Posted on 04/18/2009 7:45:27 AM PDT by Publius
Synopsis
It’s Thanksgiving at the Rearden home, and Hank dines in the bosom of his family of moochers and vipers. Hank’s mother’s prayer describes a country where the people lack food and housing. The Reardens have been fortunate, and Mrs. Rearden thinks Hank should toast the American people who have given him so much.
Lillian is concerned that Hank might make a stand at his trial tomorrow. He says he intends to, which prompts remonstrance from his mother. Why can’t he play by the rules, like Orren Boyle? Lillian thinks that concepts like right and wrong are irrelevant, and Hank is conceited for trying to take a stand on principle. The men whom Hank will face at the trial are weak, and their only way of getting rich is to grab the fruits of Hank’s labors. So what? That’s the human condition. Hank should abandon the illusion of his perfection and go along to get along. Nobody is right or wrong; we are all in this together.
Hank has no thought about his going to jail or what it will do to his family. Philip damns him for taking advantage of the national emergency to make money for personal gain. Hank quietly tells Philip that if he opens his mouth again, he will throw him out in the street with nothing but the clothes on his back and the change in his pocket. Philip has been living off Hank’s charity and exhausted his credit long ago. Philip decides he wants to leave – but he needs money to maintain his social position. Hank tells him that money will not come from him. Philip now thinks he needs to stay to help their mother. Hank decides to go to New York. Lillian understands and forbids him to leave, but he leaves anyway.
Hank recalls that the Wet Nurse had failed to turn him in for the Danagger sale and couldn’t explain why. Hank had told him to murder somebody quickly before the reason he didn’t turn informant destroyed his career. Despite this, he now finds the Wet Nurse hanging around the plant and engaging in hero worship.
Dagny had been experiencing one train wreck after another as the rail wore out. Jim said the track would last another year, but that’s not how it worked out. Dagny couldn’t get Rearden Metal, so she had to settle for regular steel instead. Taggart revenues are collapsing.
At the office Dagny and Eddie Willers are working through Thanksgiving as Hank shows up. Hank tells Dagny that she is going to get Rearden Metal, not steel, for the money she has spent and more of it than she paid for. He intends to give Dagny plausible deniability by tangling up the bookkeeping to the point where no auditor could hope to figure it out, except possibly to blame it on Hank. The two raid the illicit bar of the traffic manager and down a pair of brandies to drink to Thanksgiving, the holiday established by productive people to celebrate the success of their work.
The trial of Hank Rearden is not conducted under the Constitution of the United States. It’s an administrative law panel presided over by three judges from the Bureau of Economic Planning and National Resources with no jury; however, this tribunal, empowered by the directives of Wesley Mouch issued under a state of emergency, has the power to send people to prison. One judge acts as prosecutor.
The observers in the courtroom are not necessarily on the government’s side. Although the Mainstream Media had characterized Hank as an enemy of the people, these same people are there to see the inventor of Rearden Metal. They are not there out of admiration – that emotion is something Americans can no longer feel in their tribulations – but curiosity and defiance.
In the intervening weeks, Danagger Coal had fallen apart after its owner’s disappearance, and Orren Boyle’s steel girders were collapsing in construction projects across the nation and killing people; everyone in the courtroom knows that the media is hiding Boyle’s responsibility.
Hank refuses to offer a defense after the charges are read; in fact, he doesn’t even recognize the right of this so-called court to try him, nor does he recognize his actions as criminal. Hank is complying with the law to the letter; his property may be disposed of without his consent. He does not wish to be a party to this farce. Told that he must defend himself, Hank tells the court that a defense is only possible if there are objective principles that bind him and the judges to the law; in the absence of such principles the court may do as it wishes.
The judge condemns Hank for opposing the public good. Hank tells him that “good” was once a concept determined by moral values, and no one had the right to violate the rights of another. If men may sacrifice Rearden and steal his property because they need it, how does this make them any different from a burglar? At least a burglar doesn’t ask for sanction. The judge asks if Hank holds his interests above those of society. Hank says that question can only arise in a society of cannibals. If people wish to decrease his profits, they should not buy his metal; anything else is the method of the looter. If the judges wish to impose punishment, then impose it. The judge says Hank’s only alternative is to throw himself on the mercy of the court. Hank refuses; he will not do anything to facilitate this farce.
