"The world will not end" is a common phrase meaning that something over emphasized is not that important, not that the earth will literally disintegrate. It is not a false argument. You left out everything else Susanne wrote and jumped on that out of context.

You seem to be fixated on adultery as a central issue, without regard for context, and equating it with personal immorality, all to the point of wanting it expelled from the plot of Atlas Shrugged. It would be of more value to you to understand the theme in the Hank Rearden-Lillian-Dagny conflict, including why Hank Rearden but not Lillian was moral and why he didn't realize it.

I think you did gain value, but don't want to admit it.

You're welcome.

I don't come here to Argue, poorly, well, or otherwise. I come here for fun, for enlightenment, for enjoyment, not to spend a portion of my life in a circular diatribe where semantics of conversation are dissected, torn apart, and debated, apparently for the sake of another. That is neither enjoyable for me, nor do I find or gain value from it.

As such, continuing in this portion of this redirected (or misdirected) thread serves no valuable purpose to me. Have a good day.

You're still not arguing well.

Who said "community and adultery cannot co-exist"? I did not say that. Again you are trying to put words in my mouth.

This is a classic argument tactic used by those with weak arguments. You twist something I said into a clearly false statement thereby trying to prove my real point to be false. That kind of tactic will not work here.

I said you can't have a Gulch were adultery is common.

You are right about one thing, "Adultery is common", you just need to put that together with the fact that Gulch's are not, because,...

No morality, no gulch.

You are free to think anything you like, just don't believe everything you think.

Why not? The idea that (a) the gulch is not possible because (b) adultery is practiced there is equally as false - because were it not, NO community could survive where adultery is practiced. It's like saying humans cannot eat meat because bananas grow on trees and submarines are not made of cardboard.

There ARE an abundance of successful, thriving communities worldwide where some of the residents participate in adultery – in fact, I would gather to say that the majority of large communities have at least one couple practicing what you define as “adultery”. By some community standards, those who divorce and remarry are committing adultery, and yet the communities they live in have yet to dissolve.

I have 3 issues with your current (and apparently false) assertions -

(1) One is a morality argument, where you claim your personal view on morality is the only one possible, and that those who do not subscribe to your personal assignment of what is "moral" must fail.

(2) Two is the false conclusion that community and adultery cannot co-exist, that one MUST preclude another.

And of course, (3) is the absolute deflection and attempt at derailment of this thread (which is about the AS miniseries) to a personal morality crusade, which is, in my OPINION, seems less like a contribution and more like an attempt to stir up emotions by introduction of a subject entirely unrelated to the topic at hand.

Of course the world will not end. That is a false argument.

Who said the world was going to end? You said it, not me. And you said it to distract from the real point.

Further, you said "We", but is there someone with you writing your post? Or are you trying to fake false support for your position?

The real point is that the idea nature of the Gulch is not possible when adultery is common.

Learn to argue fair and rationally if you want to live in the Gulch.

Who really cares what she did in her personal life? What difference does it make? Really, in the grand scheme of things... is the world going to end because she was in an open marriage? We think... not.

Good comments ewv.
One of the key themes is the internal struggle going on in Rearden's life.
To Rearden, the voluntary contract is sacrosanct, even tho' a mistake, even
tho' it protects the 'despicable' Lilian.
This gains him great sympathy from readers especially as a resolution evolves.
Rearden puts his work above his personal happiness.
Changes in the plot- agreed, not for satisfying traditional mores, but to appeal
to a bigger market, but do not weaken the themes or the philosophy.
Rearden again- one of my favorite characters because of this anguish and suffering
due to mistaken values.
Decisions are thought thru carefully and once a decision is made it is flat out action.

What has been decided about the time period? Are they going to keep it with the railroads era? I think that would be more effective to showcase an industry that has for all intents and purposes "died" already....comments?

The heroes in Atlas Shrugged were moral. Immorality was not invited to the Valley. The purpose of the scenes in the Valley was to show how rational, moral people interact with each other. It was based on values, not random, hedonistic sex and not traditionalist duty ethics.

Adultery is not the central issue of morality, the purpose of morality is not collectivist benefit for society, and there is no duty to live in misery as sacrifice to the wrong person improperly selected.

The purpose of moral principles is to provide the standard for choices and actions in one's life, not to hold society together, which is a collectivist standard. The basic principles of a rational moral code for the individual precede the principles of how to interact rationally with others.

Ayn Rand did not reject life-long marriage to the right person, but did reject a duty to sacrifice to the wrong person mistakenly chosen.

