If all the heroes had in their first confrontation of abuse told off their persecutors and stormed off there would have been no story. Atlas Shrugged showed why so many good people put up with so much and what it takes to answer it. Rearden had to realize that he was right and find the explanation. The "cheating" was the result of false premises, for which he suffered with unearned guilt; he didn't think with or have the motives of the mentality of a cheater.

Besides, "storming" and "telling off" are not the behavior of rational people. When you see someone contemptible you recognize it for what it is and go back to your own values, not dwelling on it with the self-punishment of wallowing in it. If it's an injustice perpetrated by force or fraud, then you deal with that rationally. But what good is throwing a fit over it? Why waste energy and time on the contemptible through emotional self-explosions? There is so much more to life.

The slow learner comment was meant to be a joke. His character was obviously meant to be shown as a brilliant, hard working man with the struggles you described..

I understand your viewpoint on this and intend to reread Atlas with this in mind, however I still believe the same point could have been portrayed by his character simply telling off Lillian and storming off to fall into the arms of Dagny, in that order. To me, that would have proven his integrity even more. Like I have said before, I lose respect for those who cheat in a relationship that is perceived to be committed by the other party, no matter the circumstances.

Agreed

Rearden wasn't a slow learner; like countless others he had absorbed the false moral premises spewed at him from all directions with no challenge from the intellectuals. As a man of exceptional integrity he took it more seriously, with concomitantly more serious destructive consequences.

Part of Rearden's exceptionalism was his devotion in his career in metallurgy and manufacturing, but that single minded focus left him vulnerable to philosophical ideas he didn't know to watch out for. Like so many other good people in science, engineering, medicine and other fields of intelligence not focusing on fundamental philosophical ideas that are crucial to their lives, he didn't know to 'check his philosophical premises'; he let the ends of his productive achievement be turned over to his enemies. It wasn't just his relation to Lillian -- you saw it throughout the novel in his sacrificial alms through his brother and how he was one of the last to join the strike.

Rearden wasn't alone; we see it everywhere. Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged to correct it by showing the necessity for a revolutionary new ethics and its content. Her primary purpose in writing the novel was to show in fictional form her vision of the "ideal man", with the plot-theme of the role of the mind in human life. It took someone with exceptional ability, like John Galt in the novel (and Ayn Rand in reality), to sort out the bad philosophy and replace it with proper ideas, then fight for them throughout the conflicts portrayed in the plot. That took a lot more than just not being a slow learner.

In a lecture presenting her "The Objectivist Ethics" at MIT in 1962 Ayn Rand included a special introduction for "the students who are to be America's scientists", reprinted as "To Young Scientists" in her anthology The Voice of Reason. In that introduction she focused on the "alleged dichotomy between science and ethics" in which the results of rational thought are turned over in principle to the irrational in the name of ethics. In Atlas Shrugged Hank Rearden illustrated the unwitting acceptance of that scam. He learned and corrected it. Robert Stadler did not, and choosing to not face it destroyed himself -- the fast learner who chose not to think.

He shouldn't have married Lillian at all, but if all the heroes in the novel had known at the beginning what they learned by the end there would be no story illustrating how and why they had to learn it.

Yes, he was a slow learner I guess... Ha! As I mentioned earlier, I will reread Atlas with this new perspective in mind. Thanks!

You bring up some good points. It has been quite some time since I last read Shrugged. You have convinced me to dust it off and give it another go with a new perspective to consider. Since I was on the receiving end of an unfaithful spouse, my perspective is going to naturally be skewed by this topic. I cannot blame Hank for falling in love with Dagny, but as you stated, he should have dumped Lillian long before his relationship with Dagny turned physical.

