A question about Roark and Dominique

[intellectualammo]

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.

I was speaking of people there, not things like buildings. She did want to destroy Roark, professionally. I understand what you are saying in regards to actual things, like buildings. She did not want them to be ruined. Yes, I agree with you.

This is what she said about the Enright House from TF:

"You know, Ellsworth, I think the man who designed this should have committed suicide. A man who can conceive a thing as beautiful as this should never allow it to be erected. He should not want it to exist. But he will let it be built, so that women will hang out diapers on his terraces, so that men will spit on his stairways and draw dirty pictures on his walls. He's given it to them and he's made it part of them, part of everything. He shouldn't have offered it for men like you to look at. For men like you to talk about. He's defiled his own work by the first word you'll utter about it. He's made himself worse than you are. You'll be committing only a mean little indecency, but he's committed a sacrilege. A man who knows what he must have known to produce this should not have been able to remain alive."

Here she is speaking about what happens to such a building after its been built. My comment was about destroying the architect behind it. She does it professionally speaking, hence trying to "take" potential clients away from Roark, and "giving" them to Keating. I emphasized those words, to show that she did this persuasively, influentially, and the like...but not by using actual physical force as those words can be taken as meaning.

Edited January 17, 2007 by intellectualammo

[DragonMaci]

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.

Who we are isn't about our future self, it is about our present self. I am currently only an Objectivist Student. I might be a full Objectivist one day. So should Objectivists love me in even a platonic way because of that? Even though I agree with everything I have read of ayn rand's so far, i would say, no it isn't, because I equally might not become an Objectivist. We just don't know yet since the future hasn't happened. That I have the potental to be an Objectivist isn't a part of who I am now. It is an implication to who I might be in the future. Reading Ayn Rand's stuff won't catagorically make me an Objectivist, just as Roark showing Dominique what he did wouldn't catagorically make her see the truth. She could of chosen not to see the truth just as I could yet do (though I doubt it). Therefore Roark was loving what she could become not what she catagorically would become.

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.

I am not sure you do feel more strongly about your character than i do about mine. Let me put it this way: if that dragon were real and human, I would love her as romantically as I am capable of, which is a hell of a lot.

It would give away my unique and completely original plot twist.

Sounds interesting. I would love to read it one day.

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.

I have always, even over ten years before hearing of Ayn Rand, made my main characters to be my idea people. Since I started writing about 14 years ago that idea person has changed a lot, but my making my characters my idea sort of person hasn't, even when it meant changing them. My main characters are my view of what man can and should be.

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.

I understand and agree with that aspect of Roark's nature (I realised the truth of it while taking a break from reading The Fountainhead to be honest). However, to me wanting to destroy achievement is out and out wrong.

So in short, he does not view her as a threat

I understand that, but I just cannot love someone that tried to destroy achievement. I cannot love someone I think is doing something that is so wrong. I would try to change her as Roark did, but I wouldn't love her as he did. especially not in that way and strength.

[Mimpy]

But she isn't destroying achievement. She is just trying to.....she never destroys Roark. As for the statue she is said to have destroyed earlier....well, she bought that statue. She could do anything with it that she wanted. But she only ever tried to destroy Roark. She certainly never succeeded.

And if destroying achievement is the chief concern, then what about AS? Everyone destroys their achievements in that novel. Would you consider that wrong?

Edited January 18, 2007 by Mimpy

[DragonMaci]

But she isn't destroying achievement. She is just trying to.....

I know. That's the point: that she is trying to. That to me is wrong.

she never destroys Roark.

The fact that she fails doesn't make what she was doing any less wrong. The mere intent makes it wrong.

As for the statue she is said to have destroyed earlier....well, she bought that statue. She could do anything with it that she wanted.

Yes, i agree with that. That is why I have no problem with it. What I have a problem with is her trying to destroy Roark. The fact that she fails doesn't mitigate it.

But she only ever tried to destroy Roark. She certainly never succeeded.

Agreed, but that doesn't mitigate it.

And if destroying achievement is the chief concern, then what about AS? Everyone destroys their achievements in that novel. Would you consider that wrong?

I will not comment on Atlas Shrugged. I haven't read it yet so i could not make an accurate statement on it.

Just as a little comment: I hope at the end Dominique at least apologised to Roark, or rather would of if there hadn't been a big skip in time at the end of the book.

