Posted on 02/14/2009 11:27:03 AM PST by Publius
Synopsis
Eddie hands a newspaper to Dagny; it has a most interesting story. The People’s State of Mexico, upon inspecting the expropriated San Sebastian Mines, discovers that they are devoid of copper and utterly worthless. Dagny asks Eddie to call Francisco at the Wayne-Falkland Hotel for an appointment.
What follows is an extended flashback into the childhood of Dagny, Eddie, Francisco and Jim at the Taggart estate on the Hudson.
Francisco got a job at Taggart Transcontinental before Dagny, working illicitly as a call boy at a station on the Hudson Line. Each intended to eventually run the family business. Unlike those d’Anconias who increased the family holdings by a mere 10%, Francisco’s goal was to double them.
Francisco went to Patrick Henry University of Cleveland, the most distinguished institution of learning left in the world, but Francisco did not find all the courses interesting. He made only two close friends at college. (A major plot point for later!)
One incident shaped the relationship between Dagny and Francisco. When Dagny suggested that she get poor grades in order to be popular, Francisco slapped her – and she liked it.
Dagny began the competition with Francisco by taking a job as night operator on the railroad at a nearby station while only sixteen. She went through life without male admirers, and her idea of a good time was working on the railroad. After a formal ball, she noted that she could have squashed ten of the men she had met. It was in her freshman year at college that Dagny and Francisco became lovers.
Francisco not only went to college, but by playing the stock market he amassed enough money to buy the copper foundry where he had been working secretly at night. Following college, Francisco worked for his father. One night, meeting Dagny in New York, he said, “There’s something wrong with the world.” A few years later he told Dagny not to be astonished by anything he did in the future and asked her to leave the railroad and let it go to hell under Jim’s stewardship. He warned her that the next time they met, she wouldn’t want to see him. Over the years Francisco morphed into a worthless playboy squandering the d’Anconia fortune.
Returning to the present, Dagny goes to Francisco’s room at the hotel and finds him playing with marbles on the floor like a child. Dagny has figured out part of what Francisco intended with the San Sebastian Mines swindle. He has hurt the looters’ government of Mexico and his American investors, but Dagny can’t penetrate to the heart of what he has done.
Dagny administers a shock to Francisco when she brings up the Fifth Concerto of Richard Halley. Francisco avoids a direct answer and says that Halley has stopped composing.
Francisco lays out the reaction of the Mexican government, which had made promises to its people to be delivered by the confiscation of the mines. Now the government has to blame the greedy capitalists. The miners’ town he built was made of shoddy material and will be gone within a year. He has cost the railroad and his investors millions. Taggart Transcontinental will fail, and Ellis Wyatt will be the next to go under. He tells Dagny as she is leaving that she is not ready to hear the reasons behind what he is doing.
The Purpose of This Chapter
We’ve met Dagny, Hank and their enemies. We’ve heard about Francisco, but we’ve never met him. Now we find out about the long history of Dagny and Francisco, both in business and on a personal basis. We also find that Francisco is involved in some kind of project aimed at destroying certain people, companies and countries, but we don’t know why. (This is the book’s plot.)
Landmarks
The Wayne-Falkland Hotel is based upon the real life Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in Manhattan.
The Taggart estate is based upon one of many Vanderbilt holdings, all of which were built by the descendants of Cornelius Vanderbilt of the New York Central. “Commodore” Vanderbilt himself lived modestly in lower Manhattan. Both Vanderbilt and James Jerome Hill were models for Nat Taggart.
Ayn Rand and Sex
There are no children in this book; the plot is about adults and adult matters. It is only in this chapter that we meet our characters as teenagers and we find Francisco and Dagny as lovers.
Francisco’s slapping Dagny after that comment about doing poorly in school to gain popularity requires some history about the period. In that era popularity was considered more important than academic excellence. Smart people weren’t popular, which is why young Ronald Reagan hid his questing mind in the disguise of a backslapping athlete. Even as an adult, Reagan hid his cerebral qualities from others, which is why he was characterized incorrectly by Clark Clifford as an “amiable dunce”. Understanding this in its historical context, Dagny’s comment to Francisco was not totally out of bounds.
However, when she is slapped, Dagny finds that she likes it. There is an undercurrent of precocious sexuality and sadomasochism in that slap. When she and Francisco lose their virginity together, the prose turns purple.
“She knew that fear was useless, that he would do what he wished, that the decision was his, that he left nothing possible to her except the thing she wanted most – to submit. She had no conscious realization of his purpose, her vague knowledge of it was wiped out, she had no power to believe it clearly, in this moment, to believe it about herself, she knew only that she was afraid – yet what she felt was as if she were crying to him: Don’t ask me for it – oh, don’t ask me – do it!”
