It depends on whether you have an outmoded concept of Romance or a modern concept of Romance. Frank persevered. He held on to the fortune she made for him and he lived by the values they both adhered to. If you can't understand that the problem is yours, not Frank O'Connor's and certainly not Ayn Rand's.

Well, khalling, would you like to explain specifically where you think Rand got it wrong? I'll tell you who got it wrong: Jesus Christ got it wrong! "Turn the other cheek"? Render unto Caesar"? "Sell all you have and give the money to the poor and follow me"? Dump this nonsense and move the human race forward or get out of the road!

I could definitely see this happening. As I read recently that she didn't really clarify her philosophy until she wrote the John Galt speech. Her characters were living it, but her putting it into words for the speech was the first time she had really defined much of it.

So I could see her growing and thinking, and changing her mind as she went.

I don't think Rand believed in fate. She believed in choice. Which, to me, fate takes away from what choice and free agency is all about.

You prefer Anthem because it was her first work and Rand had not fully formed her ideas. One CANNOT be a Christian and ALSO hold the virtues of selfishness as man's highest value. Give up the delusion of 'heaven' and build heaven on earth.

I disagree, Patrick, that "if you're not 100% in you are holding the movement back". Rand was, above all else, an independent thinker. Do I agree with everything she wrote? Of course not, I've always done my own thinking, and I won't give that up for anyone or anything. I don't believe that independent thinking will hold anything worthwhile back. Guess that's the reason my favorite Rand book is "Anthem".

Rand makes it clear in all her books, she does NOT believe in sexual fidelity. If a man really loves her he will understand WHY she wants and needs to be with a different man.

I find it amusing that so many modern "Christians" have glommed on to Rand's philosophy. Rand was ardently anti-Christian. You cannot USE these ideas and also adhere to the fundamental Christian principle of altruism to the poor and unfortunate.

Rand had at least one abortion and believe that abortion was a RIGHT for women. She was sexually promiscuous into her old age. She was unfaithful to her compliant husband and summarily dismissed her lovers when she was tired of them. She banished Nathaniel Brandon from her "Collective" when he was no longer able to function sexually with her. She publicly rejected the idea of "God" and intelligent creation. I say this because this is who she was and what she thought and espoused. Objectivism is a COMMITMENT. You cannot pick and choose what you'll follow and what you won't. All these ideas are reliant on each other. The values of Christ are diametrically opposed to the values of Ayn Rand. If you're not 100% in you are holding the movement back.

Yes, Rand built a logical system. That does not mean SHE was correct in her logic in every case. There is room for disagreement, at the edges and in the frontiers, just as there would be among mathematicians building a logical system such as geometry. As well, she did not solve every problem in Philosophy. One doesn't have to accept every tenet from the first exposure to the philosophy. Your last statement referring to "holding the movement back" is exactly what holds the movement back. This cult-like position of card carrying Objectivists that only certain people can understand everything she said or wrote and are therefore the only ones fit to comment or discuss.

Actually, Ayn Rand DID have all the answers. Clinging to your own middle class morality is slowing you down. You cannot 'sell all your property, give the money to the poor and follow Christ,' and also be an Objectivist. CHOOSE!

I think Rand believed in the value of a long relationship. I look to her relatioship with her husband, Frank Connor, and how long that lasted. I believe she wrote on relationships and that there was an exchange of value. I do not think she was even opposed to the notion of a stay at home mom. again the exchange of value between a husband and wife and the value placed on raising children. If one were to look at her writings ther are many cases where she romaticized these relationships. I agree in life she made a choice to not have children. This choice was again an exchange of value. I think Rand knew she could not devote the required time to her writings and have a family. Life is full of choices this was one of Rands choices.

Flash I to am pro choice. Once you make the choice to have sex you are contracted t the consequences of that choice. If conception is the result, you own that decision. with todays technology we know we are killing human beings with abortion. Just puting a label of fetus on them is like relabeling an apple an orange for the sake of argument. it is still an apple.
A is A. Stop kidding yourselves and take responibility for your choices and start thinking with your big head instead of the little one. Sorry for that last comment, I could not resist.

Dagny was always loyal to Hank, but only in friendship. It was Hank who read more into the relationship - Dagny was *always* pining after John. She just didn't know it until she met him face to face.

By the way, *heroine's* isn't possessive. It should be written *heroines.* I just have this thing about apostrophe abuse.

Barbara Brandon believed that the character of Lillian Reardon was an expression of the resentment A.R. felt for her own mother. As an evil woman, she did not deserve Hank's love, thus providing a "philosophical annulment" to the Readons' marriage and therefore justifying Hank's infidelity.

