About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 1:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
On another post, Ryan Peterson wrote,
 BTW, BKB, you will be coming up on a passage that may be hard for you interpret. I think everyone who has read the book probably knows what I am talking about, so when you get there, ask away if you need to.

OK - I think I got there a few nights ago. I think Ryan was referring to the "rape scene" where Roark comes in from the quarry to rape Dominique.

Am I correct that this is what you were giving me the head's up about, Ryan?

I admit, this was pretty much a shock. What objectivist ideal is Rand pointing to with this violent, coercive, aggresive action? It seems immoral no matter what standard of morality you use. What's Rand's point here?

Also, as I read a bit further on, it seems fairly disgusting to have the character Dominique chasing after the man who raped her and continuing to fantasize about him. Rand almost has Dominique "get what she had coming" and "needing" more of the same to put her in her place.

Not at all what I expected. Perhaps just good literature, but I read Rand's forward to the 25th commemorative edition which I'm reading and she says she is holding Roark up as her idealized man - a man living out the principles of the Objectivist philosophy. So, it's surprising to say the least.

BKB


Post 1

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 5:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have heard and read justifications of that rape scene.  One was that Dominique implied her consent, and that Roark raped her by her invitation (e.g. pretending she wanted him to repair the marble).  Another was to highlight Ayn Rand's view that men are superior to women, and that in romantic love, a woman is a hero-worshipper who surrenders (physically and emotionally) to the man.  I, for one, do not agree with that scene, literally or figuratively, and I wish it was not in the novel.  It is the one chapter that makes recommending that novel hard for me because I know that I always have to justify that to the uninitiated.

Having said that, the good outweighs the bad, so please read on.  There will be others here who will disagree with me, so perhaps they can do a better job justifying that rape.

Post 2

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 5:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There is also a passage in "Atlas Shrugged" that I disagreed with, even more than the rape scene.  It does not get much mention, and I wonder if anyone else has a problem with it.  It involves the lead female character (Dagny Taggart) murdering a security guard in cold blood because he was indecisive.  Again, the good outweighs the bad, and there'll be others here who'll disagree with my objections.

Post 3

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 8:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for your honesty, Byron

Yes, very disturbing and hard to justify. Never knew of Rand's views regarding men and women. Sounds very ... hmmm ... antiquated and sexists? Believe me, I'm no "politically correct" pansy. But I do not know many women who would "buy" what Ms. Rand is selling in regard to romantic love. My wife of 17 years certainly would not, I can assure you!

I'd be interested in what others have to say about this disturbing chapter. How could anyone believing in the principle (axiom?) of non-agression sanction this act?

BKB


Post 4

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 8:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Byron,

Don't worry, I'll keep reading ... I've been reading and studying the Bible for years even though I have difficulty with some passages. Haven't given up on it yet (ha). The good far outweighs the "bad" in that volume as well. Guess I'm a glutton for punishment, eh? (or just really like good literature?)

BKB


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 8:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Bear in mind that Rand is not trying to “sell” Objectivism with her novels. She did not believe that art (including fiction-writing) should be didactic. The scene is her presentation of the kind of relationship/sex that she considered ideal. (Obviously, Miss Rand had a kinky side.) I emphasize she … I’m certain she was not prescribing that as an “Objectively Correct” model for all relationships.

 

Note that Roark and Dominique are not strangers. If they were, then there would be no question. But there is an entire context of sexual tension between that we, as the “God’s Eye” reader, have an insight to. As Miss Rand said, “If it was rape, it was rape by engraved invitation.”

 

I think that anyone who claims that Objectivism condones rape on the basis of that scene is being intellectually dishonest, since there are countless references to the evil of initiation of force (rape included) in the Objectivist philosophy. The crystal clarity of the integrated philosophy trumps the vaguery of artistic license.


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 9:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Personally, I find the so called "rape scene" in Fountainhead arousing (good literature?)

Ayn Rand tended to have her heros possess telepathy abilities - they understand each other's mind without speaking. Rand didn't exactly tell what were exactly on Dominique and Roark's minds when it happened. My interpretation is that Dominique obviously was deeply disturbed by the sight of Roark at the quarry (love at first sight?). But Roark's status at the time would make a normal relationship impossible. Dominque did her share to produce opportunity for Roark to "rape" her. It is probably the only way for them to consummate their desires. 

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 12/20, 9:06pm)


Post 7

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 9:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The scene is her presentation of the kind of relationship/sex that she considered ideal. (Obviously, Miss Rand had a kinky side.) I emphasize she … I’m certain she was not prescribing that as an “Objectively Correct” model for all relationships.


I don't even think it makes sense to call that scene her “ideal” model. Ideal as Roark may be, Dominique is pretty philosophically and psychologically messed up. Rand's premise seems to be that Dominique's worldview was so malevolent and wrong that nothing short of a scene like that could make possible any relationship with Roark, or any checking of her premises.

Post 8

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 9:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Another was to highlight Ayn Rand's view that men are superior to women, and that in romantic love, a woman is a hero-worshipper who surrenders (physically and emotionally) to the man. 

I don't think that was Rand's view at all. The heroines in her fictions match up to any heros in every way, while the female villains also are no less vicious than any of the male villains. It is only in the act of sex that Rand considered man physically superior and thus should act as such. I have no objection to such a view.  

