Stange Passage in Fountainhead

Joe,

You have a good point there, and it is what I was driving at but did not make very explicit. I cannot think of anyone (aside from a "sociopath") who would not feel remorse about killing another human being, even when the other person is trying to kill you (willfully or blindly). I remember the passage clearly saying Dagny felt no such remorse, and that is what disturbed me. Again, from a moral perspective, there is nothing wrong with what she did given the context, but I still think there were better ways of going about it.

Post 21

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 9:10am

I agree Jordan, the scene was unnecessary. Dramatic? Yes. Necessary? No. And, in my opinion, it sends a message that aggression is OK if someone is "asking for it" (i.e., the "engraved invitation/implicit consent" answer). That becomes dangerously subjective.

BKB

(Edited by B. Keith Brumley on 12/21, 6:56pm)

(Edited by B. Keith Brumley on 12/21, 6:56pm)

Post 22

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 2:40pm

Byron, Joe, et al

Your discussion of Dagny and "Atlas Shrugged" has wet my appetite to finish "The Fountainhead" and get to Ms. Rand's Magnum Opus - "Atlas Shrugged."

Maybe I'll try and do some late night reading over the holidays ...

BKB

Post 23

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 3:13pm

it sends a message that aggression is OK if someone is "asking for it"

It sends the message force is justified in the face of force.

The remorse issue is another one all together. It's an emotion and emotions are based on your previous value judgements. Given Dagny's experiences with people unwilling to think or value and how they treated her and anyone she cared about, I think she had such absolute surety in her actions that she would feel no regret in this situation. It was John Galt she was trying to save. To her, he represented the highest ideal so that anyone trying to kill or aid those who would kill him, was asking for it. Context is immportant.

Post 24

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 3:30pm

Ethan,

I think Mr. Brumley was referring to the "rape scene", not Dagny shooting the guard. His problem with that scene was my problem too. If I was tried in a court of law for rape, "engraved invitation" would be a very poor defense, and a jury will laugh the "broken marble fireplace defense" out of the courtroom. When I was stationed in Okinawa, there was an Air Force sergeant who was charged by the Japanese police with raping a Japanese teeenage girl. His defense was that he thought the girl's cries of "no" meant "yes" and that she liked rough sex. That idiot is sitting in a Japanese prison eating a diet of rice and fish heads. Like they say in those dumb sexual harassment classes I go through every year, "no means no".

John said it in jest, but I happen to like the idea of giving a woman I love a massage with scented oil, candles, and flowers all around. But I'm a hopeless romantic in that way.

Post 25

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 3:47pm

Eric J. Tower wrote an excellent post to the Dagny question. His services are needed here, too.

Post 26

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 6:45pm

Ethan wrote:

Context is immportant.

I agree. Except, as I've not read "Atlas Shrugged" the context of my statement was with regard to the rape scene in "The Fountainhead."

I still believe the rape scene was unnecessary and sends the wrong message. But, that's just me.

BKB

Post 27

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 8:32pm

Sorry Jon,

I've never read The Fountainhead, after I read Atlas Shrugged I went on a binge of reading every philosophical essay of hers and non-fiction book that I could get my hands on. Lets just say that was about a year and a half ago and I am still at it but very close to having read everything non-fiction. (past the half-way mark at least).

Anyways, the rape scene i know nothing about. I'm not sure how helpful this will be But in her book on writing fiction Rand writes that the purpose of character action in the plot is to make concrete examples of the philosophical principles those characters represent. Also she says that good dramatic conflict is when a man is made to choose between his values. Arbitrary example: If you had to choose between the love of your life and your life which would you choose?

SO you guys who know the story could figure it out by asking what the characters represent philosophicaly, ask what values are in play during that scene and how did the characters choose? That will get you closer to understand the purpose of almost any scene in any book.

Regards,

~E.

Post 28

Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 9:41pm

I think in context the "rape scene" is not a rape.

Both Roark and Dominique knew what Dominique had in mind when she invited Roark over.

But the game of presuming to read someone's mind and know what they "really" want is a dangerous one. Ask Kobe Bryant.

Post 29

Monday, December 27, 2004 - 7:18am

Personally, as a member of the female species, I think he should of wined and dined her first. I did find that scene a bit disturbing, but I let my teenage daughter read the book anyway. Maybe it was date rape without the date. I think Rand was trying to be controversial and spice things up, sort of a philosophical publicity stunt.

Post 30

Monday, December 27, 2004 - 8:22am

Jared wrote:

But the game of presuming to read someone's mind and know what they "really" want is a dangerous one. Ask Kobe Bryant.

Quite right, Jared. And this was my point about the rape scene sending the wrong message, i.e., that if one is "asking for it" it isn't an act of aggression. How does one know when someone is "asking for it?" Dangerously subjective in my opinion.

On another note, as I continue to read "Fountainhead" the whole relationship between Dominique and Roark is twisted and rather pathetic, if you ask me. She's bent on destroying his career (out of some weird logic that his buildings are too perfect for anyone to truly appreciate - so they mustn't be built) ... and Roark continues to play coy with everyone about knowing her but is banging her on the side - all while she tries to destroy him and his architectual career. Talk about your dysfunctional and classic "co-dependent" relationship ... weird! But I'll keep reading ....

