How does one justify the rape of Dominique in FH?

[Dominique]

Now, as for my opinion of your post: I enjoyed every letter of it! :DB) As I said on your intro thread, I found it wonderfully spunky of you to sign up under the name Dominique, and this comment was even more so!

Thanks CF. I knew you would get a kick out of it

[Capitalism Forever]

Now to get back on topic:

Your Honor,

I find it surprising that the Prosecution has not mentioned the incident that occurred during Mr. Roark's visit to Mr. Mallory's apartment, a description of which can be seen in Exhibit A, which has been taken from Chapter XI of Part 2:

Stepping back, Roark brushed against a table loaded with junk. Something clattered to the floor. Mallory jerked forward, trying to reach it first. Roark pushed his arm aside and picked up the object.

It was a small plaster plaque, the kind sold in cheap gift shops. It represented a baby sprawled on its stomach, dimpled rear forward, peeking coyly over its shoulder. A few lines, the structure of a few muscles showed a magnificent talent that could not be hidden, that broke fiercely through the rest; the rest was a deliberate attempt to be obvious, vulgar and trite, a clumsy effort, unconvincing and tortured. It was an object that belonged in a chamber of horrors.

Mallory saw Roark's hand begin to shake. Then Roark's arm went back and up, over his head, slowly, as if gathering the weight of air in the crook of his elbow; it was only a flash, but it seemed to last for minutes, the arm stood lifted and still--then it slashed forward, the plaque shot across the room and burst to pieces against the wall. It was the only time anyone had ever seen Roark murderously angry.

If the gentlemen from the Prosecution find it appropriate to press rape charges against Mr. Roark for what happened on that night in Connecticut, why do they not also press destruction-of-property charges against him for the action above? Could it be because it never occurred to them--like it probably never occurred to anyone else--to think of the shattering of that ugly symbol of Mr. Mallory's hopelessness as something Mr. Mallory would object to? When the Prosecution was reading Chapter XI of Part 2, were they grasping--perhaps subconsciously--that consent need not always be explicit, let alone verbal? That the fact that Mr. Roark knew Mr. Mallory would consent to his action was all that was needed for it to be rightful?

If one believes that an action as destructive as this, performed upon another person's property without any consultation or negotiation with the owner at all, can be rightful by virtue of the mere certainty that the owner will consent, how much less persuading ought one to need of the rightfulness of that action which is performed after a series of invitations expressed in manifold fashions persisting over several weeks, in addition to the knowledge of the inviter's manifest desire for the action to take place?

The Defense rests its case.

[Dominique]

If one believes that an action as destructive as this, performed upon another person's property without any consultation or negotiation with the owner at all, can be rightful by virtue of the mere certainty that the owner will consent, how much less persuading ought one to need of the rightfulness of that action which is performed after a series of invitations expressed in manifold fashions persisting over several weeks, in addition to the knowledge of the inviter's manifest desire for the action to take place?

Interesting parallel, but is it really the same? Because that action was clearly an expression of anger. Roark was not acting out of anger in the context of the *rape* scene. It was deliberate and controlled behavior then, but this scene you quote is reflexive, and Mallory tried to prevent him from seeing the plaque, (jerking forward trying to reach it first) and knew it would upset Roark. I don't know if it's exactly giving consent for him to throw it.

Not that I want to argue the point you're making, because I agree it wasn't rape of course as I mentioned, but I just don't know if this scene really reinforces the point.

[Myself]

That the fact that Mr. Roark knew Mr. Mallory would consent to his action was all that was needed for it to be rightful?

As Dominique has pointed out that passage has not bolstered your argument, though for a different reason than she pointed out. To refer back to your quote Roark knew that Mallory wouldn't retaliate because he had seen previous examples of his real work had conversed with him up to that scene realizing what an atrocity that piece was. In my earlier post I had commented on acting by assumptions and inferences, not knowledge. Roark possessed knowledge in this case of Mallory's character.

