Dagny And Francisco's Childhood

[Betsy]

Here are some questions to get the discussion started. Some are literary, some are philosophical, and some are psychological. Discuss any or all that interest you.

The questions concern the section on Dagny and Francisco's childhood that begins about a page into the chapter titled "The Climax of the D'Anconias."

1. Why did Ayn Rand include this section at all instead of just a paragraph stating that Dagny and Francisco had been childhood friends?

2. How are Dagny and Francisco aristocrats?

3. What childhood incidents illustrate qualities of character that Dagny, Francisco, Eddie, and James were to carry into adulthood?

4. Why did Dagny, Francisco, and Eddie hang out together but James was not part of their group?

5. Dagny's first ball: What did her mother want for her? What did Dagny expect? Why was she disappointed?

6. What in the story shows that the relationship between Dagny and Francisco is changing from that of friends to lovers?

7. What was the tennis match all about?

8. Why did Dagny and Francisco keep their romantic relationship a secret? Why didn't anyone else suspect it?

9. Twice in the chapter Dagny and Francisco look out into the distance trying to see skyscrapers and the two are related. How?

[JRoberts]

I would just like to reply that I think these are excellent questions. I have been re-reading the section and thinking over the questions. Expect a post today!

[JRoberts]

Hmm. I think it might help if we choose one question to discuss at first, and then when we finish that question, move on to another question. This way we can keep focus on one issue per post and not jump around all the time.

This being stated, I will begin with question 2-"How are Dagny and Francisco aristocrats?"

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

I think the most proper way to answer the question is first to define what exactly an aristocrat is. Webster defines an aristocrat as, "a member of an aristocracy; especially: NOBLE" with aristocracy being defined as, "the aggregate of those believed to be superior; a government by the best individuals or by a small privileged class ".

While I do not believe Ayn Rand was referring to an actual government, I do believe she was referring to the 'superior or privileged class'. One of the most commonly known and one of the most abundant periods in terms of aristocracy was the, what I will define as, "Monarchial" period in Europe from about 1400-1800. These monarchs and their noble/aristocratic entourage led the nation because they were born into "noble blood". This aristocracy used force to take the products of the people and use them for their own personal, often lavish and indulgent, luxury. Thus, this was an aristocracy of unearned 'wealth' by coercion-an aristocracy of the 'noble blood' because you were born into it-an aristocracy of the 'jungle'.

For clarity and convenience, I will separate these into the aristocracy of old and the aristocracy of new-old referring to the European Monarchs that I was describing above, and new referring to people like Dagny and Fransisco. The aristocracy of old was an aristocracy because they used force to take their wealth. When tax time came, the king or noble's tax collector and a group of soldiers went around gathering taxes while the nobles indulged in their own stolen gluttony. However, because of the advancement of society in terms of events like the Industrial Revolution, which were possible because of the amount of freedom that had blossomed in society (especially in the United States), a new nobility or aristocracy based upon freedom was needed to replace the aristocracy of coercion (needed in the context that, not every human will produce-and not every human has the mental capacity or the self-determination to produce as much as others-thus there will be a difference in wealth based upon effort and intelligence and demand). This aristocracy was the aristocracy of those who created. This difference is highlighted in the story of Sebastian d’Anconia, who was a Noble or member of the aristocracy of old, who gave it up to become an aristocrat of the new by creating. He left his castles of old and created his own new castle-this time a castle created not because he stole, but because he created. Dagny and Fransisco are a part of this aristocracy. Both of them are creators-owners (essentially) of the companies that bear their name-of companies that are their fiefdoms.

Dagny and Fransisco are aristocrats in another sense. In the aristocracy of old, the name became sacred, and thus you had dynasties, or royal/noble lines. Valois, Hapsburg, Stuart, Tudor, etc. If you were born into the name, you were Noble-regardless of your actions. Thus a liar and an honest man both shared the same name and were aristocrats. In the new aristocracy, the name was still important. Both Taggart and d’Anconia were the crowning names of the fiefdom and the names of a royal line. However, in the new aristocracy, the name was synonymous with the virtues and values of the founder. Thus the name was something to live up to, or as Fransisco said, “...none of us has ever been permitted to think he is born a d'Anconia. We are expected to become one."-Fransisco, pg. 89. Thus this time, Dagny and Fransisco are nobles because they carry a name that is noble (because it is a name of creators-a synonym of one who creates) and because they have lived up to it.

