Hank Rearden, Francisco D'anconia, or John Galt? Did Dagny Choose Correctly?

Posted by PSULillis 12 years, 2 months ago to Philosophy
43 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Rand did an exquisit job of attaching the readers to each one of these characters. Francisco was her childhood crush that lasted into her late teens/early twenties. Hank Rearden was a man's man and a captain of industry. They worked hand-in-hand navigating the red tape, pitfalls, irrational regulations, and rediculous demands set forth by the government (which were all for "the good of the people" mind you. Finally, John Galt was the recruiter & leader of the most driven individuals in the country. He founded The Gultch and brought the country's best & brightest to it. I cna't help but think Dagny had a place in her heart for each of those three, but she settled on Galt. Do you think she made the right choice? Who would you have chosen?


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by mischco7 12 years, 2 months ago
    I would have chosen Galt also. I believe Dagny loved and respected each of these men for different reasons. I believe she chose the one whom she saw the least weakness within him. Francisco was a playboy and a Robin Hood pirate though he was rather exciting and mysterious. Reardon was committed to his industry and his wife and his government. His commitment to a shallow wife who didn't appreciate him nor respect him, let alone love him, showed much weakness on his part. He showed the same weakness toward the government by complying with all the red tape, irrational regulations and ridiculous demands. His only concern was his business and would comply with anything as long as his business could continue. John Galt was the one who cared about what was right for everyone...not just about himself or his business. John Galt was concerned with true freedom and liberty and only wanted to associate and deal with those who believed the same.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by juliej 12 years, 2 months ago
      While I agree with most of your post, there are some parts I don't agree with. Francisco wasn't a playboy or a Robin Hood pirate. Yes, he put on a show, but that's not at all what he was. In fact, he was one of the first ones to make the Gulch his home. Rearden was committed to his metal, but I see that as a good thing. I don't think he was committed to his wife (since he was seeing Dagny), and he didn't comply with the government. He did what he had to do. And, remember that whole trial thing. I would say he showed a pretty strong character in most things he did. My gosh, all he did was fight for his freedom to produce his metal. Galt was wholly committed to his motor. Isn't that why he left? Isn't that why they all left?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by mischco7 12 years, 2 months ago
        I agree that Francisco was more than that. They were all much more than can be written in a paragraph. I believe the weakness in Francisco was that he felt the need to fight the unfairness of government. Fight is the key word...he felt he needed to get revenge then pay back those who were wronged. Instead of just walking away he felt the need to become judge and jury. As for Rearden he was commited to his wife or he would not have put up with her demands. He was committed to an appearance of marriage. Sex is not a valid judge of commitment. Reardon did comply with the government even though he did not want to and tried to change things. He did what he had to do for what? What was he trying to do? He knew his metal was good. He knew his metal could change the world. He also knew that his efforts were not appreciated but expected, by both his wife and the bureacracy and yet he kept up the appearances even if it meant doing things that he did not believe in. Rearden was a man to be respected, there is no doubt. I am sure that Dagny respected and admired him tremendously. He was very much like herself. On the other hand, John Galt was about his product, his motor, but it was more than that. I don't believe anyone left just because of Galt's motor. They left because it was a chance at freedom from bureaucracy and middlemen. I believe the only ones Galt wanted to have the benefits of 'his motor' were those who would appreciate it. Those who were like-minded in his beliefs of fair trade. He did not choose to fight the bureaucracy but chose to walk away from it: which would effectively end the 'mooching'. He did not feel the need to retaliate or seek revenge or reward anyone. In his world everyone lived on their own merits. John Galt was honorable indeed. I can still understand why Dagny chose him.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by juliej 12 years, 2 months ago
          Oh, yes, you're right. They didn't leave just because of the motor. Guess that didn't come out right.

