Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Atlas Shrugged inspired by The Driver

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...
I conclude that Rand must have been aware of Garet Garrett, especially since he was a well-known writer, and that in the context of his writings and her views, she very likely had read The Driver. And that's about as far as I think it can go.

I just finished reading THE DRIVER in its entirety from the PDF download, and I agree with David's statement.

I found the book to be very enjoyable, with very little if anything that would displease a fan of Atlas Shrugged.

Although the story of THE DRIVER is centered on Henry Galt as a go-getter personality who saves the railroad, he is very much limited to a Hank Rearden / Dagny Taggart kind of role, in that he does not understand the power of philosophy and cares little if anything about it.

Henry Galt also acts in a very Gail Wynand way in his disregard of public opinion until it shifts against him. In THE DRIVER, however, Henry Galt succeeds in swaying opinion back in his favor (at least in one of the major scenes) through his testimony at a Washington hearing. In no way do those answers touch on the philosophy of Atlas Shrugged, however, and they are essentially a standard utilitarian "what's good for GM is good for America" argument. After which, Henry Galt basically has a stroke and dies, with neither his own understanding of the world improved, nor anyone else enlightened as to what made him tick.

And (I'd be interested if anyone else cares to comment on this part) I found the book to end on an strangely discordant/unsatisfying note, with an odd distance between the Henry Galt's Secretary (from whose perspective the story is told) and Henry Galt's daughter, to whom the secretary had become engaged on Henry Galt's deathbed. Considering that the Secretary has also had an oddly distant relationship with Henry Galt's other daughter, there is nothing in THE DRIVER analogous to the romantic relationships in Atlas Shrugged.

Nonetheless, and in general, I found the book to be very pleasant reading. As far as parallels, at the most one could argue that Henry Galt engaged in some of the same activities as Dagny Taggart or Rearden, and that Henry Galt illustrates a story of a successful businessman as did Reardan and Dagny (in a much deeper way).

What THE DRIVER misses completely is any character with the philosophical insight of John Galt, so any argument that Atlas Shrugged in any way rides on the back of THE DRIVER fails in that crucial respect.

THE DRIVER is a railroad tale WITHOUT the wisdom of John Galt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've now had some more time to think about THE DRIVER after reading it.

I yield to no one in my admiration of Ayn Rand, and in fact it's because of that, not in spite of it, that I'd like to know more about Ayn Rand's contact with this book and writer.

As I've thought more, a couple of other connections are of note, particularly involving Vera, the beautiful older daughter of Henry Galt. Not only does the description of her icy personality recall a lot of the description of the early Dominique, but it's pretty striking that one of the scenes in THE DRIVER involves Vera intentionally dropping and destroying a piece of sculpture as did Dominique. The meaning of the scene is of course quite different, but it might be a point that use of a "drop the statue" scenario for dramatic impact is pretty unusual. In fact, one might almost argue that aspects of the Fountainhead relate to THE DRIVER as much or more than Atlas Shrugged does.

That causes me to wonder if Garet Garrett didn't have some significant influence on Ayn Rand in other ways, and purely for historical reasons I'd be interested to know more. Apparently he lived til 1954, so it would have been possible for them to have significant personal contact.

REPEAT: Any parallels that do exist, intentionally or accidently, take nothing away from the brilliance of Atlas Shrugged. Nevertheless, this is one of those points that opponents of Rand will use to dig at her for years (centuries) to come, and it would be helpful if those who knew her well could clarify what they know about this while they are still around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More discussion on this question is now going on over at Mises.org: Ayn Rand and Garet Garrett

This article appears fairly unbiased and evenhanded, but the comments show typical libertarian hostility toward Ms. Rand.

With the publication of Garet Garrett's works over at Mises, I suspect we're going to see more of this argument.

Regardless of that, and where the argument goes, Garet Garrett does seem to be a meritorious writer. Certainly there must have been Americans during the 20's and 30's who wrote articulately in opposition to the New Deal.

From my reading of The Driver (and I'm just starting "The People's Pottage") it looks to me like the name Garet Garrett deserves a place in the pre-Randian honor role of worthwhile writers who made an effort to stem the leftist tide.

PS -- Tangential comment: I think it would profit someone at ARI to take a look at mises.org and get some inspiration on improving aynrand.org.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

I guess it's true (from Amazon product description):

Product Description

Here is a treasure in the history of the pro-capitalist novel. Garet Garrett, author of The People's Pottage, is the story of an upstart Wall Street speculator financier, Henry Galt, a shadowy figure who stays out of the limelight as much as possible until he unleashes a plan that had been years in the marking: he uses his extraordinary entrepreneurial talent to acquire control of a failing railroad.

Through outstanding management sense, good pricing, excellent service, and overall business savvy, he out competes all the big names in the business, while making a fortune in the process. Garrett has a way of illustrating just what it takes to be a businessman of this sort, and how his mind alone becomes the source of a fantastic revenue stream.