Thus, Dagny and Fransisco were essentially aristocrats because they were elite-the elites of society. This time however, they were elite not because they coerced others to get their (altruism), but because they themselves, of their own volition and struggle, achieved the honorable title.

[realitycheck44]

Hmm.  I think it might help if we choose one question to discuss at first, and then when we finish that question, move on to another question.  This way we can keep focus on one issue per post and not jump around all the time.

This being stated, I will begin with question 2-"How are Dagny and Francisco aristocrats?"

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

Both of them are creators-owners (essentially) of the companies that bear their name-of companies that are their fiefdoms. 

Two things. One is why start with #2 instead of #1?

Also, I don't exactly agree with the analagy. Their companies are not fiefdoms. A fief is a grant of land from a king for a specified miliary service. A fief was usually run as a manor, which held all its subjects in serfdom. Serfdom does not allow hardly any rights and limits the ability for personal achievment, which neither D'Anconia Copper nor Taggart Transcontinental did. (I took the definition of a fief from "The World And Its Peoples- A Global History, 2nd Edition")

[thinkonaut]

I found it interesting how Dagny went to work early on for Taggart Transcontinental and performed in a superior fashion. This was right at the end of her teens, right?

I like how she climbs the ladder by doing her job so well that there is just no question that she deserves to advance.

Childhood can be a wonderful time where we are unaware of the horrible state that exists in many aspects of society. Therefore, it seems natural that AR would want to write about the heroes childhood years. It can have the same flavor as the purity of Galt's Gulch.

[Brent Rolfe]

1.The whole passage seems to establish a basis for the later actions of the characters and the relationships between them. Had Miss Rand chosen to cover this in a paragraph or two it would have meant many more explanatory passages later in the novel, when they were all adults and in functional roles in their companies.

2.The childhood scene establishes Dagny and Francisco as members of an aristocracy of earned wealth as opposed to inherited wealth. Even though they were both born into fortunes neither of them saw this as entitling them to anything. They would both have been driven to lead purposeful lives, whether or not they were born into dynasties. Perhaps this makes them aristocrats of purpose,?

3. (Skip)

4.James, of course, was different; being born into wealth and finding no purpose for himself he was later drawn to great "social causes" as a rationale for his being.

Eddie, the faithful servant, is established as a dedicated follower, but never a leader.

5. etc., later!

[A.West]

#1. The section provided numerous concretizations of the decisions and choices these characters made in their self-development. What better way to develop fictional characters than to let the reader observe key moments of those characters' early character formation? Crucially, one is given numerous examples of Francisco's character, motivation, and talent, directly observed. This set up the mystery of Francisco's behavior in the novel, while planting clues to this mystery's solution. This also established why Dagny could rationally be torn about Francisco's adult character, it was not a fling, Francisco was indeed a great man.

A quick, brief recollection could not have credibly established this.

Incidentally, this is the section that I think made the biggest impact on me the first time through this book, because when I first read Atlas Shrugged, I was younger than these childhood characters! I was 8 or 9, and I remember reading about young Dagny and Francisco and thinking "that's how I'd like to be when I'm older!" Reading about Francisco hitting the baseball, driving the boat, solving physics problems, and outwitting Jim Taggart, he was a great hero to me. The childhood section made the characters much more real to me.

[JRoberts]

Two things. One is why start with #2 instead of #1?

I felt question number one was a broad question relating to the rest of the novel, and I decided to focus on specifics.