Now to address the original topic of the rape "charges", Roark acted - but this time not based on knowledge. He drew conclusions from hints and subtle actions that that was what Dominique wanted. The evidence that he used to draw those conclusions are shaky, but as it turned out he was right. As RationalCop pointed out though, sometimes it is necessary to act on limited data. Your argument if I am interpreting you correctly is that you don't need explicit permission to take questionable actions if you "know" those actions would be sanctioned? Where is your knowledge coming from? Is your "knowledge" based on inferences or is it based on objective reality and conclusions drawn from that knowledge? This is the difference between the "rape" scene and Mallory's scene - one was based on wordless assumptions and the other was based on knowledge of the person's character and work. The analogy doesn't hold.

[Dominique]

As Dominique has pointed out that passage has not bolstered your argument, though for a different reason than she pointed out. To refer back to your quote  R Is your "knowledge" based on inferences or is it based on objective reality and conclusions drawn from that knowledge? This is the difference between the "rape" scene and Mallory's scene - one was based on wordless assumptions and the other was based on knowledge of the person's character and work. The analogy doesn't hold.

One thing though is that throughout the novel Dominique and Roark have a wordless relationship. I think it is even mentioned several times that no words were needed between them. Since Objectivism does not leave room for ESP, how are they able to carry on these conversations and understandings? How do they "know" for the entirety of the book what each other wants? Are they making it up and deluding themselves the whole time, or are they super aware of reality and also each consistent personalities who can be understood by each other in this way? It is knowledge of each other's character, just as he had for Mallory, but you separate them because in Mallory's case Roark had seen his work? Or maybe because there were fewer words between Roark and Dominique then between Roark and Mallory? But both scenes occured early in the relationships, I don't see how it constitutes "knowledge" over assumptions in this instance. I think it has more to do with the fact that when he saw her as with when he saw Mallory he recognized himself in them, a certain type of person, and could judge their responses in that way. I think it is also a matter of self esteem, where he could focus on the subleties because he cuts to the chase, he doesn't get distracted or have low self esteem to cloud his judgement, and so can make good judgements with less info than most people could dare to do.

(I don't have the book handy or I'd quote specific examples, perhaps I can do that when I get home if it is neccessary.)

[Myself]

I think it is also a matter of self esteem, where he could focus on the subleties because he cuts to the chase, he doesn't get distracted or have low self esteem to cloud his judgement, and so can make good judgements with less info than most people could dare to do.

(I don't have the book handy or I'd quote specific examples, perhaps I can do that when I get home if it is neccessary.)

Roark and Dominique do have wordless relationship for most of the novel, but this I think comes from the high compatibility, sense of life, and values they shared. In the quarry scene and the "rape" scene I don't know where Roark derived his evaluation of her character. At this point perhaps the only thing he knew about her was that she was Francon's daughter (a man he wasn't overly fond of) that she ran a petty column in a newspaper he hated (he might have known), and that she exhibited interest in him by her staring. How did he know what sort of a person she was? At this stage in their relationship a wordless existence shouldn't be possible or rational.

There was no indication that she was what could be considered "Objectvist" by his previous knowledge. Therefore his actions were based on more impressions and assumptions than knowledge. In Mallory's case it was more intimate and revealing to see his work, the prime function of his consciousness than to have explicitly asked him "Is it okay that I smash this betryal and symbol of suffering to everything your work exhibits? On a side note now that I am writing this: what was Dominique's focus in life? She didn't really have a career (Her column was a joke even to herself) and remarked to Alvah (sorry no direct quote) that it was basically staving off boredom. Much of her life in the book was spent being married and doing nothing, in the end marrying Roark and (presumably) doing nothing. What a change from Dagny Taggart another of Rand's female protagonist's who was obssessed by working.

To summarize the original intent of my post: Because Roark had no concrete knowledge of Dominique's character their "wordless behavior" in the beginning should be different than their behavior later on. Also in your post you mentioned (quote above) that Roark having a high self-esteem would allow him to make judgements on less info. Can you make a judgement on info that doesn't exist? Also while having low self esteem does cloud judgement it doesn't change the amount of data available. Having high self esteem removes the cloud but again, both people work from the same amount of info regardless. Also can you explain how a person can draw conclusions on small amounts of data without assuming cetain premises. When is there enough data?

[BurgessLau]

Also can you explain how a person can draw conclusions on small amounts of data without assuming cetain premises. When is there enough data?

I suggest you take this question -- a crucial one for all of us -- to the Epistemology forum.

