A question about Roark and Dominique

[DragonMaci]

When Roark first loved Dominique she had the malevolent universe belief. My question is this: why did he love her given that he had the benevolent universe belief? I don't think I could love someone in that situation.

[Ifat Glassman]

When Roark first loved Dominique she had the malevolent universe belief. My question is this: why did he love her given that he had the benevolent universe belief? I don't think I could love someone in that situation.

Hello Dragon.

I don't think that Dominique had merely a belief about a malevolent universe: in the novel it was reality (in the realm of man/society anyway): She had knowledge of the corrupted culture at that time, of how the collective is held as great but any sign of heroism and greatness is ridiculed or ignored.

Dominique's problem was that other people's thoughts and actions were able to "touch" her deep inside: When she saw a beautiful statue in a garden covered with trash, or see a man as great as Roark among other people who treat him like he was there to amuse/serve them (or as if he was one of them), she could not stand it. For most people (who admire the heroic in man) something like this would be merely unpleasant aesthetically, but for Dominique it was absolutely intolerable: it was desecration of the holly: not just inside those people's world, but inside herself, inside her own perception of reality.

This is why she would buy a beautiful statue and then destroy it. This is why she tried to destroy Roark's career. This is why she had a job she despised: It was all her way to defend herself against the world who had the ability to hurt her by treating the holly inadequately.

Why did Roark want her? Because of how much she was in love with the heroic: As strange as it may sound, this woman was destroying things because of her intense love for them.

I think Dominique's character is among the most difficult ones to understand. I think that for most peope, who are not interested in psychology (am not talking about academic psychology bullshit, I mean books, but about "street psychology", you know, understanding people), Dominique just seems like a whacko.

[DragonMaci]

Why did Roark want her? Because of how much she was in love with the heroic: As strange as it may sound, this woman was destroying things because of her intense love for them.

Well, that is a part of why I don't get it. I don't think I'd love someone (even in a platonic sense) that destroyed things they intensely loved.

Edited January 17, 2007 by DragonMaci

[Mimpy]

Well, that is a part of why I don't get it. I don't think I'd love someone (even in a platonic sense) that destroyed things they intensely loved.

It's not like Roark worried that Dominique would actually destory him, even though she tried very hard to do so. On the contrary, Roark let her do as she pleased because he knew that one day she'd realize that the heroic trumps all, that the rationally intransigent mind cannot be conquered.

[DragonMaci]

It's not like Roark worried that Dominique would actually destory him, even though she tried very hard to do so. On the contrary, Roark let her do as she pleased because he knew that one day she'd realize that the heroic trumps all, that the rationally intransigent mind cannot be conquered.

Well, I even then I wouldn't love them.

[Mimpy]

Well, I even then I wouldn't love them.

Even though you know what they're capable of? What they value, cherish, and hold to be true? Dominique's philosophy has a slight error in it; it can be amended...and indeed, she changes by the end of the novel. Roark does not mind waiting for her because he knows that she is worth it.

[intellectualammo]

When Roark first loved Dominique she had the malevolent universe belief. My question is this: why did he love her given that he had the benevolent universe belief? I don't think I could love someone in that situation.

I disagree. She did not exactly have the malevolent universe belief, as you have said. I don't think she "wrote" malevolence that large, to encompass the entire universe, just the world in which she was living in, or that she thought she was living in at the time.

[DragonMaci]

Even though you know what they're capable of? What they value, cherish, and hold to be true? Dominique's philosophy has a slight error in it; it can be amended...and indeed, she changes by the end of the novel. Roark does not mind waiting for her because he knows that she is worth it.

I could only love someone that incouraged what Roark was capable of, not someone that "tried to destroy it because they loved it".

I disagree. She did not exactly have the malevolent universe belief, as you have said. I don't think she "wrote" malevolence that large, to encompass the entire universe, just the world in which she was living in, or that she thought she was living in at the time.

Still pretty bad.

[intellectualammo]

As strange as it may sound, this woman was destroying things because of her intense love for them.

I think Dominique's character is among the most difficult ones to understand.

I agree. I would also add the characters of Leo and Wynand as being somewhat difficult for me at times to understand. Anyways, it seems to me that Dom wanted to destroy these things before other people did. She couldn't bear to see them do it. At least that's what I gathered.

