• Announcements

    • Michael Stuart Kelly

      Major Update to OL (please click to open)   02/09/2016

      Sorry for the inconvenience, but we had to update OL and there have been some serious changes made by IPB. The real bad news is that they had to merge User Names and Display Names. This meant that I had to choose between bad and bad. I opted to keep the log-on information the same, so you can get on OL like you always did, but now your User Name is displayed. If your User Name and Display Name were the same, you will not feel the change. If they were different, you are probably irritated right now. I will figure out how you can change this so you can revert to the Display Name you used before if you like, however this may entail a change in how you log-on. The good news is that OL is now searchable from the very beginning. This means all the old posts from the A-Team in Objectivism (and everybody else) will finally show up when you search for something. I will keep changing this announcement as we adapt to these new changes. It's a pain, I know, but after looking around the backend for a bit, I believe the benefits will far, far outweigh the current irritation. They changed things in a hamhanded way and I don't like that, but I can't do anything about it. Benefit-wise, they actually did a good job, so please bear with us. In addition to this change, many good things are coming over time. You are the reason OL exists and I am sorry you have to go through this. Think of it like birth pangs... (All right, all right, that's forcing it.  ) Michael
Victor Pross

The Rape Scene in The Fountainhead

60 posts in this topic

Brant: As I read that scene Dominique could have stopped that "rape" any time she wanted.

Brant, I am courious to know how could she have stopped that?

Ciro

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brant: As I read that scene Dominique could have stopped that "rape" any time she wanted.

Brant, I am courious to know how could she have stopped that?

Ciro

I could say by not asking for it in the first place, but that'd be begging your question. It has to do with comportment. Roark in effect said "I am here to rape you" and Dominique in effect replied, "I am here to be raped." Notice that they didn't actually exchange words. So to stop the "rape" all she had to do was start talking matter of factly. Any conversation or any statement from her would have stopped him because that would have violated the implicit prior understanding.

Anyway, there is quite a bit wrong with the "rape" and its context. Dominique afterwards dragged herself to her bath where (I believe) she lay until morning (my books are mostly in storage). Roark immediately left. I think they should have spent the rest of the night together. He all but forgot about her afterwards, being surprised to think of her at all when he got on the train to New York a week later. This seems more rapist behavior than any love and affection. (Of course as a man I know it's lust first, love later. :) )

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brant: As I read that scene Dominique could have stopped that "rape" any time she wanted.

Brant, I am courious to know how could she have stopped that?

Ciro

I could say by not asking for it in the first place, but that'd be begging your question. It has to do with comportment. Roark in effect said "I am here to rape you" and Dominique in effect replied, "I am here to be raped." Notice that they didn't actually exchange words. So to stop the "rape" all she had to do was start talking matter of factly. Any conversation or any statement from her would have stopped him because that would have violated the implicit prior understanding.

I agree completely. All she had to do was straighten up and say something like, "Okay, wait a minute; this is going too far, I've changed my mind here, bud" in a normal tone of voice -- anything that would show that she's no longer playing the game. Nothing whatsoever shows that Roark had the kind of character that would really "rape" a woman according to Kat's dictionary definition. They were playing out a choreographed scene that involved intense awareness of each other's state of mind and body. He would have known instantly had she not wanted things to be going where they were going. I think Rand indicated that pretty clearly in the way the scene was written.

Judith

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, guys and gals! Here is MY JUDGMENT: The "rape" was not rape.

--Brant

$$$$$$$$$$$$ the end of the discussion! $$$$$$$$$$$$$

:devil:

Edited by Brant Gaede
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brant,

So... would you send Roark to fix your daughter's fireplace?

:)

Michael

That has so obvious an answer:

If my daughter was Dominique.

Ellen

___

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That has so obvious an answer:

If my daughter was Dominique.

Shouldn't that be "If my daughter WERE Dominique?"

What's happened to the subjective tense in the past 20 years? It seems to have disappeared from novels, periodicals, newspapers, and other venues of my curmudgeonly review.

:tongue:

Judith

Edited by Judith
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So... would you send Roark to fix your daughter's fireplace?

Of course. I agree completely with Brant's and Judith's analyses. Roark was a man of uncompromised integrity and would never rape a woman. I read The Fountainhead many times and the thought never crossed my mind that this scene was a "rape". I remember being totally shocked by this when it was first suggested and still remained puzzled to this day. To even suggest it indicated a complete misunderstanding of Roark's character.

Regards,

--

Jeff

Edited by Jeffery Small
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff,

Actually, I agree with you. If I have a problem with Roark and Dominique, it is with Roark's attraction to Dominique in the first place. I can see her attraction to him, but not his initial attraction to her, and not enough real value to carry it through those two marriages.

The long almost telepathic stares do not really convey enough information (in reality) for him to see her as more than a spoiled rich girl at first. The last thing he would be interested in is spoiled rich girls, so his initial attraction always seemed to me to be out of character. Even the Vest Dunning parts that were cut show him to be almost biding his time with a girl.