A judge demands that Hank not make it look like he is being railroaded. Realizing his mistake, the judge stops cold, but someone in the audience whistles; the cat is out of the bag. Rearden explains that they are choosing to deal with men by means of compulsion. This court is only possible when the victim permits it to be possible. If the judges wish to levy punishment and seize his property, then let them do it publicly at the point of a gun. Hank makes it clear he is working for his own property and profit; he does not seek the sanction of others for his right to exist, nor does he recognize the good of others as a justification for the seizure of his property. When looters run out of victims, the result is universal devastation. “If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public be damned. I will have no part of it!” The crowd bursts into applause.
A judge now tells Hank that the court wishes to approach him in the spirit of amity, but Hank isn’t having any of that. The judge tries to place the blame on the missing Danagger, but Hank isn’t having any of that either. The judge tries to get him to say he was working for the good of the people, but Hank shoots that one down too. Realizing that the government has badly misplayed its hand, the judges fine Hank five thousand dollars – but suspend the sentence. The crowd applauds Rearden and jeers the judges. The curtain comes down on the farce.
Dagny is elated, Lillian is noncommittal, and the Wet Nurse is sure that Hank has won. Hank explains to him that the thing that makes him sure is a moral premise. The Mainstream Media is silent, and businessmen are fearful, although some think that government controls are desirable.
Hank drops in unannounced at Francisco’s suite at the Wayne-Falkland. Francisco is thrilled to see him but hides the mechanical drawings he is working on. Hank wonders when Francisco is going to finish his talk, and Francisco tells Hank that he finished it brilliantly at his trial but three generations too late. Hank still thinks the world can be saved by fighting the looters, but Francisco tells him to read the transcript of the trial and see if he is practicing his philosophy fully. It’s too soon to finish the talk he and Hank had started at the mill.
Hank wants to know why a man like Francisco is spending his time running after loose women. Francisco asks Hank to check his premises, and he launches into his Sex Speech. Francisco admits that he has been creating a certain impression but has never slept with any of those women. He has been donning camouflage for purposes of his own; he can’t tell Hank what is going on, but he is becoming impatient with the rules he has sworn to observe. There is only one woman Francisco has ever loved, and he hopes he has not lost her.
Hank tells Francisco he is going to sell his metal to the customers of his choice, but Francisco warns him he is merely accepting the position of a criminal for the sake of keeping in place a system that can be kept going only by its victims. Hank says he is going to outlast the system, and he is one of Francisco’s best customers thanks to the work of front men. Francisco is horrified, reminding Hank that he had warned him to stay away from d’Anconia Copper. Francisco swears that Hank is his friend, no matter what he will think in the next few days. And three days later, Hank’s copper goes to the bottom of the Atlantic courtesy of Ragnar Danneskjøld.
Francisco’s Sex Speech
This is a moderately long set piece that encapsulates Rand’s philosophy of sexuality in one place. This is a blessing for the reader because her characters’ talk about sex gets tedious rather quickly, so it’s nice to get the lecture over with.
But this speech is worth a second read because it is so definitive. While Rand was no fan of the biblical sexual morality of the Fifties, one suspects she held little regard for the New Morality of the Sixties. Her standards were higher than that, if a bit odd. The Sex Speech shows that those who view Rand as a sexual libertine are wide of the mark.
Discussion Topics
Ping! The thread is up.