But his successes breed trouble. The government conspires with envious competitors to regulate him using the Sherman Antitrust Act, calling him a monopolist who is exploiting the public.

This book tells the dramatic story of his success and his fight. A reoccurring literary motif through the book has people asking: "Who is Henry Galt?"

In one of many asides, this book contains one of the best explanations of the stupidity of "bi-metallism" that fixed the relationship between silver and gold. Indeed, the book is overall very sound on the money question, showing the inflationist populist movement of the late 19th century to be a pack of fools. Galt himself delivers some fantastic defenses of hard money and free markets, in both conversation and in front of the US Congress.

It definitely sounds like Rand was heavily influenced by the plot of The Driver. "Galt" isn't nearly as commonplace as Smith or Jones, and having your book repeatedly ask "Who is X" is unheardof, let alone have it be a nearly identical name.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I dont care if she was inspired by a previous story as to her fiction. I have only read her non-fiction. Im currently reading AS . I must say I think those who read her fiction first are missing out. I love technical philosophy. ITOE is my favorite Oist book. I think that her plot is no less valuable if it has a bit of inspiration from these books. I mean anyone whos read Aristotle will see that his ideas are as much a part of here themes as one can get. Its her removal of the remnant Platonist nonsense that Aristotle still had along with here uncanny ability to speak in absolutely essential language that makes her a genius in my book.

As an aside. I find the scene of Dagny and Reardens first intimacy repulsive. The idea of losing integrity for any desire is revolting. But enough of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should point out, fundamentally, there is a major difference in extra-thematic elements. Anyone who was at OCON this year will know what I mean, if you attended Tore Boeckmann's lecture. Basically, Ayn Rand could have written AS like 'The Driver', but that would have been very boring. Why? Because a story about a struggle between the Good and the Evil isn't very interesting in-and-of itself. What happens in that case? John Galt and the other guys retire and the world falls apart. Big deal. What sets Atlas Shrugged apart is the extra-thematic element of the Good vs the Good. It is not the mere existence of Hank, Dagny or Galt that makes the story good - it's how the former two are, in action, fighting against a man who is on their side, due to a terrible ethical contradiction they hold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an aside. I find the scene of Dagny and Reardens first intimacy repulsive. The idea of losing integrity for any desire is revolting. But enough of that.

I think that it's supposed to be a little revolting. I won't go into further detail as to avoid spoiling, but you don't need to worry. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an aside. I find the scene of Dagny and Rearden's first intimacy repulsive. The idea of losing integrity for any desire is revolting. But enough of that.

I haven't read The Driver, so I cannot comment on the theme of this thread, but the character of Hank Rearden is there to show a man with tremendous integrity. That he wanted to have sex with Dagny after traveling on the John Galt line for the first time, and after he was quite aware that they shared the same fundamental values, is a measure of his great integrity.

You might be referring to the fact that he was married, but even up to that part of the novel Atlas Shrugged it is made very clear that Lillian is against everything that is Hank Rearden. The only way one would come to the conclusion that Hank should have stood by his marriage vows to Lillian versus Dagny is if one held an intrinsicist view of marriage -- that once one is married it doesn't matter what one finds out about one's wife, one ought to be dedicated to her and only to her, even though she despises you and everything you stand for.

That struggle of Lillian versus Dagny is one of the great plot elements of Atlas Shrugged. In fact, Ayn Rand has commented that it was this internal struggle of Hank Rearden standing by Lillian versus having an affair with Dagny as the central plot struggle of the whole novel. The struggle of a particular man to explicitly identify his values and to assess whether or not his desire for Dagny is rational or irrational.

So, one could identify this struggle of Hank Rearden as one between intrinsicism versus rationality. If you continue to read the novel, you will see what side of that struggle Hank decides to come out on explicitly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"So, one could identify this struggle of Hank Rearden as one between intrinsicism versus rationality."

I am not implying he should stand by the worthless hag of a wife he had. First of all I understand Hank is in progression towards an explictly rational value set and is struggling with the in between stage. I find his choice to not leave his wife before acting on his desires for Dagny as a fault.He at LEAST should declare his choices openly after realizing this and treat his wife accordingly,with integrity.Its not his choice of Dagny as one who is worthy of his highest value[which is just]. I realize he is in transition ,but when he realized he wanted Dagny he should have the integrity to live as such openly ,rather than sneak around and pretend he doesnt value her,all the while living a farce towards his wife.

I am in no way suggesting an intrinsicist preference.I am going to finish AS ,but no matter what the level of conscious individuation he attains his previous acts will be what they where.

'What I feel for you is contempt. But it's nothing, compared to the contempt I feel for myself. I don't love you. I've never loved anyone. I wanted you from the first moment I saw you. I wanted you as one wants a whore—for the same reason and purpose. I spent two years damning myself, because I thought you were above a desire of this kind. You're not. You're as vile an animal as I am. I should loathe my discovering it. I don't. Yesterday, I would have killed anyone who'd tell me that you were capable of doing what I've had you do. Today, I would give my life not to let it be otherwise, not to have you be anything but the bitch you are. All the greatness that I saw in you—I would not take it in exchange for the obscenity of your talent at an animal's sensation of pleasure. We were two great beings, you and I, proud of our strength, weren't we? Well, this is all that's left of us—and I want no self-deception about it."