Well, I've only read Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and that's what I've seen in these two books.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 12/20, 10:33pm)


Post 9

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 9:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Byron, I used to ask the same question regarding the ATLAS scene to Objectivists who condemned the actions of Tim McVeigh. Never did get a straight answer...The Atlas scene IS very problematic, but in the context of the story, one that made sense. I was actually more curious what your opinion on that may be, as a soldier yourself.
(Edited by Joe Maurone on 12/20, 9:57pm)


Post 10

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 10:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What is the page number of the Atlas scene?

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 10:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There is also a passage in "Atlas Shrugged" that I disagreed with, even more than the rape scene.

Tsk tsk, tsk, what softies you guys are! I am surprised.

Wether the guard is indecisive or not, the effect of his action is no different from that if he fights. He has been warned. I also have no patience with such people.

I guess if Altas Shrugged ever make it into a movie, they would make Dagny impowered with Martial Art and simply knock the guard out with a chop of her palm, so that you guys' gentle sensitivity would not be offended. 

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 12/20, 10:24pm)


Post 12

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 11:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I must admit, I always find it kind of funny when people say they are "shocked" by the rough sex scene in the Fountainhead. When I read The Fountainhead, that scene seemed perfectly normal to me. In fact, it almost seemed kind of tame. I guess I've read alot more perverted literature than you guys. :P

-------------------Tom Blackstone


Post 13

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 11:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong, your right, in the context of the story, the guard needed to go. He was defending murderers who were torturing John Galt. Whether or not he knew what was going on is meaningless. If he did not bother to question the work he was doing, or the integrity of his employeers, he is still standing in the way of someone else's freedom. He held a gun. He was not innocent.

Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 6:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong I agree. The scene is a highly romanticised and in my opinion, the way it "had to be". We could hardly expect their first encounter to be one where Roark breaks out the candles and scented oils to give her a massage (ughhh) now would we?

John

Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 7:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
About the rape scene.

I think Rand wrote the rape scene to show Dominique's profound resistence to the good. Throughout the book, Dominique acts toward the premise that there is no good in the world, but she doesn't know how to realize that premise in relation to Roark. She tries and tries to destroy him -- he's the little clean spot she just can't get out of her dirty clothes -- even though secretly she wants him, wants the good. Roark sees through Dominique's pretense. He knows she secretly desires him, and so he obliges her desire, even though he knows she'll overtly resist and deny it. It would've undermined Dominique's character for her to willingly accept sex with Roark.

That said, I don't think the scene was necessary for Roark's character. Rand could've illustrated her point by having Roark plant a long kiss on Dominique, then having Dominique return it with a slap. (We see this all the time in movies and rarely bat an eye.) Still, resistence to sex is far more dramatic than resistence to a mere kiss. And Rand had a flair for the dramatic, to say the least.

Jordan


Post 16

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 7:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Regarding the guard scene in Atlas Shrugged. The guard was through his actions allowing a good person to be tortured and possibly killed. He was supporting and directly contributing to an evil act. When warned and given the choice by Dagny, he refused to do what was necessary to support his own life. He got a warning, which Mr McVeigh never gave his victims, most of them innocent of any crime against him or society as a whole. The guard was a casualty of a war that he chose to be a participant in. The victims of McVeigh were unknowing innocent victims of an indescriminant killer.

Post 17

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 8:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Reading through the posts regarding Dagny killing the security guard, perhaps I was too harsh in my judgement.  You all are right in saying that there is nothing wrong morally with helping her lover escape from those who are torturing him, even if it means killing those in the way.  I remember being disturbed when I first read it because I could not imagine myself killing someone who was unwilling or unable to defend themselves.  If I had the upper hand, as it appeared Dagny did, I would have found some way of knocking him unconscious or restraining him.  I can understand those who would not have gone through that trouble, like that Marine who shot the unarmed and injured insurgent in Fallujah, even if it is a choice I would not have made.  Didn't Ayn Rand say once force is initiated, then all bets are off?

I guess it is surprising that I am the sensitive "softie" in this, even to me.  I have been to war (twice) and killed other men without much thought at the time.  But, long after the fact, the dead and dying still haunt my dreams to this day.  I never could see myself not seeing the men me and my comrades killed as fellow human beings.


Post 18

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 9:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Byron,
I speak from my reason, not from my feeling. I've never been in any situation that remotely resembles war or the situation the Dagny was in. I only wish that I would act like her in the similar situation.

I could not possibly claim that I understand what you have gone through, since I've never even lift a finger to anybody in my life. I just hope that you firmly believe that what you and your comrades have had to do is fully justified. I certainly believe so.


Post 19

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 11:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Byron, I think the problem with the Atlas Scene is not the fact that Dagny shot the guard, but did so rather calmy with no psychological repercussions such as the ones you speak of. Especially given that Dagny was not a soldier.
My guess, though, is that Rand was aware of this, after spending 11 years writing the book and deliberating over every word, and also being under the influence of Nathaniel Branden, would have considered the psychological implications. My theory is that a pre-Atlantis Dagny would not have been able to pull the trigger, but after learning what she did, and realizing that John Galt represented the ideal, felt no remorse because she was prepared to fight at any cost. Price no object... My theory is based on something Nathaniel wrote regarding murder...it was a conversation about killing one's parent's, I think, for a rational reason. The other person says he doesn't believe he could do it, and Nathaniel responded, "did you say rationally?" I can't remember the exact passage, but you get the idea, that there was consideration of the implications. And that's probably why Dagny did not just shoot him right away, instead giving him the option to stand down (in addition to the passage being an illustration of the importance of making moral judgements as opposed to blindly taking orders.)
Still, I think in real life, it would not be so simple as to pull the trigger with no repercussions.

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.