X-Factor Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 Hi, I have several questions with regard to Ayn Rand's novels. We could perhaps collect and answer here all the questions we have. I want to start here with two questions that came to my mind spontaneously: 1. In TF, Roark says to Wynand: "Mankind will never destroy itself, Mr. Wynand. Nor should it think of itself as destroyed." Do they talk abstractly about such a topic in such a situation - their last meeting, after Wynand has lost his fight - or am I right in gathering that Roark wants to encourage Wynand inasmuch as Wynand should not think of himself as destroyed? (p. 724, Penguin edition) 2. In AS, "[Rearden] was hearing that three ships of d'Anconia Copper (...) had been attacked by Ragnar Danneskjöld". Later (!), Danneskjöld tells Rearden: "I have never robbed a private ship". Is this a contradiction, does Danneskjöld tell a lie? Or does he tell the truth because he attacked d'Anconia Copper's ships with the consent of the owner? (pp. 458/532, Signet edition) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greebo Posted March 17, 2009 Report Share Posted March 17, 2009 2. In AS, "[Rearden] was hearing that three ships of d'Anconia Copper (...) had been attacked by Ragnar Danneskjöld". Later (!), Danneskjöld tells Rearden: "I have never robbed a private ship". Is this a contradiction, does Danneskjöld tell a lie? Or does he tell the truth because he attacked d'Anconia Copper's ships with the consent of the owner? (pp. 458/532, Signet edition) Third option: The rumors Rearden was hearing were false, and Ragnar never attacked d'Anconia Copper ships, or fourth option: perhaps by that time, d'Anconia Copper had been seized (I cannot recall, was d'Anconia Copper seized?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve D'Ippolito Posted March 17, 2009 Report Share Posted March 17, 2009 d'Anconia was utterly destroyed (by Francisco) at the moment it was to be seized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X-Factor Posted March 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2009 d'Anconia Copper was not nationalized at that point of time, and I don't see any reason why the rumors could have been false. Another question: even if Danneskjöld did not tell a lie, why didn't Rearden answer? He could not have known that Danneskjöld did it with Francisco's consent. And Rearden could certainly remember what happened; the robbery cost him his friendship with Francisco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted March 17, 2009 Report Share Posted March 17, 2009 You may want to note that Ragnar said "I have never *ROBBED* a private ship", and this is clarified when the attacks on the d'Anconia ships are described--they are sent to the bottom with their cargoes of copper intact. "No one knew why Danneskjold chose not to take the copper . . ." which, according to the novel, made the situation even more eerie and troublesome. In response to the question about Roark's statement, additionally, that is a metaphor for the fact that humans possess the faculty of free will and can choose to change their course, that the "spirit" of mankind cannot be destroyed as long as humans live. Yes, technically some physical disaster could wipe out all of human life, but no spiritual disaster can ever deny us our volition and the ability to correct our errors and go on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X-Factor Posted March 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 (edited) Thank you! Now I have a minor, technical question that has nothing to do with philosophy. In Think Twice, Serge says to Ingalls: "You had evidence against me yesterday. You didn't use it. You saved me." (Three Plays, Signet, p. 279). I know Think Twice quite well, but I couldn't figure out what was meant by evidence. What evidence did Ingalls have? Of course, this question is not important. Still, if anyone knows Think Twice well and can answer me, I'd be glad. Edited March 18, 2009 by X-Factor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 (edited) "Think Twice" is the play where the intransigent scientist murders his altruist boss to prevent him from selling a potentially deadly weapon to the Russians, isn't it? IIRC the main idea is that the scientist "frames" himself (or, makes it look like a frame-job) in order to get away with the murder. The inspector, Ingalls, initially recovers some very damning evidence, like a cigarette butt and the fact that Serge doesn't have an alibi, but it's all too pat so he doesn't go ahead and arrest Serge, but he keeps digging and detects the "frame-up". The evidence is revealed in the initial inquiry. Note: If you've got questions on Ayn Rand's fiction (except for January 16th, which I have not read) I'm probably the person around here to ask because I've read all of it numerous times and I'm a writer myself. Edited March 18, 2009 by JMeganSnow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.