL. It makes some type of gestalt-type sense that the heroine would kill a guard at the end of AS.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

I've usually heard more complaints from non-Objectivists about Eddie being left in the middle of nowhere with a stalled train than the guard. The guard was guarding a torture chamber, just like the Nazis were only following orders. Dagny gave him more of a chance than he deserved.

Jim

I am glad you raised that issue. I have re-read the relevant parts that lead Eddie to his (most-likely) grim fate. Eddie -chose- to go off to see about saving what he could of Taggart Transcontinental. Dagny did not ask him to go, and I sense that she was on the verge of advising Eddie to give it up and look to his own salvation. I think Eddie chose his fate and it was not up to Dagny (or anyone else) to talk him out of his decision. Besides, think of what would have happened if Eddie ended up in Galt's Gulch. He is completely in love with Dagny who is not in love with him (not by a long way). He would have been miserable in that circumstance. The best thing Eddie could have done for himself was to find some kind of righteous self supporting community and put his rather considerable talents to its prosperity (and his too). But he was fixated on Taggart Transcontinental past the point of rationality and that is what did him in. He brought it on himself. I see his departure as a form of seppiko. So I do not think anyone wronged Eddie. John Galt got some good mileage out of him, but Eddie revealed what he revealed by his own free will. He was not deceived.

(Added in edit). It just occurred to me. Eddie did to himself, what Cheryl Taggart did to her self. He was so unstrung by the viciousness of the anti-life creed of his oppressors that it unstrung him. Both Eddie and Cheryl committed suicide.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited December 28, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Chris Grieb]

Baal;

Your last post is very good

Eddie's fate is left in doubt. He maybe able to survive. A time-line of the book has estimated that the return might occur very quickly. A period of a couple of months. Eddie might link with a more rational group. However, good people lose their lives when irrationality runs things.

Edited December 28, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Newberry]

- so the farmers no longer know how to farm.

I had the pleasure of living on the Greek Island of Rhodes for several years. In the early part of the 20th Century, the Italian Fascists occupied Rhodes up to WWII. They had done a beautiful job of irrigating the land for farming. After Greece got back Rhodes, all that knowledge disappeared and all these irrigation systems simply turned to ruins. An experience of going to a outdoor market in Rhodes, is actually quite pathetic compared to any farmers' market in wester Europe, England, or in the States. Wilted lettuce, for example, was the norm there, and the meat was scary.

I have tons of stories of modern day island Greeks either unable, or unwilling to comprehend perspective, a green light, or a drainage tunnel. They are positively Byzantine!

I always find it interesting in art that I like, when my experience collaborates the stylized presentation.

...I can't help but think many of the opinions voiced here are not really about Atlas at all, but simply about personal philosophies--and with the detractors, I haven't been able to discern their knowledge or experience of Romanticism. And, in truth, that is totally cool--Romanticism is not for many people either in art or life.

Michael

Edited December 28, 2007 by Newberry

[william.scherk]

As long as L. Ron Hubbard confined himself to writing somewhat trashy science fiction I would not give him a second thought. But when he uses his clout as an author to set up an abomination like the Church of Scientology (thus claiming first amendment immunities) that has done some real damage to people, I object strenuously. Ayn Rand and her friends never went that far, but she and some of her friends proceeded a ways in that direction. And that is why I raised the issue in the first place.

Uh huh. I guess that makes me Ditto. You are a bit like a Fred Weiss, with the heart and brains put back in.

The rest of the exegeses seem like a knitting club tut-tutting about the One Good Pattern. Save for Ellen, who knows a skewer from a knitting needle, and a good pattern from its flawed exemplar. Save for, well, the usual suspects.

See my blog post "One-eyed Ogress of the Slagathon."

EXCERPT:

So far I have only read the first 650,000 of its 800,000 pages. At the

moment, as I struggle through the chapter "The Utopia of Greed," it

reminds me most of L Ron Hubbard's "Battlefield Earth," with Rand's

monsters slightly more horrid and evil than Hubbard's nightmarish

slavedrivers, the titanic struggle between good and evil only slightly

more titanic . . . mind you, Hubbard's book is also slightly longer,

at 1,000,000 pages of turgid, pulpy, entertaining hooey.

PS. We might be alarmed at the latest effusion from our old friend nemesis specimen Nick Otani. In the midst of "empathizing" with SOLO's resident scientologist healer/auditor/shill/nutbar . . . he comes up with this breathtaking aside:

WSS recently spoofed something about Scientology by saying L. Ron Hubbard

"thought about it really hard." However, if we look at how Ayn Rand came

up with some of her ideas, it's not much different.

With the power invested in me by Empress Katherine and her Consort, I hereby nominate you as a leader of the Opposition. If that is OK with you. If it is OK with the other leaders. If the Prime Minister approves. If my duties as Court Jester at SOLO leave me time. If someone offers me the position of Shadow Chancellor of Humour. If not, not.

Edited December 28, 2007 by william.scherk

[bmacwilliam]

'Ba'al Chatzaf'. I'm new to this forum but have been reading your postings. I think there's something fundamentally wrong with you.

What do you think is wrong? Is it that I am literal minded? Is it that I am devoid of compassion (except for my family)? Is it because I am a pain in the ass? Is it because of my Mission from God, viz. to tell the Emperor that he is nekkid? It can't be because I am irrational. I am very rational which rubs some folk the wrong way. I have been called many things (some justly), but never stupid or irrational. That is just plain wrong.

If you are going to criticize other people, please be plain as to why. It is only just and fair.

Ba'al Chatzaf

"Is it that I am devoid of compassion (except for my family)? "

You have no compassion for others outside a very small circle. You're intelligent and rational. You're a bigtime racist.

Something isn't right. Clearly.

RTB: "I think there's something fundamentally wrong with you."

Rationally, logically this is most certainly true. There is indeed something very fundamentally wrong. You don't need others to point it out. You know this and you revel in it.

Bob