The question of loyalty is interesting. Because Dominque Francone was very complex, not dropping one for another, but very purposeful in who she chose and why. Taggart's choices seem less prominent to the story line than those in the Fountainhead, but when she drops Rearden for Galt its because she understands she needn't settle. Your question of Romantic Loyalty is interesting because you phrase it as "meeting someone better". It wasn't about just meeting someone better, it was about being with the ideal man as opposed to a man that was willing to allow others to sacrifice his efforts for their sake. One man stood against Altruism, the other was trying to co-exist with it. So it wasn't a matter of just "interesting" her, but a matter of being true to her values. She couldn't stay with Hank, knowing that she loved John, love being the highest value, or she would have been a hypocrite.

Rand's non-fiction books provide a great supplement to her novels when it comes to things such as this. If you have time you can also check out the Ayn Rand Lexicon online and look up what she has to say about Romantic Love.

But really, when you think about it, don't we all move on when we find someone else that better represents our ideal values? How many significant others did you date before you married? In Francone's case, she married to punish herself for not being brave enough to be with Roark which is different than that of Dagny. In "We the Living" Kira didn't really "hop" around so much.

The issues with Branden, well aside from their "personal" relationship, I believe there was a disagreement about certain aspects of the philosophy as it pertained to psychology (don't quote me on that) that pertained to the split too. Consider that one's arguments, or their philosophy is not invalidated by one's actions necessarily. To suggest that would be a logical fallacy. Moreover, Rand seemed to include in her writings examples of the personal shortcomings of certain characters in this regard. There is some anecdotal evidence that supports the notion that Rand would advocate that if one married another, and after some years the spouse took up a derivative of Altruism or some other repugnant ideology, one would right in parting ways.

So I guess, yes and no. You don't trade up the "homely" version of John Galt for the "holywood sexy" version of John Galt, but you don't continue to stay with a person that sacrifices themselves or their values to the undeserving, when there is another relationship with a virtuous individual that could flourish.

I think taking perspectives on romantic relationship from a person who drove her own husband into alcoholism while romancing another man 25 years younger, then telling readers that said husband was the living incarnation of the heroes in her books is, well, a bit weird.

The significance of the romantic interests in Atlas Shrugged are that at on time did Dagny tell Francisco she loved him - in fact when he would disappear for long periods, she wasn't pining after him. When Dagny met Hank, even Hank said to himself that he knew he would not be her final choice.
Here is the underlying significance:
Francisco - copper from the ground - produced raw materials
Hank - took the copper and raw materials and produced valuable man made objects
John - discoverer of harnessing static electricity - energy - which makes everything else possible

All through the book, we are talking about being able to shape the world in the image of the heroic within ourselves - the best within ourselves, and that would mean being able to take raw materials, shape them so we can use them, and all life, all purposeful activity requires energy. Without energy all would be lost. And it is in Atlas Shrugged when the lights finally go out. Does that help to explain why Dagny's character moves on? That is how I see it.

Oh my! Comments are done-I think-mostly on the fly. We all make a typo or sp error occasionally. I can't find it. Did it really detract from the point? Or maybe you were joking? I saw a reply somewhere earlier today...English teacher?

It sounds like Rand's opinion on love and marriage evolves, along with her philosophy.

Thanks for the reading suggestion!

In her early works, "The Husband I Bought" she was very much a romantic. As the title implies, the heroine married, was crazy in love and school girl happy. Then she made the ultimate sacrafice and dumped the hubby so he could pursue another who caught his eye. She always loved him but lived a secluded live alone the rest of her life. A wonderful romantic read from AR's 1920 writings.

You are asking the wrong question. First, you have to understand what you mean by loyalty. Under what circumstances is your relationship with another person (organization; institution) more important than your relationship with yourself?

What an interesting question.Yes she did ditch Hank as soon as she met John - it was like an epiphany - and when I first read it I thought it was a bit shallow.But I can't recall Dagny and Hank talking about "love and commitment" to one another. My feeling was that their relationship was predicated on strength, intellect and the need to consummate a physical union of these. Personally I would have stuck with Hank! Especially as Grant Bowler! And I think that Rands thinking was simply a precursor to the Feminist movement of latter years when women did become empowered to make their own decisions, run their own lives and not be beholden to a 'husband'.

Agreed agreed agreed! :) (That was an improper sentence, sorry.)

No. I'm just annoyed at the many spelling/grammar/punctuation errors that have become rampant. The acceptance of any and all errors seems to ratify relativism.

To my eye, Rand's writings were perfect.

English teacher?

Dagny and Hank. There was no contract or understanding in any form. Hank had a contract but it was broken by his wife's behavior.