Also, please learn to use the bracket commands. You have reversed them above. The sequence should be [ quote] xxxxxx [ /quote], for example. (I added a space after each [ to keep the commands from executing.)

BASIC QUESTIONS MODERATOR

[Edited to add a paren.]

Edited January 25, 2005 by BurgessLau

[BurgessLau]

Roark and Dominique do have wordless relationship for most of the novel [...]

Not in the copy of The Fountainhead that I read.

I just now opened at random my version of the story looking for a "wordless" interaction between Dominique and Roark. I found this instead, near the end, in Part IV, Chapter 17, second scene (on the third full page of the chapter, in my copy): a dramatic, tense, wordful scene filled with meaning and emotion far beyond the words themselves. They are discussing Gail Wynand. Roark makes an exception -- a sign of love for Wynand -- in momentarily asking for pity for him. Dominique wordfully reminds Roark of the context.

Powerful dialogue -- for a wordless relationship!

"Myself," what is your underlying point in your continuing assault on Ayn Rand's characters and, by implication, on Ayn Rand herself?

[Myself]

Not in the copy of The Fountainhead that I read.

I just now opened at random my version of the story looking for a "wordless" interaction between Dominique and Roark. I found this instead, near the end, in Part IV, Chapter 17, second scene (on the third full page of the chapter, in my copy): a dramatic, tense, wordful scene filled with meaning and emotion far beyond the words themselves. They are discussing Gail Wynand. Roark makes an exception -- a sign of love for Wynand -- in momentarily asking for pity for him. Dominique wordfully reminds Roark of the context.

Powerful dialogue -- for a wordless relationship!

"Myself," what is your underlying point in your continuing assault on Ayn Rand's characters and, by implication, on Ayn Rand herself?

I should be more explicit. I have in a sense misused the word "wordless" where what I meant was meaning that far outweighed the words used to communicate. You have charged me for the second time now Burgess for assaulting Ayn Rand - this is not my intention! I have nothing but respect for Ayn Rand and her characters as I have said in my second post on this thread. Also the context of "wordless: can be traced to Dominique's post and was used in her interpretation.

As for attacking her characters - I haven't - I have been scrutinizing and analyzing their actions for what I see as inconsistent behavior. Please by all means explain in the circumstances I have referred to how they are consistent with the rest of their character. Anything Ayn Rand has written should be open to scrutiny and debate or this forum has no purpose. If I thought Roark was acting irrational in a particular moment in the premise that I have described this is not an attack. It is an invitation to prove me wrong. Would it be more acceptable if I posited everything as a question as if to give the onus of authority to the responder? Or should I base my conclusions as a statement untill proven wrong? Also as a side note "attacking" characters is not the same as attacking the author. Characters such as Toohey again do not reflect Ayn Rand and even Roark exhibits flaws - no character is perfect.

A distinction must be made from scrutinizing an isolated scene and an attack on that character's character. Also you have said that I have attacked her character(s). Please reference each attack and the fact that there are more than one character that I referred to - I have been primarily discussing Roark.

[Bryan]

To summarize the original intent of my post: Because Roark had no concrete knowledge of Dominique's character their "wordless behavior" in the beginning should be different than their behavior later on. Also in your post you mentioned (quote above) that Roark having a high self-esteem would allow him to make judgements on less info. Can you make a judgement on info that doesn't exist? Also while having low self esteem does cloud judgement it doesn't change the amount of data available. Having high self esteem removes the cloud but again, both people work from the same amount of info regardless. Also can you explain how a person can draw conclusions on small amounts of data without assuming cetain premises. When is there enough[sic] data?

Myself, I'm not sure if you have read every post in this thread. Regardless, I suggest you read/reread Post #27 by Betsy . Betsy dissects the every interaction Roark and Dominique have up to their first sexual encounter. I have never seen a better explanation of that particular part of the novel, it should answer all of your questions.

[BurgessLau]

A distinction must be made from scrutinizing an isolated scene and an attack on that character's character. Also you have said that I have attacked her character(s). Please reference each attack and the fact that there are more than one character that I referred to - I have been primarily discussing Roark.