[DragonMaci]

I agree. I would also add the characters of Leo and Wynand as being somewhat difficult for me at times to understand. Anyways, it seems to me that Dom wanted to destroy these things before other people did. She couldn't bear to see them do it. At least that's what I gathered.

I still highly disaprove of such an act, enough so that I couldn't love them as Roark did Dominique.

[Mimpy]

John Galt (Rand) said in AS that "in any compromise between good and evil, only evil can profit."

Dominique couldn't stand to see beauty destroyed by an unappreciative world that actually tried to hurt that beauty. So she destroyed the beauty herself to spare it undeserved pain. That's what she tried to do to Roark...she didn't think that the world really deserved to see Roark's buildings. What she failed to see was that Roark was not guided by people's opinions of his buildings or their approval of them. He drew buildings because he loved to do so, and anybody who appreciated his aesthetic values, he built a building for them.

Roark loved Dominique because, as Ifat said, because she "admired the heroic in man." Her values matched his. She only had one minor drawback, and for that Roark waited for her to figure it out.

What's so wrong with that?

[exaltron]

I think the question requires a discussion of the fundamentals of fiction writing. To make her characters jump off the page the way they did, she explicitly needed to create conflict. She did this not only by creating characters that were extreme archetypes of her philosophy but also by creating characters that were fundamentally good, but had serious internal flaws they needed to overcome. This "internal obstacle that needs to be overcome" has been a staple of good literature from the beginning of course, but never quite with the same philosophical power that Rand brought to it.

So with Dominique in the Fountainhead, as with Dagny (and more prevalently, Rearden) in Atlas Shrugged, as much of the novel is dedicated to internal conflicts between apparent contradictory desires and emotions, as to the larger external conflicts between our team and the MOFAF (100 points to anyone who can spell it out). Then there are the conscious conflicted desires of a Galt or Roark, who recognize the fundamental awesomeness of the objects of their desire, but know that they cannot go after them until they have realized the truth for themselves.

Basically Rand recognized that the best ways to depict passionate values was either to threaten them externally, or to set them on edge internally. Try to imagine the initial love scenes between Roark and Dominique or between Galt and Dagny without all that built up passion, I honestly don't think the novel would have remotely approached the power it has without those conflicts.

[DragonMaci]

John Galt (Rand) said in AS that "in any compromise between good and evil, only evil can profit."

I agree with that, but how does that justify the act of destruction of achievement? To me destroying achievement is always wrong. Doing wrong to prevent wrong isn't right, nor is not doing so a comprimise between good or evil. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Roark loved Dominique because, as Ifat said, because she "admired the heroic in man." Her values matched his. She only had one minor drawback, and for that Roark waited for her to figure it out.

What's so wrong with that?

I recognise and approve of her love of the heroic in man. What I take exception to is her trying to destroy achievement. As I said above, I think that is always wrong.

[intellectualammo]

I could only love someone that incouraged what Roark was capable of, not someone that "tried to destroy it because they loved it".

Keep in mind that Roark didn't exactly notice, or pay attention to those out to destroy him. He never took them seriously enough. Dom not only took them seriously, but she did however stand out from the rest of them. She did have an objective code of values, but functioning on the wrong premise...that those values could not flourish in the world in which they were living. She shared, in that sense, the same standard of value. This is why I and others essentially have called her, philosophically pessimistic, in this sense. Of course, all I have said is my opinion, what I have gathered...as I and others agree, she's difficult to understand, so there is a large room for error on my part.

[DragonMaci]

Keep in mind that Roark didn't exactly notice, or pay attention to those out to destroy him. He never took them seriously enough. Dom not only took them seriously, but she did however stand out from the rest of them. She did have an objective code of values, but functioning on the wrong premise...that those values could not flourish in the world in which they were living. She shared, in that sense, the same standard of value. This is why I and others essentially have called her, philosophically pessimistic, in this sense. Of course, all I have said is my opinion, what I have gathered...as I and others agree, she's difficult to understand, so there is a large room for error on my part.

Well, to me it's simply the fact that they want to destroy achievement that i find objectionable.