This is Rand’s updated version of the “aching need” that appears in The Fountainhead. People who are devoutly religious become queasy at this passage and again when Rand waxes philosophical.
”’Isn’t it wonderful that our bodies can give us so much pleasure?’, he said to her once, quite simply. They were happy and radiantly innocent. They were both incapable of the conception that joy is sin ... She knew the general doctrine on sex, held by people in one form or another, the doctrine that sex was an ugly weakness of man’s lower nature, to be condoned regretfully. She experienced an emotion of chastity that made her shrink, not from the desires of her body, but from any contact with the minds who held this doctrine.”
Rand here disposes of the puritanical branch of Judeo-Christianity in a few well honed sentences. She not only supports the Dagny-Francisco relationship but condemns those who would criticize it in the name of a narrow, outmoded morality. Exceptional people – the Creators – make their own rules, which may well be a tip of the hat to Nietzsche.
But Dagny has had no other partners this far into the story, and it appears that Francisco has not either. Both remain true to each other, defining their own concept of chastity. This elevates sexuality into something sacred and transcendent, which is another theme of the book.
Patrick Henry University
Don’t confuse this fictional school with the very real Patrick Henry College of Purcellville, VA.
One of the most enjoyable Marx Brothers movies was “Horse Feathers”, a 1932 musical comedy that revolves around the football rivalry between Darwin and Huxley colleges. The opening number has Groucho and a chorus of professors singing:
I don't know what they have to say
It makes no difference anyway;
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
Colleges of the Twenties were profoundly conservative institutions, hard as that may be to believe today. The concept of academic freedom was by no means guaranteed, be the professor tenured or not. The Great Depression was to change all that, and soon the economic theories of Karl Marx began to replace those of Groucho Marx. The great institutions of the Ivy League led the way.
It would appear that even during the Forties and Fifties, Rand held a low enough opinion of the Ivy League to locate her ideal university in Cleveland, an industrial city not known as a great seat of learning. In fact, the business of Cleveland was manufacturing.
Naming a university dedicated to reason to Patrick Henry, however, is just as problematic as naming a fundamentalist Christian college after the same man, which is what happened in Purcellville. Henry does not fit the stereotype of either a man of objective reason or of religious faith. His life and legacy are far more complicated.
Patrick Henry belongs to the same group as Thomas Paine and Samuel Adams, revolutionaries who lit the flame that George Washington kept from being extinguished. Like Adams, Henry had failed in business many times, but while Adams became a wizard at the art of political propaganda, Henry turned instead to the law. As a lawyer, Henry stood for home rule and economic self-determination, siding with the ancient British tradition of being taxed by one’s own legislators. He further argued that colonial legislatures could not assign that right to Parliament. Because Parliament had long exercised a general right to tax the colonies, Henry’s assertion was considered treasonous.
In addition to the above principles, Henry’s intellectual justification for separation from Britain revolved around corruption. There is a tendency to look at that period of American history and see a halcyon era when corruption didn’t exist. In fact, the colonial governments of early America were every bit as corrupt as some state governments today. Wherever there is a pipeline of government “cheese”, there are mice and rats attempting to divert some of that “cheese“ into their private larders. For Henry, gold and silver were too important to be diverted into the mouths of grifters, looters and moochers, which is why he became the scourge of corruption in Virginia politics. He could personally fight corruption in Williamsburg, but the corruption in London was so entrenched it could only be fought by separation. Rand must have viewed Henry as an early American model.
Following the Revolution, Henry opposed the adoption of the Constitution, arguing that it gave the federal government too much power, and his opposition led to the Bill of Rights. Yet a decade later, he executed a complete turnaround and switched to the Federalist Party, backing Washington, Adams and John Marshall, and going so far as to argue that the Jefferson-Madison Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, supporting a state’s right of nullification, would lead to civil war. He died the same year as George Washington.
Some Discussion Topics
I don’t really blame him for his response to the things you mentioned that he had thrust upon him. Actually, unlike some, I think his response really wasn’t all that terrible. The stuff he pissed me off on was wrong stuff that he consciously CHOSE to do.
Thats quite a compliment.. thanks.
Even the Great One screwed up...1) Amnesty 1 and 2)not retaliating for the Marine Barracks bombing in Lebanon.
Much of what Bush had to deal with were a direct result of Reagan's failures.
His social security reform attempt surprised me. You have to give him credit for trying.
Thank you for reminding me of that one. He’s sorely in need of marks on the plus side. An aside: you couldn’t say you disapproved of Bush’s performance in polls during his admin because they would automatically assumed you wanted the vaunted “arch conservative” to be more LIBERAL and published the results as such. At least now we can answer honestly.