"I had never committed an act that had to be hidden. Now I am to lie, to sneak, to hide. Whatever I wanted, I was free to proclaim it aloud and achieve it in the sight of the whole world. Now my only desire is one I loathe to name even to myself."

" I want no pretense about love, value, loyalty or respect. I want no shred of honor left to us, to hide behind. I've never begged for mercy. I've chosen to do this—and I'll take all the consequences, including the full recognition of <as_239> my choice. It's depravity—and I accept it as such—and there is no height of virtue that I wouldn't give up for it."

These are the words of a duty ridden tortured existence [to his "oath"]. A man who does not know his values cannot have consistent integrity.A man who holds contradiction cannot in those respects have integrity. One cannot be for and against oneself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way one would come to the conclusion that Hank should have stood by his marriage vows to Lillian versus Dagny is if one held an intrinsicist view of marriage -- that once one is married it doesn't matter what one finds out about one's wife, one ought to be dedicated to her and only to her, even though she despises you and everything you stand for.

I just want to check I understood Hank's struggle properly. Wasn't part of Hank's problem that he thought that by virtue of it being a contract, of him being honour-bound, that he was doing something bad by breaking that contract? He held that he must follow this contract no matter what, because he had signed it. It's not till later that he thinks something along the lines of, 'For any court to officiate a contract, there must be some trade of value for value.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to check I understood Hank's struggle properly. Wasn't part of Hank's problem that he thought that by virtue of it being a contract, of him being honour-bound, that he was doing something bad by breaking that contract? He held that he must follow this contract no matter what, because he had signed it. It's not till later that he thinks something along the lines of, 'For any court to officiate a contract, there must be some trade of value for value.'

Yes, this was part of Hank's struggle. While he was never really an altruist, he did not have an explicit rational philosophy nor an explicit rational ethics. His struggle was to understand the application of reason to ethics. Miss Rand portrayed his struggle via his relationship between Lillian versus Dagny, compounded by the fact that he had accepted inductively that women did not want sex or that desiring sex was somehow wrong if not immoral. When he fully fell in love with Dagny during the first John Galt Line run, he was in serious conflict, which led to his morning after speech to her. It wasn't so much an issue that he was married, but rather that he had never come across a woman who wanted ravishing sex with him, and Lillian was a cold dead fish in bed. He thought that Lillian was a pure woman, which is why he married her, and what he didn't realize was that her kind of "purity" was there to take away his motivation to live his life.

So, yes, if one looks at marriage as a contract, to be legitimate both sides or signers to a contract must be receiving a benefit, as proper courts ought not to uphold a one-sided contract since this would effectively make the non-receiving side a slave of the receiving side. Hank was not getting much out of his marriage, but unlike his business dealings, he didn't think to apply the trader principle to his relationship with Lillian or to his family. His struggle can be characterized by the idea that in all dealings with others, the trader principle is a fundamental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotta love it! As an outside observer, the reader is invited to smile benevolently at Hank's groping for truth, much like someone might smile at a child trying to put one block on another, failing and trying again, all the while know that he has to do it himself if he is to really figure it out. The reader is invited to smile at the rebelliousness of not acting in accordance with incorrect ideas. Compare the opening of "Anthem": "It is a sin to write this. It is a sin to think words no others think..." Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are the words of a duty ridden tortured existence [to his "oath"]. A man who does not know his values cannot have consistent integrity.A man who holds contradiction cannot in those respects have integrity. One cannot be for and against oneself.

I think you misunderstand the nature of integrity and possibly the nature of human consciousness. In Objectivism, it is not a breach of integrity if one is mistaken or if one is deliberating between two or more premises. In Hank's case, he was both mistaken about the nature of sex and trying to think through his premises -- and the fact that he was thinking it through is proof of his integrity. He wasn't going by his feeling or emotions, but trying to deliberate the right course of action. Remember that in Objectivism, integrity is an aspect of rationality, and that so long as one is thinking it through -- i.e. using reason -- that is all that is required to have integrity; there is no requirement that a man always be right.

Regarding the nature of human consciousness, when a man has a deeply held premise, it is not possible for him to simply give himself a rational argument and then voilà that premise and all the associated premises and mental procedures fall into place. It takes time to re-integrate. That's why Objectivism doesn't really expect someone who was, say, once Catholic to change his mind entirely upon reading Atlas Shrugged; because it has to be thought through and a re-integration is necessary. That's one reason Hank's conflict is shown throughout the novel -- he "gets it" step by step -- and besides, it is not as if he was sat down and given the lecture "Understanding Objectivism" by Dr. Peikoff. It wasn't until much later that he was able to see the whole philosophy for what it was. In the mean time, he is thinking it through inductively based on the facts of Lillian versus Dagny, which means that he had integrity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...