In post 56, you wrote:

On a side note now that I am writing this: what was Dominique's focus in life? She didn't really have a career (Her column was a joke even to herself) and remarked to Alvah (sorry no direct quote) that it was basically staving off boredom. Much of her life in the book was spent being married and doing nothing, in the end marrying Roark and (presumably) doing nothing. What a change from Dagny Taggart another of Rand's female protagonist's who was obssessed by working.

You have described Dominique, basically, as a rag doll who had no values and life of her own. You have missed the point of Ayn Rand's characterization of Dominique. She is a passionate valuer who -- to protect her highest values -- sought to prevent them from being touched by a foul world, a horribly mistaken conclusion which she learned to correct after knowing Roark.

You have described Dagny Taggart as being obsessive, which is a form of mental malfunction, a form of having one's thoughts dominated by some one focus, involuntarily and out of control.

In both cases you generally describe the characters in particular, concrete terms not in terms of their essentials, which means their values here. Doing so demeans them.

[Sparrow]

The character of Dominique is rather complicated. Back in 1987, in a Q&A, I asked Dr. Peikoff whether Dominique was intended to be an ideal to contemplate and emulate, or a warning against letting the world get the best of you. He answered that it was the latter. One can admire Dominique's potential, but she is paralyzed by the world and cannot actualize it, except in her secret relationship with Roark. As a woman, I found I could not relate to Dominique. I could not conceive of trying to hamper Roark's career, or marrying someone like Keating. But her character undergoes an enormous change over the course of the novel. Eventually, she has the courage to leave Wynand and join Roark openly, regardless of the outcome of his trial. In this context, the rape scene is a part of her early characterization, when she is still stifled and cannot even acknowledge the fact that she is attracted to Roark. Roark, of course, has no such problem, and he makes her face this attraction.

-- Michelle Cohen

[Dominique]

But her character undergoes an enormous change over the course of the novel. Eventually, she has the courage to leave Wynand and join Roark openly, regardless of the outcome of his trial.

This is why I like her, because she is a dynamic character who undergoes a transformation throughout the course of the novel.

In this context, the rape scene is a part of her early characterization, when she is still stifled and cannot even acknowledge the fact that she is attracted to Roark. Roark, of course, has no such problem, and he makes her face this attraction.

I agree with that depiction. I don't have my book to quote again, but I remember her before she meets him as being happy that she wants nothing because then nothing can be taken from her. She even tries not to think of him after that scene, because she knows then that she will have to acknowledge her feelings and risk being hurt.

Roark doesn't go along with her evasion, but brings the reality of it to her in a way that she can not ignore.

[Dominique]

How did he know what sort of a person she was?

(Emphasis added)

You are focusing on "But how did he know" when this is to me an issue of a judgement call.

The whole process goes on in his head, and we have no logical trail to follow, but clearly he believed that he had gathered all the data he needed and indeed he did judge the situation correctly, however he did it.

At this stage in their relationship a wordless existence shouldn't be possible or rational.

How do you know that?

Did Roark show himself to be irrational?

Is it more rational to assume he behaved irrationally, and out of character for this one scene; or to look at his character and the actual outcome of the situation, and understand that his logic and reason were superior by design.

He showed himself capable through out the novel of making quick assessments, and that's how he knew. He knew her because he knew himself.

[AisA]

There was no indication that she was what could be considered "Objectvist" by his previous knowledge. Therefore his actions were based on more impressions and assumptions than knowledge.

In addition to Betsy's excellent explanation in post #27, I remind you that during the "rape", Dominique never spoke. She didn't say, No!" or "Stop!" or "Get out!" or cry for help.

From Page 216 of the 50th Anniversary Edition of "The Fountainhead":

"She fought like an animal. But she made no sound. She did not call for help."

This is why I have never understood those who interpret the encounter as a rape.

[Bryan]

...

From Page 216 of the 50th Anniversary Edition of "The Fountainhead":

"She fought like an animal.  But she made no sound.  She did not call for help." 

This is why I have never understood those who interpret the encounter as a rape.

Because if it their intent is to argue that the encounter was rape, they would have to disregard that quote because it completely invalidates their point .

I knew there was something in the book that said that she never attempted to call for help, but I never have had the book available to me when I'm on this site. Thank you for pointing out that quote.