"'If you care to glance over those front pages, you'll see that I've never said anything. It was the women who were eager to rush into print with stories insinuating that being seen with me at a restaurant was the sign of a great romance. What do you suppose those women are after but the same thing as the chaser—the desire to gain their own value from the number and fame of the men they conquer? Only it's one step phonier, because the value they seek is not even in the actual fact, but in the impression on and the envy of other women. Well, I gave those bitches what they wanted—but what they literally wanted, without the pretense that they expected, the pretense that hides from them the nature of their wish. Do you think they wanted to sleep with me or with any man? They wouldn't be capable of so real and honest a desire. They wanted food for their vanity—and I gave it to them. I gave them the chance to boast to their friends and to see themselves in the scandal sheets in the roles of great seductress. But do you know that it works in exactly the same way as what you did at your trial? If you want to defeat any kind of vicious fraud—comply with it literally, adding nothing of your own to disguise its nature. Those women understood. They saw whether there's any satisfaction in being envied by others for a feat one has not achieved. Instead of self-esteem, their publicized romances with me have given them a deeper sense of inferiority: each one of them knows that she's tried and failed. If dragging me into bed is supposed to be her public standard of value, she knows that she couldn't live up to it. I think those women hate me more than any other man on earth. But my secret is safe—because each one of them thinks that she was the only one who failed, while all the others succeeded, so she'll be the more vehement in swearing to our romance and will never admit the truth to anybody.'

"'But what have you done to your own reputation?'

"Francisco shrugged. 'Those whom I respect, will know the truth about me, sooner or later. The others'—his face hardened—'the others consider that which I really am as evil. Let them have what they prefer—what I appear to be on the front pages.'

"'But what for? Why did you do it? Just to teach them a lesson?'

"'Hell, no! I wanted to be known as a playboy.'

"'Why?'

"'A playboy is a man who just can't help letting money run through his fingers.'

"'Why did you want to assume such an ugly sort of role?'

"'Camouflage.'

"'For what?"

"For a purpose of my own.'

"'What purpose?'

"Francisco shook his head. 'Don't ask me to tell you that. I've told you more than I should. You'll come to know the rest of it soon, anyway.'"

-- Atlas Shrugged Part Two / Chapter IV "The Sanction Of The Victim"

"He took her hands and pressed them to his lips and held them, not moving, not as a kiss, but as a long moment of rest, as if the effort of speech were a distraction from the fact of her presence, and as if he were torn by too many things to say, by the pressure of all the words stored in the silence of years.

"'The women I chased—you didn't believe that, did you? I've never touched one of them—but I think you knew it, I think you've known it all along. The playboy—it was a part that I had to play in order not to let the looters suspect me while I was destroying d'Anconia Copper in plain sight of the whole world. That's the joker in their system, they're out to fight any man of honor and ambition, but let them see a worthless rotter and they think he's a friend, they think he's safe—safe!—that's their view of life, but are they learning!—are they learning whether evil is safe and incompetence practical!… Dagny, it was the night when I knew, for the first time, that I loved you—it was then that I knew I had to go. It was when you entered my hotel room, that night, when I saw what you looked like, what you were, what you meant to me—and what awaited you in the future. Had you been less, you might have stopped me for a while. But it was you, you who were the final argument that made me leave you. I asked for your help, that night—against John Galt. But I knew that you were his best weapon against me, though neither you nor he could know it. You were everything that he was seeking, everything he told us to live for or die, if necessary.… I was ready for him, when he called me suddenly to come to New York, that spring...'"

-- Atlas Shrugged Part Three / Chapter II "The Utopia Of Greed"

Being caught in the contradictions of accepting a duty to sacrifice is not rational. He had to correct that error before getting out from Lillian. It wasn't about contracts treated as a floating abstraction.

You aren't supposed to blame him. The proper reaction is, without reservations after seeing the philosophical reasons so vividly illustrated, to cheer him on for "seeing the light" philosophically and dramatically acting on it. It's much more than someone finally ending a bad marriage. He paid a lawyer to do whatever it took to end the marriage without payments to Lillian, defying the philosophically corrupt laws, for the same reason he ended his claimed duty to sacrifice to Lillian.