[intellectualammo]

Dominique couldn't stand to see beauty destroyed by an unappreciative world that actually tried to hurt that beauty. So she destroyed the beauty herself to spare it undeserved pain. That's what she tried to do to Roark...she didn't think that the world really deserved to see Roark's buildings. What she failed to see was that Roark was not guided by people's opinions of his buildings or their approval of them. He drew buildings because he loved to do so, and anybody who appreciated his aesthetic values, he built a building for them.

Yes, very well said! She may be the most difficult to understand, but I think we are understanding her character even so.

Well, to me it's simply the fact that they want to destroy achievement that i find objectionable.

Keep in mind the way that she is going about destroying him. She is not doing anything that I can see that is directly doing destruction to his creations. She even tells Roark explicitly that she is out to destroy him, if I remember correctly.

[DragonMaci]

Keep in mind the way that she is going about destroying him. She is not doing anything that I can see that is directly doing destruction to his creations. She even tells Roark explicitly that she is out to destroy him, if I remember correctly.

To me there mere desire and attempt is objectionable.

[Ifat Glassman]

I agree. I would also add the characters of Leo and Wynand as being somewhat difficult for me at times to understand. Anyways, it seems to me that Dom wanted to destroy these things before other people did. She couldn't bear to see them do it. At least that's what I gathered.

Yes, exactly.

Dominique couldn't stand to see beauty destroyed by an unappreciative world that actually tried to hurt that beauty. So she destroyed the beauty herself to spare it undeserved pain.

I don't think you have this one exactly right Mimpy: she did not destroy it out of motivation to spare it undeserved pain, but because of a more selfish reason: To avoid the sight of desecration of the holly. I agree with the rest of the things you said about Roark and the reasons why he wanted Dominique.

Dragon: Why won't you just say "no matter what anyone says here I will never like Dominique": it would spare you the need to write "I still don't like Dominique" after each new post. I find it funny that you do that.

Dominique's character does raise an interesting question about the reasons for loving someone: It shows how love is a result of someone's character more than it is a reward for their achievements.

Dominique had the ability in her to do great things: But she did nothing great (almost). Still Roark loved her because of her character.

Also... Dragon: I am not saying that Dominique is an ideal woman and should be a role model for every woman. The contrary: she had a very serious psychological problem. So I can understand why a (rational) man would not want a relationship with her until after she resolved her problem. But to go from that to not even liking her for who she is... that just doesn't sound right to me. How is it possible to meet someone who is in love with the heroic and yet not even like them? Only if you look just on the shallow things (behavior) instead of understanding the motives for it.

[~Sophia~]

I am glad Dominique was the way she was because her transformation offers a lot of hope for what real world 'Roarks' can inspire.

Dominique's error was to blow the corruption, dishonesty, and malevolence of the world around her way out of proportion into a fatalistic view of man. All Roark had to do, for Dominique to lose her fight, was be himself and that is all he has done. He was a living refutation of her mistaken premises. His existance, in itself, destroyed her malevolence, and replaced it with a life-affirming hero-worship, and with renewed love of man, as such.

Why did he love her?

Because she mirrored his values like no other and he new reality, in the end, always wins - he knew she will come arround and was willing to wait.

Edited January 17, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[DragonMaci]

Dragon: Why won't you just say "no matter what anyone says here I will never like Dominique": it would spare you the need to write "I still don't like Dominique" after each new post. I find it funny that you do that.

Because it wouldn't be true. Besides, it was only that one aspect of who Dominque was at first that I don't like. Besides, I like who she ended up as after she realised what Roark was trying to show her.

Dominique's character does raise an interesting question about the reasons for loving someone: It shows how love is a result of someone's character more than it is a reward for their achievements.

Dominique had the ability in her to do great things: But she did nothing great (almost). Still Roark loved her because of her character.

Yes, it's just that i don't understand how his love could survive that one aspect of who she was at first I don't like.

Also... Dragon: I am not saying that Dominique is an ideal woman and should be a role model for every woman.

I understand that. However, who she ended up as was someone I could love as a friend.

So I can understand why a (rational) man would not want a relationship with her until after she resolved her problem.

There is the crux of my view. I wouldn't want a relationship with her, even as a friend, until she resolved that problem. It was the one problem I don't like, not so much her as a whole. There is a big gap between the two.

But to go from that to not even liking her for who she is... that just doesn't sound right to me.

As I said above, it was the single problem, not her as a whole, that I don't like. I like the rest of her and I quite like how she ended up.