[Capitalism Forever]

Interesting parallel, but is it really the same? Because that action was clearly an expression of anger. Roark was not acting out of anger in the context of the *rape* scene.

Certainly, but anger does not justify a violation of property rights. A rational man, even when angry, takes care to respect individual rights.

It was deliberate and controlled behavior then, but this scene you quote is reflexive

Reflexes--I mean conditional ones--are similar to emotions: They result from your previous ideas. Roark had always respected individual rights, so he didn't develop any reflexes that would allow him to destroy private property if he thought the owner might object.

But he knew that Mallory wouldn't object. This scene is right after Roark explains to Mallory that "I didn't come here to do you a favor or because I felt sorry for you or because you need a job pretty badly" but because he actually appreciated Mallory's work, which is in such relieving contrast to what Mallory had previously experienced that it makes him drop onto his bed in tears. Mallory had lost all hope--he had been living in a bitter acquiesence to the dominance of evil--and here was a man who came to him as proof of the triumph of good. He had made that plaque as a sarcastic expression of discarding his talent, as a resentful "Is THIS what you want?!" It was an object born of desperation; that desperation had just ended, and there was no way Mallory would have minded the destruction of its symbol.

and Mallory tried to prevent him from seeing the plaque, (jerking forward trying to reach it first) and knew it would upset Roark. I don't know if it's exactly giving consent for him to throw it.

He tried to prevent Roark from seeing it because he was ashamed of having made it. And that is the very same reason he wanted it gone. If Roark hadn't seen and thrown it, Mallory would probably have destroyed it himself, with just as much vehemence as Roark did.

[Capitalism Forever]

Your argument if I am interpreting you correctly is that you don't need explicit permission to take questionable actions if you "know" those actions would be sanctioned?

Not if you "know" it, but if you know it. Roark didn't "know" Dominique wanted him; he knew Dominique wanted him.

Miss Rand believed in love at first sight. This means that she found it possible for a person to look at another and grasp the essence of his personality from the features of his face, his posture and carriage, his intonation, his way of reacting to things, and the look in his eyes. Regardless of whether you agree with this, Miss Rand did believe so, and wrote The Fountainhead under this premise. According to Miss Rand, Roark understood what kind of a person Dominique was right when he first saw her in the quarry. Re-read Chapter I of Part 2 and you will see that he was never surprised by how Dominique acted because he could always read her mind.

The data he acted on was in no way incomplete.

[Capitalism Forever]

Roark doesn't go along with her evasion

Was she evading, or was she simply on the wrong track?

Dominique did value things, and she did worship heroes--only that her particular way of guarding her treasures was to try and shield them from the evils of this world by removing them from this world. Her attempts to destroy Roark were not acts of a cynical malice--like Toohey's--but of a loving care. She was fighting Roark, but she was fervently hoping that Roark would win. "I'm going to fight you--and I'm going to destroy you ... I'm going to pray that you can't be destroyed[.]" (Part 2, Chapter VII.) When Roark got the contract to build the Aquitania despite her best efforts, she couldn't conceal her jubilance from Toohey: "You're happy that Roark got it?" "I'm so happy, I could sleep with this Kent Lansing, whoever he is, if I ever met him and he asked me." (Chapter X.)

Dominique was always on the right side, but her personality was based on the premise that her side was losing. She was trying to keep the enemy from desecrating her troops by killing them before the enemy got to them. Her attempt to avoid falling in love with Roark was not because she was evading his value but because she knew his value but thought he was bound to perish and she could not bear such a loss. Her approach was the result of a combination of a correct identification and a mistaken premise. She was passionate for the good but was discouraged by the dominance of evil.

[Samoht]

[if some of this has been touched on I am sorry, but the thread is too long to keep up with]

One the problems I have seen among these posts is that it takes the novel out of the context of the time and judges it by today’s standards.

Keep in mind while reading this that I do not have any internet citations (no time to look) but I am working from memory of a psychology class on human sexuality that I took a few years ago as well as accumulated knowledge from other sources. If you want to search, I have no doubt you will find proof for what I say.