It would not have been better for the plot of Atlas Shrugged if Hank Rearden had divorced his despicable wife Lillian earlier. His mistaken adherence to conventional duties and what it took for him to resolve the conflicts it caused is a central theme that progresses through the novel. It would have been better for such a person to have dumped Lillian sooner, but not for the plot of Atlas Shrugged, which should not be changed in film productions to satisfy the traditionalism that Ayn Rand rejected and replaced with a moral revolution that took time for Hank Rearden to grasp..

Yes Ayn Rand had an affair with Branden, but the account you got depends on what movie you are talking about. If you mean the Barbara Branden version, the whole thing was a smear job. This topic and the broader context have been discussed on this forum several times.

One from a few months ago is at https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

An earlier one from a few years ago is https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

The rather peculiar affair with Branden was done openly with their spouses' full knowledge but they otherwise kept it private until Branden publicly attacked her much later, exploiting it to misrepresent and undermine her as a diversion from his own actions.

The affair itself was badly rationalized, but not the typical cheating, dishonestly secret affair you would ordinarily think of. She later strongly rejected the practice in a public forum, in answer to a question, as unworkably improper, and she never did advertise or publicly advocate it.

You can get some insights into why at the time she thought they had to try it, and read the account of the rest of the break with Branden and its cause (which was not the earlier affair) in James Valliant's The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, based on her personal journals contrasted with the public accusations from the Brandens.

I don't know why at the time she did not realize the personal harm the affair with Branden was causing because she always loved her husband, but she thought it was justified at the time. She generally lived a principled life, with great integrity, adhering to the principles she publicly espoused. She had no "bent" for "personal immorality".

But she also did not condone conventional views on morality; don't confuse rejecting religious duties with personal morality. The Objectivist ethics is based on individual pursuit of happiness in accordance with rational values and causal principles, not submissive duty in accordance with dogma dictated by others.

You can read more about her personal life in several books based on accounts of people who knew her, including Scott McConnell's 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand, Jeff Britting's Ayn Rand, and Mary Ann and Charles Sures' Facets of Ayn Rand, and watch the Paxton film documentary Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life. You will not find a "bent" for "personal immorality".

Cherryl's suicide. . . I think it's just as well to leave that out of a movie. Without the insight into her psyche that the book provides, her action makes no sense--and even with that, it seems off. I mean, if you discover your husband is a killer, you either divorce him, run from him, or kill him; you don't kill yourself.

I agree that it was a mistake to make Eddie Willers the only black character in the movie. One or two of the businessmen Galt convinces to go on strike could have been black. And if they could have found someone in the mold of a young Denzel Washington, he'd have made a much better Ellis Wyatt than the one they actually had.

Agreed. As much as I liked the movies (and even contributed to the last), the changes of the actors was discouraging. Especially those changes in which there were a discernible age difference from one movie to the next. Francisco and Reardon were particularly difficult to reconcile.

I don't know about one chapter/one episode though. I think it could move along a bit faster.

Well, maybe not quite as fast. But I do take your point. Failure to recognize the validity of lifelong marriage is one of the few flaws I have found in the Objectivist system--at least as Rand describes it.

Adultery will make it fall apart just as fast as the items you listed.

In the movie about her she was having an affair. Was this part fiction?

No Morality, no Gulch. It won't be sustainable.

You want to do business with someone sleeping with your husband or wife?

It should go from the end of atlas shrugged FORWARD.

It could be decently done in a few 3-hour episodes.
I have thought a lot about how to write such a script.
Not making a brag of being a great writer, but it would be a matter of knowing what to discard and what to keep. Some flashbacks of Dagny's childhood; and a few of Rearden's courtship of Lillian, showing her and her family as a bunch of
snobs, but her fooling him into thinking her a woman who appreciated industry; the disappoint-
ing wedding night; one scene of his natural desire driving him to her bed, with her resuming
reading a book before he is out of the room, etc.;
The scene with Jeff Allen telling Dagny about the
Twentieth Century Motor Factory, perhaps with
silent scenes with him narrating in the background (and maybe one or two scenes of
Ivy Starnes uttering her nasty remarks); a few
things like that. It would be much longer than a
movie, but as a mini-series, it might go. The
Winston Tunnel incident could be an excellent
episode in itself.
Also, where Philip tries to threaten Rearden into giving him a job, and Rearden, walking
away, stops and looks at him; showing the dangerous machinery, liquid metal being poured,
etc., and Philip breaking out into a cold sweat.--Sort of straight copy from the book.

Plus, the Wet Nurse didn't even get killed. That was
a moving event in the book.--Also, I thought it was a mistake to make Eddie Willers black; given his com-
plete subordination to Dagny, it would have made him an Uncle Tom stereotype, except that they didn't emphasise him that much in the movie.