EDIT: What If I tried to kill you and failed? Would the failure to do so mitigate my intent?

Edited January 18, 2007 by DragonMaci

[Mimpy]

Just as a little comment: I hope at the end Dominique at least apologised to Roark, or rather would of if there hadn't been a big skip in time at the end of the book.

Apologized for what? He wasn't doing her any favor by waiting for her. He did it out of his own selfish motive: he wanted her and was willing to wait till he had her.

Edited January 18, 2007 by Mimpy

[DragonMaci]

Apologized for what? He wasn't doing her any favor by waiting for her. He did it out of his own selfish motive: he wanted her and was willing to wait till he had her.

She should of apologised for trying to destroy him. The fact that he was immune to her attempts doesn't mean she shouldn't of.

[Mimpy]

She should of apologised for trying to destroy him. The fact that he was immune to her attempts doesn't mean she shouldn't of.

I understand you meant Dominique should apologize. But I don't understand for what....Roark knew what she was trying to do: still he loved her and wanted her. What's to apologize?

[DragonMaci]

I understand you meant Dominique should apologize. But I don't understand for what....Roark knew what she was trying to do: still he loved her and wanted her. What's to apologize?

For trying to do something to him that was wrong to try to do.

[Mimpy]

For trying to do something to him that was wrong to try to do.

But did Roark ever express disapproval of what Dominique did? From what I remember, he didn't. He let her act as she wanted to act. So apologizing would be superfluous...the fact that she changed her beliefs is homage enough to Roark's person and values.

[DragonMaci]

But did Roark ever express disapproval of what Dominique did? From what I remember, he didn't. He let her act as she wanted to act. So apologizing would be superfluous...the fact that she changed her beliefs is homage enough to Roark's person and values.

Doesn't matter. it was wrong of her to try do to him as she did, so she should apologise. The fact that he let her act as she wanted to doesn't change that. What if she had of wanted to punch him in the face just for fun and he let her act as she wanted to? Would she still have nothing to apologise for?

[Mimpy]

Doesn't matter. it was wrong of her to try do to him as she did, so she should apologise. The fact that he let her act as she wanted to doesn't change that. What if she had of wanted to punch him in the face just for fun and he let her act as she wanted to? Would she still have nothing to apologise for?

Of course then she should apologize. Violence threatens someone's physical life. But Dominique trying to destroy Roark's career...Roark knew it was impossible to do so because Dominique could only affect the idiots of the world. The others would not listen to what Dominique said: they'd use their own judgement. Roark had no reason to feel threatened.

Edited January 18, 2007 by Mimpy

[DragonMaci]

Of course then she should apologize. Violence threatens someone's physical life. But Dominique trying to destroy Roark's career...

I fail to see the difference. Why is it wrong to try do one but not the other?

Roark knew it was impossible to do so because Dominique could only affect the idiots of the world. The others would not listen to what Dominique said: they'd use their own judgement. Roark had no reason to feel threatened.

Are you saying the fact that he didn't feel threatened mitigates her intent? What if he didn't feel threatened by the punch? Would it then be okay for her to do it? To me you seem to be implying that the feelings of the potential victim are what makes it right or wrong. If that is so, then taxing people who don't feel threatened by taxes is okay. But that just isn't true.

[intellectualammo]

I am not sure you do feel more strongly about your character than i do about mine. Let me put it this way: if that dragon were real and human, I would love her as romantically as I am capable of, which is a hell of a lot.

Sounds interesting. I would love to read it one day.

Again without ruining my book, I have gone even further than that. It's hard to imagine out of the context I have it in, though.

[Mimpy]

I fail to see the difference. Why is it wrong to try do one but not the other?

Dominique had every right to write whatever she wanted in her column...it was purely her opinion. She had every right to express her opinion to others, discouraging them from liking Roark. The fact that people listened to her has nothing to do with it. She violated no right when she expressed her opinion. She would not have a right, however, to exert physical force on someone else.

[DragonMaci]

Again without ruining my book, I have gone even further than that. It's hard to imagine out of the context I have it in, though.

I love Ktelris as much as any human can love another being. How could it go further than that? I don't see how it is possible.