Earlier threads:
FReeper Book Club: Introduction to Atlas Shrugged
Part I, Chapter I: The Theme
Part I, Chapter II: The Chain
Part I, Chapter III: The Top and the Bottom
Part I, Chapter IV: The Immovable Movers
Part I, Chapter V: The Climax of the d’Anconias
Part I, Chapter VI: The Non-Commercial
Part I, Chapter VII: The Exploiters and the Exploited
Part I, Chapter VIII: The John Galt Line
Part I, Chapter IX: The Sacred and the Profane
Part I, Chapter X: Wyatt’s Torch
Part II, Chapter I: The Man Who Belonged on Earth
Part II, Chapter II: The Aristocracy of Pull
Part II, Chapter III: White Blackmail
back later
Regards
alfa6 ;>}
I just wanted to say thanks for the Atlas Shrugged threads. I’m a fan of Ayn Rand, have read Atlas twice now and have really been enjoying these threads and the questions. I’m going to have to pick up the book for a third time and start reading again. (I loved it in paperback so much I bought the hardbound version which has been the centerpiece of my formal room’s coffee table for 17 years now.)
Thanks much.
In our Freedom Fighters movement one of our stated goals is to put Atlas Shrugged on the top of The NYT Best Seller list. I have bought 3 copies as gifts so far this year.
Thank you for the thread and excellent synopsis.
It’s been about 18 years since I read the book -last week I dusted it off and am about 170 pp into it.
As with many books I go back to after a number of years- it’s been “rewritten” :) So much I don’t remember; it’s like reading it for the first time.
I found the Thanksgiving scene illuminating. Everyone avoided thanking Rearden, the only producer at the table!
I would like to add to the discussion the question of Rand's intent in using the phrase " Sanction of the victim." It seems that there are several ways to interpret the word. I found that...
1. Authoritative permission or approval that makes a course of action valid.
and...
5. A penalty, specified or in the form of moral pressure, that acts to ensure compliance or conformity.
also...
Word History: Occasionally, a word can have contradictory meanings. Such a case is represented by sanction, which can mean both "to allow, encourage" and "to punish so as to deter."
(all found on the linked page)
As was discussed on an earlier thread, Rand does not always make clear her meaning with a single phrase. Perhaps that is why the monologues make the reader feel as if he had just exposed a gem from the earth and needs to turn it around to observe it from every facet in order to understand the whole. Rand used the trial to observe her meaning of the 'sanction of the victim'.
Excellent! You got it!
Go back to the chapter where we first meet Hank, and he gives his brother some money for charity. Instead of thanks, what did Hank get?
Thank you for your hard work on these threads. I look forward to them every weekend.
It's a lot of typing, or I might have tried it myself.
I always think of the "show-trials" in the Congress - sometimes called "hearings" - at this point in the book. I, too, would love to see someone stand up in one of the hearings and "Hank" them.
From the trial...
The newspapers had snarled that the cause of the country's troubles, as this case demonstrated, was the selfish greed of rich industrialists; that it was men like Hank Rearden who were to blame for the shrinking diet, the falling temperature and the cracking roofs in the homes of the nation; that if it had not been for men who broke regulations and hampered the government's plans, prosperity would have been achieved long ago; and that a man like Hank Rearden was prompted by nothing but the profit motive. This last was stated without explanation or elaboration, as if the words "profit motive" were the self-evident brand of ultimate evil.
If that isn't directly out of today's headlines, I'm not sure what could be.
I just want to say this is an excellent idea for a thread.
We currently have many such "trials", not by a jury and not under any presumption of innocence. All of the various regulatory boards and commissions, whose members are usually political appointees, preside over "hearings". It brings to mind the clause in the Declaration of Independence "He has sent swarms of officers, to eat out our sustaining."
Another such "trial" or "hearing" is in the realm of family law. Your children can be taken from you by cps, with only a subjective suspicion of abuse, place in foster care (ultimately for adoption) and you have no legal recourse. Both you and your child have been deprived of your constitutional rights. There is no court to appeal to, you can't sue the state or county agency that took them, even if it turns out you were innocent.
PS: Did everyone see the large picture of Ayn Rand held up at the Atlanta tea party? Fox News has run that clip with her picture several times.
Yes, and senate “confirmation” hearings, which seem to be more of a stage for facilitating grandstanding and pontificating on the part of the senators than exploring the qualifications of the candidate. Wouldn’t you love to see Hank rip, say, Dianne Feinstein, Teddy Kennedy or Henry Waxman a new one?
5.56mm
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.