His education was in economics..
I wonder if he had intentions of being more like Reagan fiscally before the planes hit?
The first presidential election I was eligible to vote in was 1988 (I voted for Bush 41).
I think we’ve hijacked a thread unintentionally.
I really hate to leave good company but my pumpkin hour is striking.
Good question.
Prior to 9/11 I vaguely recall reading that President Bush was to meet with president fox to discuss immigration. Around that time I also recall (though I’m probably remembering it wrong) reading an editorial in news week about President Bush’s administration. The writer noted that up to that point, many in the media were not sure how to assess his performance, mainly due to the lack of exposure to the press.
As usual, I am late to the party! I just have to tell you all how much I have been enjoying this, even though I don't get to post as much as I would like. I've been reading this book for over a month now and I see echoes of it everywhere lately, but have no opportunities to discuss it with friends or family. So thank you so much for doing this!
Even though I fear for the country and the direction in which it is headed, I really am taking pleasure in reading this book. Does anyone else feel the same way? I think I'm cheering for Atlas to Shrug because it needs to happen, even though I worry about how that will affect my family - especially my children. Maybe it's easier to deal with in fictional form than in reality.
In any case, we haven't yet discussed the aspect of the book that I find most interesting - that is the parallel to what is going on in today's headlines. The “economic crisis” that happened right before the election certainly seemed to have been caused by the irresponsibility and entitlement of the poor, who took out mortgages they couldn't pay, and the government, who forced the banks to give those loans and promised to back them up. But who is being blamed over and over for the mess? Rich, greedy capitalists. Wall Street. And people just believe that to be the case. It's easy to vilify the rich. Instead of admiring people who have worked hard to get to their position in life and want to emulate them, it seems like the average person today resents anyone who has more than he does and complains that it isn't fair.
Is it because of the way we raise our kids these days? The “Everyone has to get a trophy, even if he came in last” mentality?
Now that “Directive 10-289” has passed - (of course, we don't really know what just passed, seeing as how no one had the chance to READ it first...) I wonder what we'll be in for.
Well, if you disagree with a conservative, chances are it's because you wish they were more liberal. The problem is, we're talking about disagreeing with George Bush. If you said you disagreed with Nancy Pelosi, would they interpret that as you saying she should be more liberal?
No, they’d probably think I’m a conservative whack-job. :)
Perhaps we should continue this conversation offline, as we’ve really drifted off the original subject of this thread.
Maybe tomorrow. I gotta hit the sack. Good posting with ya!
When good compromises with evil, it is only evil that can profit.
Ayn Rand
Remember, she is Russian, afterall. (Think Tolstoy, Pasternak, Dostoyevsky, etc.)
Grrrr... Heaven forbid anyone should be made to actually listen to opposing points of view, or worse yet, have more time to consider their decisions carefully... shakes head, Spector, Snowe and Collins should be hauled up on charges. Better still, we can send them ALL, a copy of AS, and invite them to our Saturday soirees.
Tatt
This is the chapter where Rand begins to lose me. IMHO, here is where AS begins to read like a smutty romance novel. I'm trying to be fair here: And, in all fairness, Rand was writing at a time when it was common/acceptable for Hollywood to portray men slapping women and vice-versa onscreen. Rand does make her character, Dagny, strong only in that she does not cry nor wince when she has been given a bloody lip. But, the fact that she enjoys having caused a strong reaction from Francisco isn't a sign of strength, as Rand seems to believe; it's a sign of weakness because she is measuring her self-worth by the emotional reaction she receives from him. That she doesn't strike back and, the next summer, begins a sexual relationship with him could be explained away as a youthful indiscretion and gullibility. But, as we see later, Rand does not see a need to excuse Dagny's behavior or thinking; rather, she tries to justify it as superior. I don't want to spoil the story, so I'll stop right there. More in later chapters...
What I find missing is that Dagny is not considering the possibility that she herself could become pregnant and have children. Rand explains in detail everything the characters are thinking, considering, worrying about. But, in the 1950's, when the story is being written, the thought of pregnancy and children doesn't cross Dagny's mind.
When I turned 18, I became a registered Democrat, just like everyone else in my family. And everyone else in Western Pennsylvania. Most elections were determined in the primaries, and you really did not get a say on who was elected unless you were a Democrat.
I turned 18 about a week before the 1984 fall elections. My first vote was for Ronald Reagan!
When I moved out of state, and I needed to re-register, I just could NOT register as a Democrat again, as I felt no kinship whatever to that party. I kept it a secret from my family. Little did I know that one by one, everyone was changing party affiliation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.