Dominique had every right to write whatever she wanted in her column...it was purely her opinion. She had every right to express her opinion to others, discouraging them from liking Roark. The fact that people listened to her has nothing to do with it. She violated no right when she expressed her opinion. She would not have a right, however, to exert physical force on someone else.

She didn't express her real opinion, though. Her real opinion was that his architectural style was great. Therefore, she lied. How is that not wrong? To me a lie is always wrong. Truth should always be valued. To lie means you don't truly value the truth. How is that not wrong?

Edited January 18, 2007 by DragonMaci

[intellectualammo]

I love Ktelris as much as any human can love another being. How could it go further than that? I don't see how it is possible.

Oh, it is possible. I will not comment on it here on the forum, though.

[DragonMaci]

Oh, it is possible. I will not comment on it here on the forum, though.

I never said it wasn't possible, only that I didn't see how. As for not wanting to mention it on the forum, fair enough. There are certain things about my book I don't want to mention here. I don't want to ruin the suspense after all.

[aequalsa]

I understand and agree with that aspect of Roark's nature (I realised the truth of it while taking a break from reading The Fountainhead to be honest). However, to me wanting to destroy achievement is out and out wrong.

I understand that, but I just cannot love someone that tried to destroy achievement. I cannot love someone I think is doing something that is so wrong. I would try to change her as Roark did, but I wouldn't love her as he did. especially not in that way and strength.

Not even if she was the only person in your life capable of recognizing your achievments?

It is wrong, of course. But her other traits and capacities make up for it. The value he recieves from her out weighs the cost, heavily.

Try another example. The perfect girl/dragon from your book exists with one modification. She smokes. (assume here that this is an undesirable habit for a minute, if you do not believe so already) The smoking affects you only marginally and you know it is bad for her life in certain ways. And further, she only chooses to smoke because she believes that second-hand smoke is better for you. Can you love her?

[intellectualammo]

I never said it wasn't possible

I definately did not mean to imply that you did. I am rather emphatic, esp. in regards to my book and I can see why you would think that I came off that way.

[DragonMaci]

Not even if she was the only person in your life capable of recognizing your achievments?

What are you saying? That I should seel my standards short because she is the only one? No way! i will never sell my standards short. To do so would be to settle. I don't believe in settling. To do so is to comprimise my values.

It is wrong, of course. But her other traits and capacities make up for it. The value he recieves from her out weighs the cost, heavily.

To me nothing can make up for wanting to prevent a man from achieving. To me only a blatant violation of his rights is worse.

Try another example. The perfect girl/dragon from your book exists with one modification. She smokes. (assume here that this is an undesirable habit for a minute, if you do not believe so already) The smoking affects you only marginally and you know it is bad for her life in certain ways. And further, she only chooses to smoke because she believes that second-hand smoke is better for you. Can you love her?

This "perfect" dragon of mine is admitedly a bit of an artistic licence, but the "perfect" part applies to her beliefs not her likes and dislikes. For example, she likes different music tone, different story temperment, etc than me. As for smoking, well it isn't unhealthy to dragons. so why would it be undesirable for them to do it? (Note: to me it is undesirable for humans to do it because of the health risk.)

As for loving a human smoker, well as a friend yes. I am not sure for a lover, as it hasn't really been an issue yet. But suffice to say this: I highly disaprove of smoking, and I mean very highly, for health reasons.

[AMERICONORMAN]

I think the fact that Dominique is willing to sleep with Roark, to be taken by him, Roark knowing exactly who he is and how great he is; I think that by the time she let's herself feel ecstasy by the act of Roark, while it is quite evident, at least for the reader, perhaps more so for Roark, that she is on a mission to resign herself from the world's pleasures, because she gives the evil too much credit, Roark knows that she is his. Without them sleeping together Roark would never "wait for her", if that's what he's doing, which he is not. He's continuing to pursue his highest value, incidentally him doing so, and succeeding at that, will change her mind. What she has to do is realize who she really is. By the time they sleep together, Roark already knows that she will come around. Notice what has to happen before she marries Keating--the Stoddard Temple fiasco. What has to happen for her to marry Wynand--that Keating's complete smallness is exposed. In marrying Wynand she thinks that she has found the worst form of masochism but Roark knows better. The love is born immediately from Roark for her. The question is, is there clear indication that she is gradually getting better, will she still make the wrong choices? If she's improving, getting closer to the truth, then he has nothing to worry about. This is the greatest risk in the face of him pursuing his highest value, his work.