You have missed the whole point of the Rearden-Dagny relationship in the plot. He did not "trade one guilt for another". He suffered unearned guilt for following destructive moral duty premises.

https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

The relation between Rearden and Dagny was a rational pursuit of legitimate values, undermined by unearned guilt because Rearden clung to a false duty to the irrational. The development of the characters and their intellectual understanding was not about a floating abstraction of a "contract".

Adhering to the irrational "contract" with Lillian was in fact a moral issue, but a consequence of adhering to the false duty-morality underlying it, which was part of the story. Lillian Rearden's behavior for years before that was inexcusable and was not the basis of the original marriage. Of course he should have told Lillian, far before Dagny, and dumped her. The plot was about why he didn't because of the destructive nature of his false traditional premises, not "justifying secret affairs". That he didn't was a deliberate point of tension in the plot until it was resolved with an understanding of the proper morality near the end -- just like the rest of the plot about the 'strike' and the intellectual development of the heroes who had rejected it. The description of the divorce at the end of the Lillian saga was included for a dramatic, climactic illustration of Rearden's new understanding and his sudden change in putting it into unequivocal action.

If you don't understand what you call a "distraction" of the relation between Rearden and Dagny and how the conflict evolved and was ultimately resolved in the plot, you are missing a big piece of the plot and theme of the whole novel -- and Ayn Rand's philosophy that made it all possible. It was not about sanctioning religious conservativism or a-philosophical libertarian "contracts".

No one is making "excuses" for the Ayn Rand/Branden affair. She did not "cheat" in her personal life as was falsely accused.

It does refer to Calvin, from an old joke. Wikipedia has the joke:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolidg...

I don't really get the polygamy thing either, but to each their own.

I certainly don't have any sympathy for Lillian. I was only disappointed with Hank's decision to break his contract without giving notice of his intent to do so. Secretly breaking a contract behind someone's back is not rational in my mind.

Well, Francisco wasn't really a promiscuous "p****",
if that's what you mean, he was only pretending to
be, because of his mission--a sort of camouflage.

So what is the etymology of the "Coolidge" in "Coolidge effect"? Does it refer to Calvin? (Or
have I inadvertently misspelled "Coolige"?)

Polygamy is something I would never tolerate if I
were to be married; I believe that self-respecting people stick to one at a time. But I would make
that clear before getting married. Also, I would not act as Lillian did, constantly putting her husband's career down, and refusing to give him
any satisfaction even in the sex act itself. (I
understand that this was deliberate on her part).
In fact, she was glad when she found he was
having an adulterous affair, not objecting until she found it was with Dagny, somebody who was not a slut. She enjoyed the idea that he had done something that caused him to feel guilty. I really have not much sympathy for her at all.

I don't blame him for using that bribery; he was op-
pressed, and held in chains, as Ayn Rand said.

So Henry traded one "guilt" for another. The guilt of actually breaking a contract and having a secret affair should outweigh the guilt of telling your spouse you want to end your marriage. He had every right, responsibility in fact, to leave Lillian so he could pursue his own self interest. Once he made his intentions of leaving his wife clear to her, then I would see no problem pursuing the affair, even before the divorce is finalized. Waiting on a legal or government action should not hinder a man from pursuing self interest. While she may have broken the marriage contract through her actions of not "honoring" her husband, what does it say about Hank when he does the same thing on his end by sleeping with Dagny before making his intentions clear of leaving his wife. This is the rationale of typical irrational people living in every neighborhood in the United States now. Let's just go have an affair to pursue our self interest, marriage contract be damned. What good is a man's word if he can't even uphold a marriage contract?

Not sure if Escepito's term of "featured" in describing the cheating in Atlas is the best descriptor, but it happened in the book well before Reardon tried to divorce his wife. I agree that we should not cling to a conventional ethics of duty without gaining benefit to ourselves, but marriage is a contract. The contract could and should have been broken in their situation, no doubt, however it should have been made known prior to the affair. You are trying to justify that having a secret affair on your spouse is fine if they are a terrible person and "deserve" it, or if your own happiness will suffer if you do not have an affair. In my opinion, Hank should have voiced his intention of leaving Lillian prior to his affair with Dagny. This has to do with honoring contracts, not moral convention.