Post 31

Monday, December 27, 2004 - 8:30am

katdaddy wrote

Post 29
Monday, December 27 - 7:18am Reply
Link
Edit
Personally, as a member of the female species, I think he should of wined and dined her first. I did find that scene a bit disturbing, but I let my teenage daughter read the book anyway. Maybe it was date rape without the date. I think Rand was trying to be controversial and spice things up, sort of a philosophical publicity stunt.

I agree 100%! I guess it is out of character for Roark to "wine & dine" anyone. Too sociable and conventional I suppose (ha).

I, too, have a teen daughter (btw - I'm just north of your in Milwaukee) and I would not hesitate to let her read the book. But if something like this happened to her, and I found out about it, you can bet I would be calling the police.

Yes, I think the scene was likely an attempt to get some publicity for her book. This was in the mid to late 30's, I believe, so it would've been quite controversial. Does anyone know if it got the "buzz" going about the book and/or increased sales? Seems I read somewhere that the book sold via word of mouth primarily.

BKB

Post 32

Monday, December 27, 2004 - 9:29am

Keith,

On another note, as I continue to read "Fountainhead" the whole relationship between Dominique and Roark is twisted and rather pathetic, if you ask me.

Great question! I feel quite the same and I can't straighten it out.

I figures that Dominique believes that the whole world is evil. The existence of Roark defies her belief. Is that why she sets out to destroy him? This doesn't make sense to me. Because we see the world as it is, not what we think how it should be. Do I miss something here too?

Post 33

Monday, December 27, 2004 - 9:40am

Hong,

I'm a bit confused as well (ha). But I'm going to keep reading to see where it leads.

I think there is something to your theory that Roark shatters the paradigm under which Dominique operates - i.e., that everyone is fake and nothing is truly good. Roark is "real" and his work is "good." Therefore, she has to destroy him/his work or shift paradigms. That is too painful so Roark has to go. But then ... she goes to him for sex? Is the sex no good? Does the physical relationship somehow butress her worldview that everyone is a fake and nothing is good? Is she faking orgasm? Is Roark no good in bed?

I'm being silly on purpose. But the relationship is strange to say the least. But ... I'll keep reading to see where Ms. Rand takes this.

BKB

Post 34

Monday, December 27, 2004 - 12:24pm

Hong,

It's been over twenty five years since I read Fountainhead. But I read it several times. About your question: My take was from an engineering point of view. How do you test the properties of materials? For hardness, you have to apply great force and measure the amount of give. You don't know what you have until you test it.

Mike Erickson

Post 35

Monday, December 27, 2004 - 5:15pm

Now, I remember that there was a passage in the Fountainhead saying that Dominique had bought a wonderfully beautiful statue from a museum, because she loved it so much for its beauty, and then decided to destroy it because - at least it appeared to my like that - she really believes that the good must be saved from the draggling ugliness of evil by destroying the good. There is no-one to admire the good - and she loves the good to much to let it be dragged and ridiculed by those who are evil and not worth to see the good.

And as far as I remember that also were her arguments in the court session following the opening of Roark's "Stoddard Temple".

(oh yes, typos ...)

(Edited by Sascha Settegast on 12/27, 5:30pm)

Post 36

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 6:50am

Sascha,

If I may jump in I think you have the key here about Dominique in:

--and she loves the good to much to let it be dragged and ridiculed by those who are evil and not worth to see the good

.
When she invited Roark to repair the fireplace she did not know who he was, but certainly knew how she felt about him.
Consequently she set out to demolish him, exactly because he had made such an impact on her, or proof to herself that she was mistaken about him and he was just a nobody.
His reaction to seeing that the reason for his call up was only a weak excuse would determine the outcome.
Roark however understood that she wanted to test and/or insult him, rejected her premises, and proceeded on the bases of her true reaction to him, which off course was mutual. Needless to say she had to fight him and make the test as hard as possible until the final surrender. To Roark her desire to fight him was so unnecessary but as later in the novel explicitly stated, she had to find that out for herself. I think that is meaning of the "gilded invitation"
I personally found it a great scene.
Maybe it is because I have fought with friends just for the fun of it, which sometimes hurt, that I never read aggressive violence into this scene.

Nick

Post 37

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 9:08am

Mike and Sascha,
Thanks for your input. I am still not convinced. Why do Dominique needs to test that people like Roark does exist? Isn't her own existence a sufficient evidence? And what would be the rationale to destroy something beautiful for fear of its being, uh, destroyed by others? I wonder what was Ms. Rand design for Dominique's character? What did she trying to illustrate through this character? Contradictory human nature?

Post 38

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 11:45am

Hong Zhang,

Usually not all of Rand's characters are designed to be perfect right on from the beginning. There are the evil one, that stay evil. And then there are the perfectly good ones, that stay perfectly good. But there are also those that are generally good but have one or two wrong premises on which they act and behave. (Remember Dagny Taggart!)
I think Dominique's mistake is that she doesn't fight against evil but instead turns against the good. She is not psychologically self-sufficient or genuinly selfish because she lets herself be hurt by other people. Roark is a perfect example of selfishness because with him pain only "goes down to a certain point" and then touches him no longer. His general attitude is always optimistic, no matter what the others do to him. It is somehow different with Dominique.

Post 39

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 1:24pm