Also, I don't exactly agree with the analagy. Their companies are not fiefdoms. A fief is a grant of land from a king for a specified miliary service. A fief was usually run as a manor, which held all its subjects in serfdom. Serfdom does not allow hardly any rights and limits the ability for personal achievment, which neither D'Anconia Copper nor Taggart Transcontinental did. (I took the definition of a fief from "The World And Its Peoples- A Global History, 2nd Edition")

Taken literally, you are correct. However, I used the term fiefdom to support my view of the transition of aristocracy from the nobility by force/birth to the nobility by creation/trading. Thus the land of before, and the serfs under it, moved to a company for people like Dagny and Fransisco, with the serfs transforming into workers-all based upon the trader principle, not the principle of coercion.

Perhaps this makes them aristocrats of purpose,?

For clarification, would you please expand upon this? I think there is great possibility in what you have stated, but I'd rather you expand upon your ideas .

This set up the mystery of Francisco's behavior in the novel, while planting clues to this mystery's solution.

I think you have hit on an excellent point here. Miss Rand went into great detail explaining his (Fransisco's) character-and after finishing the section of his childhood, you are led to think "But what an amazing person!"...however, his childhood seems to contradict who he had become now. Thus it appeared as if Fransisco was a walking contradiction-a part of the mystery. However, I remind you of the name of Part One, where this chapter takes place-"Non-Contradiction".

Hmmm

[realitycheck44]

Question #3

I particulary liked the part where Francisco made up differential equations (although he only had one year of Algebra) to build an elevator so Dagny, Eddie, and he could jump off cliffs into the river. It illustrates how he thinks about and solves problems, and has fun doing it. That maked jumping off the cliff so much more enjoyable because he conquered it using his mind.

[JRoberts]

It illustrates how he thinks about and solves problems, and has fun doing it. That maked jumping off the cliff so much more enjoyable because he conquered it using his mind.

This leads me to wonder if the cliff itself was used as a symbol of the life of Fransisco itself-that in every action he did, he "took steps down new roads armed with nothing but his own vision" and overcame any obstacle brought before him. Upon reaching the top of the cliff, he jumped off to the water below-the ultimate action of him 'descending' to a 'better' place (shrugging?).

Or am I possibly stretching this?

[realitycheck44]

This leads me to wonder if the cliff itself was used as a symbol of the life of Fransisco itself-that in every action he did, he "took steps down new roads armed with nothing but his own vision" and overcame any obstacle brought before him.  Upon reaching the top of the cliff, he jumped off to the water below-the ultimate action of him 'descending' to a 'better' place (shrugging?).

Or am I possibly stretching this?

I dunno. I think you might be streching it a bit far. The only reason he "shrugged" was to prohibit society from mooching off of the prime movers. It wasn't the "I don't care" shrug. He would have kept on with his company if the government didn't want to take all of his earning and products, whereas the whole point of building the elevator system was to jump off the cliff.

I think the point is that he used his mind to overcome an obstacle to help himself obtain pleasure. He also gave this pleasure to Dagny and Eddie, WHO WERE THANKFUL FOR IT. They admired him and his ability. They wanted to work hard an emulate him. This is so different from Jim who merely wanted to exploit him and was jelous of his ability.

[Dagny]

3. What childhood incidents illustrate qualities of character that Dagny, Francisco, Eddie, and James were to carry into adulthood?

Eddie: He liked to feel safe...first the oak tree would give him that safe feeling, then Francisco and then Taggart Transcontinental

Dagny: when James tell her she looks more like Nat Taggart and she takes it as a compliment. shows that she doesnt care about being known for her looks but her abilities

Francisco: running off to work for Taggart Transcontinental without anyone knowing. then telling Dagny's mom that his father would only care about how well he did his job....shows how no matter what or where he worked he always did it well.

James: when he tells Francisco that there is more to life than money and that he should be interested in helping people. he never changed.

[Dagny]

#7 What was the tennis match all about?

Could someone please answer this... I think I know but I'm not quite sure. In high school i had heated debates with my crush ...verbal tennis matches (if you please) and it seemed the more we had them the more i was attracted to him even though we were always on opposing teams. is it some kind of power struggle that young people go through? or the fact that Francisco made Dagny feel suddenly aware of herself the way that no one else did that made her upset at him for that moment. Someone please explain!

