Ayn Rand vs Dagny Taggart

There is this discussion I had in Orkut communities sometime back that turned out pretty interesting. The community discusses Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, and this was reason enough for me to be interested. Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are among my all time favorites, and I have recommended the book to a lot of friends.

This particular discussion was about something everybody who reads Atlas Shrugged would identify with. Many people understand and accept Ayn Rand's reasoning, while many others find it as some sort of a scar in an otherwise terrific piece of work.

Is Dagny Taggart right in leaving Francisco De Anconia and Hank Rearden for John Galt?

(If you didn't understand the last sentence, stop here. You have a lot of work to do. Go read Fountainhead, then Atlas Shrugged, then come back here. I will wait. Promise.)

There are a lot of ways to look at this issue, and the explanation that Ayn gives in the book is perfectly valid. Here is my point of view, better formatted than from Orkut.

Does anyone know what Ayn's views on marriage were? The fact is she approved marriage very much. She even thought it was very important in one's life. I think that is commitment.

She actually did something very close to Dagny in her life. Not three men, but two.

She was married to Frank O Connor. Ayn was in love with him, but he was not in love with her (he married her because Ayn persuaded him to marry her for her immigration purposes).

And ayn had a student of her philosophy, Nathaniel Branden. She persuaded another student of hers, Barbara to marry Nathaniel. They were living happily. Until Ayn at an age around 60 started loving Nathaniel, and Nathaniel out of respect confided he loved her as well (he was not in love actually, as Ayn came to know later).

She caused extreme pain to Frank, Nathaniel and Barbara, the 3 people she supposedly loved most in the whole world, and she caused the divorce between Nathaniel and Barbara.

She might have persuaded the readers about this in her novel, but causing unimaginable pain to the very people you love is ugly in any philosophy. I love her philosophy and I respect her and her books. But because she says a lot of good things, doesn't mean everything she says is right.

What happened in her life is just an extension of what she wrote in Atlas Shrugged about Dagny. Infact, she quoted Atlas Shrugged to her husband and Nathaniel's wife, and persuaded them that what she did was right.

I have been thinking about this ever since I first read Atlas Shrugged and then Ayn's biography. I have concluded that what Dagny did is right and what Ayn did is wrong. The only difference is that what happened to their earlier lovers (Hank and Fransisco - Dagny and Frank - Ayn). Hank and Fransisco don't seem to be concerned about Dagny leaving them, at least they don't seem distressed and hurt. But, Frank was hurt to the point that he started drinking very heavily and ruined his life. The fact that Ayn caused such agony and misery to the person she loved most in life (she dedicated Fountainhead to Frank earlier), is unforgivable.

Although what Dagny does doesn't seem to affect the earlier lovers, it should be remembered that it is fiction, an extremely well written one, but still fiction. May be Ayn wanted Frank to react like how Fransisco and Hank did in Atlas Shrugged, and because of this wishful thinking, the whole situation was created in the novel. Anyway, I think the only way a lover will react to an act like that of Dagny's is how Frank reacted.

If a women or a man is already in love, and he/she finds a great person, may be even greater than his/her lover, why can't he/she have a relationship without a romantic connotation, especially when you know that you are hurting your earlier lover? For example, if the man/woman finds his/her sister/brother, or any person from the same sex as a great person, the relationship is great, as between two sensible people interacting, enjoying each other's company, and obviously without any romatic connotations. Why can't there be a relationship like that just because they are not related by birth, or of the same sex? Why should there be sex involved in all relationships? (I am not saying sex is wrong by any means. But I definitely think to have sex with every great man you see is foolish, impractical and most important of all, uncivilized). And it is the same when somebody says I give my soul to one person, but I would give my body to different people, at least until I find the person who I can give my soul to.

It certainly doesn't sound fair to me. It might when you are in the position of Ayn or Dagny, but what to do, we are talking about objectivity here!

(Facts about Ayn's life are from her biography, Passion of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden.)

Michael Crichton

Michael Crichton, one of my favorite authors, has passed away at 66. To me, nobody has made contemporary science, be it nano-technology, genetic engineering or paleontology, more interesting and popular than Michael Crichton.

I became a fan of his gripping and fast-paced narrative style when I first read Disclosure. I remember reading the book, through the night, while working on a quite night shift, telling myself I will do some work at the end of next page everytime I finished a page!

Everytime I finished one of his books, I have realized I have gained much more knowledge about a field that not only did I have any idea about, but also had no interest in, and wouldn't have read it unless it was in such a format.

It is hard to imagine the kind of research that must have gone into each of his books, considering they were usually of completely different fields, ranging from issues relating to abortion, dinosaurs (of course), Japanese domination in corporate America, sexual harrasment, issues relating to flight accidents and media, nano technology, global warming to genetic engineering, to name just a few.

His contributions would be gravely missed. I will leave you with my favorite lines from one of his books.

On your planet you have an animal called a bear. It is a large animal, sometimes larger than you, and it is clever and has ingenuity, and it has a brain as large as yours. But the bear differs from you in one important way.

It cannot perform the activity you call imagining. It cannot make mental images of how reality might be. It cannot envision what you call the past and what you call the future. This special ability of imagination is what has made your—species as great as it is. Nothing else. It is not your ape—nature, not your tool-using nature, not language or your violence or your caring for young or your social groupings. It is none of these things, which are all found in other animals. Your greatness lies in imagination.

The ability to imagine is the largest part of what you call intelligence. You think the ability to imagine is merely a useful step on the way to solving a problem or making something happen. But imagining it is what makes it happen. This is the gift of your species and this is the danger, because you do not choose to control your imaginings. You imagine wonderful things and you imagine terrible things, and you take no responsibility for the choice. You say you have inside you both the power of good and the power of evil, the angel and the devil, but in truth you have just one thing inside you—the ability to imagine.

- Sphere, Michael Crichton - 1987.