          I didn't feel so much like Francisco was "fighting". I guess it kind of is what he was doing, but for some reason, that word doesn't quite work for me. Maybe there's a better word, but I don't know what. Anyway, yes, Galt was very honorable. Even Rearden and Francisco understood why Dagny chose him! They all looked up to him.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by mischco7 12 years, 2 months ago
            Francisco was rebelling against the system and in his efforts to rectify what he saw as an evil, he was causing harm to others. Maybe that is a better description. But he really was fighting the system that he couldn't change. He could feel satisfied in his revenge and I have to admit I cheered him on. But in reality it was not the answer to the problem.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by juliej 12 years, 2 months ago
              Of course we cheered for him. He was one of the heros! Was he rebelling? Or was he not participating? I don't know. He let them think what they wanted. He was a playboy (or so the media said), but they also thought he was very smart and tried to make money off him. Yes, he did take from the looters. He returned money to the people that the looters initially took the money from. People like James Taggart would have taken everything from Francisco and destroyed it if he hadn't stopped participating. It was better that Francisco destroyed his own mines. He destroyed them because he loved them. That's why we all cheered for him. It wasn't really revenge. Again, I don't know the exact words to describe it- I'm not so much a word person. I actually think it was the answer to the problem. They took what was rightfully theirs and then disappeared.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by mischco7 12 years, 2 months ago
                I am not sure destroying something (or someone) you love so someone else can't have it is a really good solution. I believe you can take your knowledge and walk away - since that is all that anyone can really claim is theirs.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lexington_Wood 12 years, 2 months ago
    I would have chosen Dagny. She is not a tramp. She is a person who goes for what she wants. Isn't that the message?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 12 years, 2 months ago
      That was exactly the message! Through the course of the book she seemed to be head over heels for each of these three men, all at different points in her life. As she grew and changed with the environment so did the passion she felt for each of these men.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by juliej 12 years, 2 months ago
        I agree completely. She wasn't a tramp at all. We've all moved on from previous relationships- even ones that were very passionate at the time. People change and that's ok. I loved Dagny. I thought she made the right decisions at the right times.

        I think she made the right choice in the end. I don't think she "settled" for Galt. (I'm sure you didn't mean it that way.) I don't know how she could go wrong. She was choosing from the top three! Personally, I really liked Rearden. I had a tough time getting over that, but she made the right choice for her.

        Now, if I could just find out where Rearden is hiding. Lol.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by tylerhernandez09 12 years, 2 months ago
      For someone who puts such high value on commitment and integrity in work ethic, contracts, business agreements, and ambition, Ayn Rand is very hypocritical when it comes commitment to relationships. What I mean to say is that Rand seems to advise zero commitment in relationships as long as you want something better. Yes: the point is that she goes for what she wants, but that is the problem because once she gets what she wants ( to say nothing of how men are objectified in her behavior) she is not satisfied, and she seems to have a clear conscience in so easily betraying the men in her life that she apparently loves, which is the real tragedy.

