Weird Stuff In Rand's Fiction

[Eddie]

Seems like the rational choice would be to obey the person who currently has a gun to your head.

One would have thought so, but I was presenting the passage in the context of Rand’s views about the use of force. I suppose she was trying to make a point about the guard’s irrationality. In normal circumstances, of course the guard would surrender, but the author has him doing otherwise, which seems to undercut the realism of the novel.

Eddie

[Eddie]

Dagny was at war with the guard, as he was acting as an agent for an evil government.  Her goal was the get on the other side of the door at any cost, not to debate with the guard whether or not to let her pass.

But Dagny does debate with the guard, for about a page, before she shoots him. Presumably, Ayn Rand had something in mind when she created this scene. That something seems to be about taking responsibility for making choices. Why otherwise does she make a specific point about the guard wanting “to exist without the responsibility of consciousness”?

If Rand didn’t want to make this point, she would have presented the scene differently. Realistically, even the most abject lackey of the state would choose to move aside and save his life. But we’re not talking realism here. Rand decided that her guard was irrational enough to throw away his own life, and that’s the text we have to work with.

Eddie

[smathy]

There is a quote of Rand's that I've seen in here, that I'm confident is accurate, which I can only paraphrase, it's something like "A choice can be either right or wrong, but refusing to choose is always evil." I think it speaks of the same point that she was making with the guard.

I felt challenged by the scene too, but I did not dismiss it as a justified act in a context of martial law, or anything else of that nature. I believe that the act required inductive analysis, because as you say, it was clearly meant to be significant. Here's what I came up, I hope it helps.

By not making a choice, the guard, not Dagny, chose his death. It was not a literal scene, but to me a very powerful metaphor.

Choosing to think and to assume the responsibility of consciousness, is choosing to be human, choosing to live.

Refusing to choose, as the guard did, refusing to act, is refusing to be conscious, it is refusing to live.

The guard was not alive, he simply existed because life, as a human, requires thought and consciousness. He was choosing to die by choosing not to think. So Dagny gave him what he was asking for. Rand was demonstrating that not making a choice, not being conscious, is death.

[Eddie]

By not making a choice, the guard, not Dagny, chose his death.  It was not a literal scene, but to me a very powerful metaphor.

I’m afraid that’s a contradiction. If the guard did not make a choice, he could hardly have chosen his own death, could he? What’s more, regardless of whether the scene is literal or metaphorical, it needs to be internally consistent.

Dagny pulled the trigger. Since she had free will, she could have chosen not to do so. To say that the guard’s death is entirely his own responsibility is to deny that Dagny has responsibility for her own actions. But the passage is all about taking responsibility. If indeed Dagny was responsible for her own actions, one may ask: by what right did she set herself up as judge and executioner?

Eddie

[smathy]

I’m afraid that’s a contradiction. If the guard did not make a choice, he could hardly have chosen his own death, could he?

Don't be afraid, thanks for prompting me to clarify. More accurately let me phrase it thusly: by not making a choice between the two options that indicate some level of thought on the guards part, ie. by choosing not to think, the guard chose death.

What’s more, regardless of whether the scene is literal or metaphorical, it needs to be internally consistent.

Dagny pulled the trigger. Since she had free will, she could have chosen not to do so. To say that the guard’s death is entirely his own responsibility is to deny that Dagny has responsibility for her own actions. But the passage is all about taking responsibility. If indeed Dagny was responsible for her own actions, one may ask: by what right did she set herself up as judge and executioner?

You are right about the scene needing to be internally consistent, I was not requiring enough of my own conclusions. I need to think more about it, thanks.

[exaltron]

One way to put the blowing up of the housing project into context is this: imagine you're a musician and you've released a recording under contract with a copyright. Then you discover some wanker in Beijing is selling 1000s of bootleg copies of your recording on eBay. You report this to the local authorities, but they refuse to intervene.

Now, despite the fact that mr. bootlegger may have actually paid for the blank CDs and cases etc, you would have every right to destroy "his property" as he has violated your rights. I don't see how Rourkes blowing up the housing projects differs at all in principle. I have no problem with taking that entire scene as both literal (he actually did it in the book, it wasn't a figurative act) and completely moral.

Scott

[Tom Robinson]

Now, despite the fact that mr. bootlegger may have actually paid for the blank CDs and cases etc, you would have every right to destroy "his property" as he has violated your rights. I don't see how Rourkes blowing up the housing projects differs at all in principle. I have no problem with taking that entire scene as both literal (he actually did it in the book, it wasn't a figurative act) and completely moral.

Scott

But what about the Objectivist principle of a citizen’s “renouncing the use of physical force and delegating to the government his right of physical self-defense”?

[rameshkaimal]

The following is a quote from the hyperlink:

Why does Dagny shoot the guard?

The straightforward answer is that she shot him because he was preventing her from freeing Galt from the torture chamber. Some readers, however, are disturbed by Dagny's actions because she shows no reluctance or remorse for killing the guard. Others ask whether her actions should be considered an "initiation of force," which (Miss) Rand elsewhere says is immoral.

To evaluate these issues, the scene (which can be read here) should be considered as a whole and within its context in the novel. Dagny does not simply walk up and shoot the guard. Initially she tries to trick him into letting her pass by claiming she has orders from a senior official. The guard is uncertain what to do, because he has conflicting orders and doesn't want to decide for himself. Dagny only pulls out a gun when he says he is going to alert his supervisor of her presence. Then she threatens him, but even under threat he refuses to take any sort of personal responsibility, even for saving his own life. Only after several exchanges where he refuses to make a decision (but continues to block the door), does Dagny finally shoot him. In these circumstances, there doesn't seem to be any reason why Dagny should show any further reluctance or remorse, since she has already given him several chances.

As to whether an initiation of force is involved, the placement of the scene in the novel makes it clear that Dagny is acting in protection of John Galt. Galt is imprisoned and has been tortured. Moreover, by this point in the story, the oppressive and immoral nature of the government that is holding Galt has been made clear. Numerous people have heeded Galt's call and joined the strike. The guard, however, is still there. He not only hasn't quit, he is actively helping keep Galt prisoner. In that context, it is clearly acceptable within (Miss) Rand's moral views for Dagny to use force against the guard as part of the rescue of Galt. (Miss) Rand would consider this a defensive, rather than aggressive, use of force.

[Michero]

I've come across this question before and I won't address the Fountainhead sex scene because I see that as being different from the others (and Ayn has already commented on that one) but the other fictional sex scenes such as Kira and Leo in We the Living aren't rape. It's simply men in very masculine roles and sexually masculinity is forceful. When a man wants a woman he takes her. Not against her will obviously, but he is the initiating sexual force.

4.) In all of the fiction that I've read, her sex scenes seem to be more like rape scenes.