I am not overly familiar with the details of Rand's own affair, however the timing of her husband's knowledge of the affair would be critical in my not being distracted by her actions.

Let me be clear, I adore Ayn Rand, what she accomplished, and what she stood for. Just because there is one action of her personal life that I may not agree with, does not make her less of an influence on my life and countless others' lives. I also very much love Atlas Shrugged, even with the "distraction" (in my opinion) of adultery between the two main characters.

Rand was a human being, much more rational than a typical human, but still fallible. There does not need to be an excuse made for any irrational behavior she may or may not have exhibited at times.

It's a pseudo-scientific speculation about humans invoking determinism with no regard for human conceptual values.

Rearden didn't give Lillian notice and try to divorce her because he was still conflicted with unearned guilt from unquestioned bad conventional moral premises of 'faithful duty' no matter what. Divorce was legally difficult at the time (for the same reasons), but false morality, not difficult legality, was driving his actions.

When he did finally bolt after Lillian made the necessity so snarlingly obvious, he did what it took to get the divorce despite the improper legal obstructionism:

"He had handed to his attorney a signed blank check and said, 'Get me a divorce. On any grounds and at any cost. I don't care what means you use, how many of their judges you purchase or whether you find it necessary to stage a frame-up of my wife. Do whatever you wish. But there is to be no alimony and no property settlement.' The attorney had looked at him with the hint of a wise, sad smile, as if this were an event he had expected to happen long ago. He had answered, 'Okay, Hank. It can be done. But it will take some time.' 'Make it as fast as you can.'"

None of that "featured cheating" and Ayn Rand did not "cheat". The relation between Rearden and Dagny featured two strong characters rationally and honestly pursuing proper values, one of whom, as part of the plot, had not yet discovered why he should have much earlier jettisoned his nihilistic wife because he was still clinging to a conventional ethics of duty without regard to context and rational goals.

The plot and characterization showed Rearden as conflicted with unearned guilt as he pursued what was in fact right, not as a cheater by nature, denying reality. They were also the last two major characters to understand the logic of the strike. That development of the characters in the plot, discovering proper principles and overthrowing false premises leading to unearned guilt, is what was significantly "featured", not "cheating". Don't switch the featuring of Rearden and Dagny's relationship in the plot to the ugly accusation of "featuring cheating".

Ayn Rand did not cheat in her personal life. Her affair with Branden was done openly with their spouses' full knowledge. It was badly rationalized, not "brazen" (and Ayn Rand later denounced the practice as unworkabley improper), but it was not intentionally dishonest and not cheating. Branden's dishonesty came later after the affair was long over, and his betrayals led to his being expelled and permanently repudiated. See James Valliant's The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics.

These kind of fictional devices and personal choices are frequently exploited by cynically snarling haters of Ayn Rand to smear her, including inflammatory one-liners liners like the context-dropping "cheater" accusation (and similar misrepresentations of "rape" in The Fountainhead). Don't fall for it.

The Coolidge effect deals with sexual activity of animals --- including humans. In biology and psychology, the Coolidge effect is a phenomenon seen in animal species whereby animals (males and females) exhibit renewed sexual interest if introduced to new receptive sexual partners, even after cessation of sex with prior but still available sexual partners.

If divorce was not an option, and if Hank proclaimed his "divorce" like you suggested, then I would have had no problem with his actions. Lillian was a terrible wife, and Hank had every reason to leave her.

As far as Dagny, it isn't as significant to me, because she did not enter any contract of marriage. It wasn't her contract to break. I have never personally been a fan of someone who interferes with another's marriage, but it is ultimately the married parties who are responsible. So, I guess it only made me feel sorry for Dagny that she had to go and fall for someone already "committed." I feel like she loved Francisco more than Hank, but he was a prick, so she ended up with the married guy instead... ha!