Back when it was considered immoral for women to want or enjoy sex it was acceptable for men to "force women" after they had given certain signals in order to bypass the guilt they would feel for wanting, and choosing, to do something dirty and depraved. A sex loophole so to speak to bypass the sin of sexual desire and remove the burden from the woman. In the society of today where sexual desire is more equal (although the double standard still exists it is tame in comparison to the America of twenty five, fifty or a hundred years ago) no always means no, but in reality it used to mean ‘maybe,’ and sometimes ‘yes, of course.’ Keep in mind, if you use a ‘no’ to mean ‘maybe’ today you are going to end up being the one saying ‘no’ while locked in a concrete box with a convicted murderer (for elaboration see Norm MacDonald’s famous ‘anal rape’ monologue from Saturday Night Live ).

Another aspect of this is the old view that a man is to have a mistress to play with, but a wife to love. You never do the things to a wife you would do to a mistress because a wife is to be "respected" (see Reardon’s response immediately after the first time he had sex with Dagny).

When this topic comes up in class, or among others, remember the literature of the time. For example, how many of you think “rapist” when you hear the name Rhett Buttler from Gone With the Wind? The ‘rape’ scene between Rhett and Scarlet, when he picks her up kicking and screaming and takes her up the large stair case (resulting in pregnancy), was used in my class to show a concrete example of a ‘false rape’ (my term I just invented or I just don’t remember where it came from) scenario. It was very similar to the events depicted in The Fountainhead, and GTW was published in 1936, only seven years before The Fountainhead. There may be other novels of the time that show the same situation, but these are the most famous by far.

It was rape per se because Dagny did not say ‘yes,’ but rape in this context did not mean the same thing in the 1930’s that it means today (hence the ‘engraved invitation’ quote from Ms. Rand earlier in this thread). It was, as horrible as it seems to us now, a part of the ritual of courtship. It resulted in the rape of an untold number of women and girls who meant ‘no’ when they said ‘no,’ but that does not change the fact that it was common place, and it was considered less of a social stigma for a woman to be raped than to express sexual desire for a man. When I first read the scene it suprised me, but it suprised me the same way Rearden's resonse to Dagny the next morrning supprised me. It was supposed to suprise us because it represented what happens when rational heros make the mistake of accepting the morality of their enemies when they know the morality of their enemies are evil.

[Myself]

Miss Rand believed in love at first sight. This means that she found it possible for a person to look at another and grasp the essence of his personality from the features of his face, his posture and carriage, his intonation, his way of reacting to things, and the look in his eyes.

Please explain with unequivocal terms how this works. Ayn Rand did not believe anything without proof of its existence and its foundation in objective reality. Feelings of course, without their rational basis are subjective and should not be a reason to believe anything. Did you read somewhere that she believed in "love on first sight" per se? If so please reference the source and page numbers as this is something I am extreemely surprised at. Is love based on "features of [a] face, posture and carriage, intonation...and look in the eyes?" Give me a break! This is physical attraction and I have no idea how this can translate through these attributes alone the essence of a person.

Regardless of whether you agree with this, Miss Rand did believe so, and wrote The Fountainhead under this premise. According to Miss Rand, Roark understood what kind of a person Dominique was right when he first saw her in the quarry. Re-read Chapter I of Part 2 and you will see that he was never surprised by how Dominique acted because he could always read her mind.

"Because he could always read her mind"?! How does he do that?! Unless you want to except pseudosciences, eugenics, and levitation along with ESP that is impossible. I interpreted their actions as a unique understanding they possessed due to the common values, sense of life and similarity in thought processes. If this is what you mean by "mind reading" is certainly not the term to use.

The data he acted on was in no way incomplete.

That is a statement which you have not personally backed up, or cited whose opinion you agreed with on the subject. Alone it is not supported by any of your statements unless I take it to mean that "love at first sight" is a justification of in itself, requiring no basis in objective reality.

[Myself]

You have described Dagny Taggart as being obsessive, which is a form of mental malfunction, a form of having one's thoughts dominated by some one focus, involuntarily and out of control.

