Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

When Kira And Leo Meet.

Rate this topic


intellectualammo

Recommended Posts

I have some confusion understanding the scene in We The Living where Kira and Leo meet. It starts on p. 52-53. I have been reading it over and over and am not exactly sure why Leo was looking for a “street woman.” When the two of them met, Kira had gotten lost and ended up in part of the city where there were prostitutes. When she realizes this, she begins to leave, but notices Leo and she smiles. He saw her smiling and approaches her. Now, Kira doesn’t look like the other prostitutes there. They had red lipstick, short skirts, high shoes, and so forth. Leo had been walking all night, since he didn’t have a home to go to , or a house he could enter in the city, because of his counter-revolutionary action(s). Kira doesn’t know that he was there to find a tramp, but when she does, she plays along and pretends to be one. He never wanted to buy a woman until that very night, and he says that he “couldn’t make myself approach one of…of those woman” referring to the aforementioned prostitutes. He said that he liked her smile, when she smiled at him when she first saw him, making it inviting to approach her. I think that the way the two had spoken initially, made him think she was a prostitute (and considering the area of the city she was in alone), so when he asks what is her price, only then does she realize that he thinks she is a prostitute, and she just plays along. Later in the scene, he asks her why she had pretended or played along that said part and she said she wanted to get to know him, because she liked his face.

What I am confused about is:

Did he think that Kira was a prostitute before they had spoken?

What was the reasoning behind him looking for a tramp?

Can anyone help with those questions, or maybe clarify the scene more for me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leo is brilliant and full of life. However, he is pretty much prevented from living an ideal life under the Soviet regime. Leo pretty much gives up on seeking real values and living a pure life. He descends into alcoholism and criminality as it is the only way to really flourish in the Communist system. Remember the story in Atlas Shrugged about the 20th Century Motor company where under the Starne's plan people who used to be pretty decent essentially gave up on life when they signed their own death sentence by not resisting Starne's plan? They also lost any virtue and humanity and that is described in detail.

Leo is essentially a GOOD person, however he has a sort of Dominique-esque fear in him. He is afraid to live a life of value because he sees it as being essentially useless considering the USSR's attempt to stamp out anything truly valuable by making it public property or destroying it outright. Kira fights, Leo doesn't. Leo becomes bitter and hateful towards the Soviet reality for not allowing his full unbridled potential to serve its own noble end.

At THAT moment, Leo was probably seeking a prostitute because he:

1) hadn't found a woman of value and wanted to feel alive (escapism)

2) had sort of given up

I take the scene as showing that despite the fact that Leo is aiming low in his actions (seeking a prostitute), his nature/higher "real" values prevent him from just following through with someone he cannot remotely value (the actual prostitutes in the area where he meets Kira). I also see it as a foreshadowing technique that also shows that Leo has escapist tendencies lead him him towards less than ideal behaviors. I think it shows (quite clearly) what Leo IS as a human being...the good and the bad.

If you have read Atlas Shrugged, you know 'Frisco's speech about the nature of romantic attraction and the notion that you can tell volumes about a man by what type of woman he finds attractive (a brainless slut or a powerful moral woman). Leo didn't find the real hookers attractive (which is redeeming). However, that didn't stop him from seeking the paid sexual services from a woman he thought was a prostitute.

I DO think that he thought Kira was a prostitute before they had spoken. I think Leo was nervous because he had a sort of guilty conscience (a value clash). I think he was nervous and went to a warm inviting smile because that was in his eyes, an invitation to do business...like a validation of his behavior from another party. The smile divorced him of the burden of having to approach the prostitutes and solicit them directly. He said the first words to Kira, but in HIS mind...Kira spoke first with her smile. I think Leo was nervous and probably not thinking straight...and thus jumped at the first sign of life and warmth that responded to HIM. I think he just assumed that Kira was a prostitute because where she was at in the city and because he knew that SHE must have known what part of town she was in...thus...if she SMILED at him, it had to be a deliberate action (an invitation) from a woman who either was a hooker (due to the location) or a woman that knew that a less than desirable man was in a red light district. I think he went to her also because she was pretty and non-typical as well (as you mentioned).

Make sense?

P.S = Sorry for the choppy sentences. I'm dog tired and it is 4 in the morning.

Edited by Evan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very well-written, Evan; thanks.

Mention of Leo's alcohol makes me think of the discussion on drugs in another thread. It's a good fictional example to illustrate the difference between the happiness one gets from contemplating a good reality as opposed to the feeling one gets from being drunk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes!! You have definately succeeded in clarifying the confusion I had had in regards to that scene. VERY well said...that is actually being modest if you take into consideration the time of night you had written it, coupled with being so tired :P

I greatly appreciate you taking the time to reply so intelligently, Evan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks. I appreciate the praise. In a lot of cases I could use better word economy and I slap myself mentally every time I put a post out and realize later that I could have said what I said in 45 words with 2 sentences...lol.

With posts like these though, I often just type as I think...which usually isn't scattered, but it often ends up having a sort of repetitious quality at times or gets a bit choppy. The repetition isn't because I'm dull witted, but I think like a brainstorm or a neural net...everything is connected. Sometimes I think of a point halfway through a post that is an offshoot of an original argument and end up rehashing the original argument as a way of both organzing and staying clear.

If I'm going to be writing a lot, I generally put my post in a microsoft word document and spell/grammar check what I write as well as asking myself if I could say things more concisely.

Ideally I'm always shooting for good writing. A lot of times I kinda fall short of that ideal. Language is for communication...and if I communicated the *right* idea, that is really my main goal.

The unfortunate curse I face is that I type at 75+ words per minute and I can read really fast. To me it is no big deal to write a huge monster post or read a jumbo sized post. Unfortunately...the same isn't the case for everyone and occasionally I get nagged at for making posts the size of "Paradise Lost".

lol.

Ah well.

:P

Word economy is something I'm always striving for. If you weren't bugged by my post, then I guess I haven't messed up too badly...lol.

-Evan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ideally I'm always shooting for good writing. A lot of times I kinda fall short of that ideal. Language is for communication...and if I communicated the *right* idea, that is really my main goal.

Yes, I as well.

As a side note, I have been striving and struggling with reading comprehension, as in being able to communicate and understand fully what I have read. What I am going to do now, when I don't understand something completely or have only an *approximate* understanding, I want to do what I can to achieve full understanding. And that may involve me asking questions here, letting go of inhibitions somewhat to be able to do that. I never really learned properly reading comprehension methods/techniques, so that part isn't all my fault("comprachico's of the mind" :P ), but it will be if I don't do something about it when I can and know of the slight problems existence. Vague approximations, when I discover them, or find them, I am determined to eliminate them. You helped with a recent one. Thanks again. You can't be able to promote a philosophy, like Objectivism, properly if you have such vague approximations. It doesn't at all make for good conversation, good arguments, and so forth. The Ayn Rand bookstore looks like it could also help greatly in this area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...