[A.West]

I'm just going to guess on the tennis question, though I bet Betsy probably has a well-reasoned explanation, given her many essays on the subject of relations between the sexes.

An element of initial romance involves some tension between the two parties. The early stages of romance are not like the early stages of a non-romantic freindship. It's not necessarily conflict, but a tension in that they are both aware that the man (and/or the woman) is thinking of the other as a sexual conquest. That can become something of a contest.

One element of tennis is that it's very physical, and thus very fully engages your body while your mind still has to control and calculate your actions. So its an integrated mind/body experience that involves a contest. I think Ayn Rand may have used the tennis match to combine sexual tension while heightening each characters' awareness of their bodies.

Why did Dagny feel she had to win? Well she was competitive, and even though she worshipped Francisco, she wanted to show she was his match in every way. I'm not a woman, but I suspect that even a woman who wants a man to win her, does not want that victory to be easy, but hard fought and difficult, proving to her how desperately he does in fact want her. Francisco detects Dagny's motive during the game, and does her one better, by acknowledging her purpose and turning it to his own purpose of stretching her physically beyond her own expected limits, and then telling her of his victory in his tennis defeat.

Tennis creates all of this physical tension between two bodies, but separated by space and a net. Soon after, the space between the two bodies is closed.

[Dagny]

thanks! that was a great explanation.

[AndrewSternberg]

I think I should learn how to play tennis.

[realitycheck44]

I had been wondering about the tennis match also, and that was a great explaination. Thanks alot!

[Guest Kien]

Selected answers:

1.Ayn Rand includes the childhood flashbacks in order to demonstrate the difficulties and the courage required for Francisco shrugging. He has to leave behind his precious possession: Dagny, his childhood friend and lover.

2. Dagny and Francisco are aristocrats because they are morally superior.

They both seek excellence and perfection in everything that they do. They accept above all Productiveness as their morality: “making money as the highest virtue”. Francisco at 14 told Dagny that they were both the aristocracy of money. “ It's the only real aristocracy, if people understood what it means, which they don't."

6. The scene where they no longer raced to the birch tree at his arrival to the Taggart estate is the turning point:

” She started running down the hill to meet him, but stopped abruptly. He saw it, stopped, and they stood for a moment, looking at each other across the distance of a long, green slope. It was he who walked up toward her, walked very slowly, while she stood waiting.

When he approached, she smiled innocently, as if unconscious of any contest intended or won.”

7. The tennis match was about Dagny’s process of (re) gaining her Romantic view of life and love that was shaken at the party.

Her experience at the party left Dagny… “a sense of expectation without object…” to the point where she had no desire to work. I think at this point, the fear of never falling in love became real to her.

When she decided at the tennis match to win against Francisco’s skills and mocking glance (as a challenge to her feelings after the party), it was a decision to have self-confidence about winning and about the future, no matter how difficult he and the world was going to make it for her. To win was to validate (rational) goals are achievable in a benevolent world, no matter the hardships. She had to win and Francisco had to make it as hard as he could for her. ( He felt he had won as well because she had met his challenge successfully and in the process had her back again.)

Later on that night, she was able to sit by her desk at Rockdale more content than the days right after her party. Francisco came by to watched her work thru the night and at dawn while walking home, she surrendered to him.

Kien

[Guest Kien]

I 'd like to change my previous answer for #6 as follows:

6.The scene where Francisco slapped Dagny and bloodied her mouth and “ When she came home, she told her mother that she had cut her lip by falling against a rock. It was the only lie she ever told. She did not do it to protect Francisco; she did it because she felt, for some reason which she could not define, that the incident was a secret too precious to share.”

The previous answer I gave and the quotes I chose was an error.

Kien

[Marty McFly]

I thought that the tennis match was a foreshadowing to how Fransisco and Dagny would go against each other with the shrugging. she was the last to enter Atlantis.