Continuing this aspect of the discussion is horribly veering off topic, but obsession might have accurately described Dagny's state. If you recall after the passing of Directive 10-289 Dagny hightailed it to her retreat in the woods. There she existed miserably and through sheer force of will. It was something uncontrollable and if she had managed or had been forced to stay away from TT for too long she could have quite possibly had a breakdown. Another way to illustrate this, perhaps more clearly was her refusal to stay in Galt's Gulch where she was contemplating that she couldn't envision herself running one small line when she could have been running an entire railroad. Clearly she was obsessed with Taggart Transcontinental, something that had been twisted and crippled, rather than solely on work ethic or her position. I understand she felt that she didn't want to surrender to the looters, but I believe that the only justification for this was just outrage and determination, even as Francisco and Galt tried to talk her out of it.

In both cases you generally describe the characters in particular, concrete terms not in terms of their essentials, which means their values here. Doing so demeans them.

Are you saying that the only thing that is essential in a character is their values? A character's actions certainly weigh just as heavily, for they are the manifestation, or lack of manifestation of the aforementioned ideals. The concrete and the abstract ideals form a whole picture, not an isolated an fractured one, by divorcing ethics from reality. Doing so certainly doesn't demean them.

[BurgessLau]

For clarity, in the following quotation, I have inserted square bracket numbers and I have broken paragraphs into easier-to-deal-with pieces.

[...] obsession might have accurately described Dagny's state. If you recall after the passing of Directive 10-289 [...]

[1] Dagny hightailed it to her retreat in the woods.

[2] There she existed miserably and through sheer force of will.

[3] It was something uncontrollable [...]

[4] and if she had managed or had been forced to stay away from TT for too long she could have quite possibly had a breakdown.

[5] Another way to illustrate this, perhaps more clearly was her refusal to stay in Galt's Gulch where she was contemplating that she couldn't envision herself running one small line when she could have been running an entire railroad.

[6] Clearly she was obsessed with Taggart Transcontinental, something that had been twisted and crippled, rather than solely on work ethic or her position.

[7] I understand she felt that she didn't want to surrender to the looters, but I believe that the only justification for this was just outrage and determination, even as Francisco and Galt tried to talk her out of it.

[boldface added to emphasize the ambivalence of some statements.]

Could have? Might have? I will ignore these weak postures, as your other statements are direct in form.

To summarize your points, you are claiming that Dagny Taggart was mentally ill (obsessive, in this case) rather than a mistaken but passionate valuer. You have also accused Ayn Rand's ideal woman of being an emotionalist.

What is your evidence for each of the numbered claims you have made above?

(Perhaps others in this forum will point out other problems in the original post, while I concentrate on these attacks on one of Ayn Rand's greatest characters -- and by implication, on Ayn Rand herself. Of course, as always, everyone is welcome to contribute to any point.)

[Dominique]

Reflexes--I mean conditional ones--are similar to emotions: They result from your previous ideas. Roark had always respected individual rights, so he didn't develop any reflexes that would allow him to destroy private property if he thought the owner might object.

Ok, I can see what you mean and how the two scenes equate more clearly with this explaination.

[Dominique]

Was she evading, or was she simply on the wrong track?

Her attempt to avoid falling in love with Roark was not because she was evading his value but because she knew his value but thought he was bound to perish and she could not bear such a loss. Her approach was the result of a combination of a correct identification and a mistaken premise. She was passionate for the good but was discouraged by the dominance of evil.

I agree whole heartedly with what you are saying. Perhaps I meant evasion in the sense of avoiding the implication of such value as he would mean to her. Perhaps evasion is the wrong term all together?

My comment came in this context:

In this context, the rape scene is a part of her early characterization, when she is still stifled and cannot even acknowledge the fact that she is attracted to Roark. Roark, of course, has no such problem, and he makes her face this attraction.

I agree with that depiction. I don't have my book to quote again, but I remember her before she meets him as being happy that she wants nothing because then nothing can be taken from her. She even tries not to think of him after that scene, because she knows then that she will have to acknowledge her feelings and risk being hurt.

Roark doesn't go along with her evasion, but brings the reality of it to her in a way that she can not ignore.

And this is the part of the book (Fountainhead) I was talking about:

"She had kept herself clean and free in a single passion-to touch nothing. She had liked facing them in the streets because she had liked the impotence of their hatred, because she offered them nothing to be hurt.

She was not free any longer." (part 5 pg 242 last paragraph)

(Edited to add context quotes and clarify)