      You may have chosen Dagny, but, my friend, don't be so sure that she would have chosen you, or even stayed committed to you.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Lexington_Wood 12 years, 2 months ago
        I chose Dagny because I am a man. That was the humor of the first part of the comment. I agree with you and would never encourage an adulterous relationship. Perhaps she sees relationships as a business agreement. Everything is nice at the beginning, but then the Ms Rearden's of the world fail to live up to the contract.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by tylerhernandez09 12 years, 2 months ago
          it is one thing to turn your back on an already broken contract; quite another to turn your back on a good contract as Dagny consistently does with the good men in her life. She is not very consistent in my opinion in her philosophy.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by mischco7 12 years, 2 months ago
            I don't recall any of these men making a contract with Dagny. Did they? Why is she expected to commit when the men are not committed? You need to look at the relationships for what they are and not your biased perception of the situation.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by tylerhernandez09 12 years, 2 months ago
              True. There was nothing written on paper as far as Rearden and Dagny's relationship goes. but neither do they put anything on paper in regards to their business relationship. There is a certain amount of trust involved in relying on each other in their business relationship. Do we still feel that if Dagny had dropped out of her deal with Rearden Metal at the last possible moment that she would have done nothing to frown upon?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by mischco7 12 years, 2 months ago
                Their business dealings were confirmed verbally. Did they verbalize their commitment to their personal relationship? Reardon was committed to a woman, his wife, who had no respect for him. I don't believe Reardon and Dagny ever had a commitment in their personal relationship. She honored the commitment that he had and that was to his wife.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Lexington_Wood 12 years, 2 months ago
            That is true, in her reflections on the affairs, she sees herself as the trophy to the MOST powerful men in the world. Her significant other is her work. Her company. She believed that those men deserved to be treated like Kings, so she submitted herself to their wills. To her it was no adultery. I would dare to take a challenge from anyone who doesn't believe that Dagny's love was her work AND that Rearden hated himself for having to submit to sexual urges.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 12 years, 2 months ago
              Dagny was fine with submitting herself to their wills. She was almost proud that she was able to satisfy Rearden's urges. Rearden, on the other hand, absolutely despised that side of himself.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 12 years, 2 months ago
        However, I'll never forget Rearden's reaction after he professes his love to her and at the same time knows she has moved on from him. He is fine with it & respects her decision. It even sounded like he moved on, simply by knowing she had.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by tylerhernandez09 12 years, 2 months ago
          I do remember this scene and remember losing a great deal of respect for Rearden. This is a man who risked his marriage in being with Dagny, spent night and day flying a plane over the trees trying to find her, had built strong intimate connections with her as she had with him. I would not have been so willing to just be o.k. with things simply by knowing she had moved on.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by tylerhernandez09 12 years, 2 months ago
    quite frankly I found Dagny to be a bit of a tramp in the way she so easily jumped from one man to the next. This was a very low point for me in reading the book. I don't think she deserves any of them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by mischco7 12 years, 2 months ago
      Does anyone really deserve anyone? Is deserving someone an implication of ownership? Can a person love more than one person? Just something to think about.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jmlesniewski 12 years, 2 months ago
        There is a difference between being morally deserving of someone and being psychologically compatible with that person. Both elements are necessary for a relationship.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by mischco7 12 years, 2 months ago


          The problem is that 'morals' are not definitive. Morals to one group of people can be different to another group. Morals are personal beliefs, thus there can be no such thing as morally 'deserving' since there is no set standard for morals. Morally compatible is desirable: meaning they agree on their code of morals. I, personally, don't believe psychology has anything to do with a relationship. It is about sharing the same values and beliefs, even if they aren't the same as the majority. What matters is that they believe similarly or are willing to agree to disagree.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jmlesniewski 12 years, 2 months ago
            Morality is objective. To quote Galt's speech:
            "If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man’s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a “moral commandment” is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

            My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man’s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride."
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by mischco7 12 years, 2 months ago
              I would have to disagree that morality is objective. "A moral code is a set of abstract principles; to practice it, an individual must translate it into the appropriate concretes—he must choose the particular goals and values which he is to pursue. This requires that he define his particular hierarchy of values, in the order of their importance, and that he act accordingly." Pasted from <http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/morali...>

              According this the statement Ayn Rand made morality is abstract and we must each define our own morality to make it concrete. Galt was speaking of his chosen moral values or ethics when he said, "My morality..." Morality is not objective but subject to each person's choices according to what they value
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ jmlesniewski 12 years, 2 months ago
                No, morality is abstract, values are concrete. Morality is objective. The abstract principles are outlined in the excerpt from Galt's speech above. Values are contextual to reality and the individual. They are determined through the application of reality.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LazyLife 7 years, 11 months ago
      Me too. But this is all part of Rand's philosophy. You go with what you want. Dagny bouncing leaving Rearden for Galt is justified because it is her true desire to. If she didn't act upon that desire and decided to stay with Rearden she would be damning him, if she were in love with Galt. Rearden signing the rights to Rearden Metal away to the looters turned her off....bigtime and slapping Francisco. Trust me I wanted to throw the book against the wall when she told Rearden she was in love with another man.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by tcorm 12 years, 1 month ago
    I have to say, I personally love John - my dream man, but was rooting for Francisco and Dagny the whole book through, because he did what he did largely for her. (I am a bit of a romantic though, so I always cheer for the one who's put in the most...) Basically, I wasn't hoping she'd end up with Rearden, but either of the other two I could have been happy with, (and was.)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo