Did Rand believe in Romantic Loyalty?
Posted by FlashGordon 10 years, 8 months ago to Culture
If you read Rand's novels her female heroine's always seem to just move on to a better man if one appears. In fact I thought of renaming Atlas Shrugged to "Who's Hank Rearden" because she just seems to forget about Hank when she meets John Galt. So did Rand believe if you meet someone "better" and they're interested in you, you just move on? I know she got upset with N. Branden when he picked someone else (we're all human). So those that study Rand more seriously than me, did she believe in marriage (ignore the question of children for the moment) or other forms of romantic committment?
Previous comments...
To my eye, Rand's writings were perfect.
2. She sneered at his work on which she lived.
3. The partnership implied by marriage had barely existed,
take this as grounds for annulment rather than divorce perhaps.
Marriage is a contact, in romantic love, where it is two way, what is offered and exchanged is recognition of values and support for if not active participation in each others chosen life efforts. In this Hank, a straightforward man, made a bad choice, Lilian was simply an exploiter. Old school readers of AS would expect to read how Hank (and Francisco) land on their feet and find women worthy. But AS is the story of the lead woman, not surprisingly.
In AS, compare this with the marriage of Ragnar and (sorry forgot the name). She may not have taken part in or planned the raids or even approve. She would have given support to Ragnar and certainly would not have sneered. Ragnar's values were admired/loved. Lilian only loved Hank's money. There was no marriage. Clearly annulment is applicable.
There *is* a part in the contract: "for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health", then that part about "...'til death do us part".
I'm glad to know that I can feel free to violate any contract I sign because, in my opinion, the other signer(s) of the contract aren't fulfilling their part of it.
It might be grounds for divorce or annulment. But it's not grounds for arbitrarily violating the contract because his organ gets hard for another woman.
We may differ on whether a contract agreed on false assumptions is valid. In this case, Hank was naive, Lillian was a gold digger who mislead about intentions. If I take the position of judge, which I do, there was no contract.
"for better for worse," but for who, or for what? The words are for the couple not the individual. It got worse, but not for them both as a couple, one person inflicted humiliation on the other, made no contribution but only took. To argue otherwise is to say that allowing unexpected degradation to oneself is part of that contract. A conservative may say ok, I do not.
Sex in marriage- an implicit part of that contract, a contract to be legal does not have to be written. I understand that in the Catholic church withdrawal is grounds for annulment, the wider society and law would concur.
Some religions have a stricter view than that, is it the Mormons? There is no divorce, no annulment and no remarriage, ever. I take your second sentence as almost supporting that view short of recognizing death as ending the contract.
A contract can be between unequal persons, say one rich, one poor. There again assumptions are needed as to what each must do to fulfill their bargain. In this story, Hank may not have performed well, but he could, (he was rejected as a man in all that means). Lilian would not fulfill expectations except in trivia. Therefore contract void.
In AS, Rand gives us another example of a marriage that failed. Cheryl Brooks entered with fine intentions and views but unfortunately with limited information. James Taggert had no intentions, no views, a complete contradiction of Rand's view of romantic love. Should Cheryl have held on despite being misled? Was it her fault as she did not think hard enough before signing? Should she have accepted the role of a dish-rag? What she actually did after the real James was revealed was a tragedy as she again did not think it thru. A more logical even if not stronger person would have torn up that worthless contract.
I'm interested in what other Rand readers say.