How is it possible to meet someone who is in love with the heroic and yet not even like them?

Top be honest i don't understand the question.

Only if you look just on the shallow things (behavior) instead of understanding the motives for it.

I understand her motives, I just don't think they are justification.

I am glad Dominique was the way she was because her transformation offers a lot of hope for what real world 'Roarks' can inspire.

I would agree with that. The change from who she was to who she became was fascinating.

Dominique's error was to blow the corruption, dishonesty, and malevolence of the world around her way out of proportion into a fatalistic view of man. All Roark had to do, for Dominique to lose her fight, was be himself and that is all he has done. He was a living refutation of her mistaken premises. His existance, in itself, destroyed her malevolence, and replaced it with a life-affirming hero-worship, and with renewed love of man, as such.

Indeed. Like Roark, i would try that, but I wouldn't love her the way he did. Not in that manner and strength. One prerequisite I have for whether or not I love people is that they not only respect achievement but that they act consistent with that by not trying to destroy it. otherwise I cannot love them at all.

Why did he love her?

Because she mirrored his values like no other and he new reality, in the end, always wins - he knew she will come arround and was willing to wait.

That, "he knew she will come around part," makes it sound like he loved her for who she could be. To my way of looking at it we should people for who they are not who they could be.

My ideal woman is basically the main female character of my fantasy series. She's a dragon, but mentally she is everything I look for in a woman and she is no Dominique (from before her learning from Roark anyway).

Edited January 17, 2007 by DragonMaci

[intellectualammo]

Yes, exactly.

I don't think you have this one exactly right Mimpy: she did not destroy it out of motivation to spare it undeserved pain, but because of a more selfish reason: To avoid the sight of desecration of the holly. I agree with the rest of the things you said about Roark and the reasons why he wanted Dominique.

I think that Mimpy was speaking in a different literary sense for beauty itself. I take her statement as personifiying beauty.

Mimpy:

"Dominique couldn't stand to see beauty destroyed by an unappreciative world that actually tried to hurt that beauty. So she destroyed the beauty herself to spare it undeserved pain."

[D'kian]

Anyways, it seems to me that Dom wanted to destroy these things before other people did. She couldn't bear to see them do it. At least that's what I gathered.

Not quite. She wanted to destroy them before other people ruined them. Try re-reading what she writes about the Enright House after Enright shows her around, it's very explicit. Or what she said about the Stodard Temple.

[KendallJ]

That, "he knew she will come around part," makes it sound like he loved her for who she could be. To my way of looking at it we should people for who they are not who they could be.

To the extent that who someone is will contribute to determining who they are, then one in fact loves both. To ignore the person you will be (not could be) based in the person you are is to fail to admire a person totally.

I'm not speaking of determinism here. I'm talking about understanding cause and effect.

[intellectualammo]

My ideal woman is basically the main female character of my fantasy series. She's a dragon, but mentally she is everything I look for in a woman and she is no Dominique (from before her learning from Roark anyway).

It's interesting that you mention that. A character that I have created in my story, I feel even more strongly than that about, but to say more than that, I cannot at this point. It would give away my unique and completely original plot twist. But I am glad that someone else also does this, and that can serve as reaffirmation, in a way, of why I'm writing my novel the way that I am, from the view that I am.

Edited January 17, 2007 by intellectualammo

[aequalsa]

Indeed. Like Roark, i would try that, but I wouldn't love her the way he did. Not in that manner and strength. One prerequisite I have for whether or not I love people is that they not only respect achievement but that they act consistent with that by not trying to destroy it. otherwise I cannot love them at all.

Let me first say that I empathisize with your position and have always thought her something of an undesirable headcase.

However, a conversation I had in chat with Sophia and Ifat that has led me to change my mind about her. The important things to understand are Roark's extraordinary self-esteem and his belief in the impotence of evil. Someone attempting to destroy him in a way that can matter is laughable becaue he realizes that only he, Roark, can actually do that. So he is confronted with the possession of this lady who values greatness in the way explained above but hasn't come to understand the reasons why. Particularly it's spiritual nature.

So in short, he does not view her as a threat and he knows her to be capable of recognizing and loving greatness. The impotence of the first combined with the rarity of the second makes it a risk worth taking.