Yes, she is only confusing because she is a Romantic Moral Archetype, and must be an exaggeration to emphasize an essential quality about her.

Have you read any Schopenhauer? He and her have some similarities. Though Schopenhauer is surely evil, if one just focuses on his good ideas, and put them in an historical context, e.g., his hate for Kant, one can find room to admire him, at least temporarily.

Just some thoughts that have almost become abortive in my mind,

Jose Gainza.

Edited January 18, 2007 by AMERICONORMAN

[DragonMaci]

Have you read any Schopenhauer?

No. Until Rand I had the archtypical disinterest in reading philosophy. I had it for different reasons than most, but I had it anyway. Most people are disinterested in philosophy, but I made decision based on the fact that I had given up on seeing a philosopher that made sense to me. I knew philosophy was necessary, I just couldn't find one I liked and gave up. Rand rekindled my interest.

[aequalsa]

What are you saying? That I should seel my standards short because she is the only one? No way! i will never sell my standards short. To do so would be to settle. I don't believe in settling. To do so is to comprimise my values.

Whoa there...not settling...simply putting up with a minor fault because he knows that her otherwise very good value system will lead her to the correct belief eventually.

To me nothing can make up for wanting to prevent a man from achieving.

Her desire, which is by its nature incapable of success, is to prevent him from achieving for his own sake. If she was trying to destroy him because she hated achievment, he would not have waited. She valued achievment so very highly that she did not want it desecrated by so much as a disdainful glance. Her mistake, fundementally was assigning power to others that they simply do not possess. He knew that the enemy was a mouse and she believed it was a giant. It was the wrong idea, but it was not evil in the way you are seeing it.

This "perfect" dragon of mine is admitedly a bit of an artistic licence, but the "perfect" part applies to her beliefs not her likes and dislikes. For example, she likes different music tone, different story temperment, etc than me. As for smoking, well it isn't unhealthy to dragons. so why would it be undesirable for them to do it? (Note: to me it is undesirable for humans to do it because of the health risk.)

You are taking my example a little more literally then I had intended. I was trying to personalize it for you. If the dragon has all the right ideas and one small misconception about the nature of reality which her values will ultimately allow her to correct, it might be worth a little wait.

[DragonMaci]

Whoa there...not settling...simply putting up with a minor fault because he knows that her otherwise very good value system will lead her to the correct belief eventually.

I was talking about me not Roark. I value human achievement too much to think of it as "a minor fault". I think of it as a major one. So for me it would be settling.

Her desire, which is by its nature incapable of success, is to prevent him from achieving for his own sake.

Oh, so wanting to do destroy his career for his sake justifies wanting to destroy his career? So taxing people for their sake is justified thenn is it?

If she was trying to destroy him because she hated achievment, he would not have waited. She valued achievment so very highly that she did not want it desecrated by so much as a disdainful glance.

And that justifies it how?

Her mistake, fundementally was assigning power to others that they simply do not possess. He knew that the enemy was a mouse and she believed it was a giant. It was the wrong idea, but it was not evil in the way you are seeing it.

I do not see that as evil. I see wanting to destroy a man's achievement as evil no matter the reason.

You are taking my example a little more literally then I had intended. I was trying to personalize it for you. If the dragon has all the right ideas and one small misconception about the nature of reality which her values will ultimately allow her to correct, it might be worth a little wait.

I know what you intended. I just felt like mentioning it as clarification of what i said earlier. Your personalisation made me realise that I should do so.

Worth the wait yes, but until then if the mistake was a big as Dominique's I could not love her.

By the way, if I am making errors, please bear with me as i am only a student of Objectivism and very early into it at that.

[~Sophia~]

Worth the wait yes, but until then if the mistake was a big as Dominique's I could not love her.

Dominique deeply valued the same 'good' as Roark. Her only error was to think that 'the good' can not possibly 'make it' in the world. This was not a big error to make. It was not an error of content (there is evil arround - as she saw it) but of magnitude (the evil is not as powerful as she thought).

She tested her premis by taking her best shots at Roark in her column - with no success. THAT made her check her premises. If she could not destroy him (on top of others who were also trying) - no one could. Evil was impotent because Roark did not allow it to have any power - she finally got it.

In my opinion, considering everything else, this was a minor flaw.