If I suspend belief on the initial attraction, put it in the category of love at first sight without rhyme or reason (although they come later), the rest makes perfect sense.

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shouldn't that be "If my daughter WERE Dominique?"

What's happened to the subjective tense in the past 20 years? It seems to have disappeared from novels, periodicals, newspapers, and other venues of my curmudgeonly review.

:tongue:

Judith

Oh, please. It's SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD, __not___ SUBJECTIVE TENSE.

In English, personal pronouns can be subjective or objective, and that's about CASE, not about TENSE and not about MOOD.

Verbs have TENSES, MOODS, and VOICES.

Present, present-progressive, past, present-perfect, etc, are TENSES.

Indicative and subjunctive are MOODS.

Active and passive are VOICES.

Grammar-naziistically -- Mike Hardy

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the effort to gain a different perspective of “rape” by any definition, let’s say this: it’s the unilateral escalation of a courtship to its inevitable conclusion, without the usual niceties of flowers and the mood-killer of asking “may I?” :turned:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That has so obvious an answer:

If my daughter was Dominique.

Shouldn't that be "If my daughter WERE Dominique?"

What's happened to the subjective tense in the past 20 years? It seems to have disappeared from novels, periodicals, newspapers, and other venues of my curmudgeonly review.

:tongue:

Judith

Te-he, Mike Hardy was the one I'd expected to inquire about the non-use of the subjunctive mood; instead he got to give a grammar-nazi correction of your terminological misuse.

Twenty years ago, it should have been WERE instead of WAS. These days, in a non-fancy context such as the present one, the subjunctive tends to sound forced and weird. It's going out of fashion in general; even good writers will sometimes think it's wrong in contexts where once it would have been considered right. "Whom" is another one on which usage is changing. In many casual contexts wherein it once would have sounded right, it now sounds wrong.

Ellen

___

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeff,

Actually, I agree with you. If I have a problem with Roark and Dominique, it is with Roark's attraction to Dominique in the first place. I can see her attraction to him, but not his initial attraction to her, and not enough real value to carry it through those two marriages.

The long almost telepathic stares do not really convey enough information (in reality) for him to see her as more than a spoiled rich girl at first. The last thing he would be interested in is spoiled rich girls, so his initial attraction always seemed to me to be out of character. Even the Vest Dunning parts that were cut show him to be almost biding his time with a girl.

If I suspend belief on the initial attraction, put it in the category of love at first sight without rhyme or reason (although they come later), the rest makes perfect sense.

Michael

I have a one-word counter-argument for you Mike:

Chemistry

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't that be "If my daughter WERE Dominique?"

What's happened to the subjective tense in the past 20 years? It seems to have disappeared from novels, periodicals, newspapers, and other venues of my curmudgeonly review.

:tongue:

Judith

Oh, please. It's SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD, __not___ SUBJECTIVE TENSE.

In English, personal pronouns can be subjective or objective, and that's about CASE, not about TENSE and not about MOOD.

Verbs have TENSES, MOODS, and VOICES.

Present, present-progressive, past, present-perfect, etc, are TENSES.

Indicative and subjunctive are MOODS.

Active and passive are VOICES.

Grammar-naziistically -- Mike Hardy

English were doin' fine til the gramer guys & lexicogigraphers got ahold of it!

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chemistry

Robert,

I agree. That's the only explanation that fits.

I don't find chemistry to be a big part of Rand's theory of love, however, not even at that time. Maybe... if you call love at first sight "chemistry." But Rand seemed to want to make it much more.

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't find chemistry to be a big part of Rand's theory of love, however, not even at that time. Maybe... if you call love at first sight "chemistry." But Rand seemed to want to make it much more.

There are plenty of ways to interpret a novel or a philosophy and apply it to one's life. I always accepted Rand's novels (and many novels by other authors) on their own terms. Many aspects of these stories are very abstract and that is certainly true of the attraction and romance between Roark and Dominique. Personally, I never tried to boil these aspects of the book down to the level of realism and I I have never been bothered by the abstractions. I love the writing style and I found many profound messages conveyed by Roark's various responses to Dominique (as well as the other characters) throughout the book from which I could learn valuable lessons. But it never crossed my mind that this was some sort of template for actions and responses to be applied to my life and my relationships with others. Roark and Dominique are literary vehicles used to convey information and not some real life role models.

Regards,

--

Jeff

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, please. It's SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD, __not___ SUBJECTIVE TENSE.

In English, personal pronouns can be subjective or objective, and that's about CASE, not about TENSE and not about MOOD.

Verbs have TENSES, MOODS, and VOICES.

Present, present-progressive, past, present-perfect, etc, are TENSES.

Indicative and subjunctive are MOODS.

Active and passive are VOICES.

Dear god. I've found someone who knows tons more about this stuff than I do.

I think I'm in love.

:devil:

It's going out of fashion in general; even good writers will sometimes think it's wrong in contexts where once it would have been considered right. "Whom" is another one on which usage is changing.

Over my f***ing dead body.

And note that that's f***ing, not f***in'.

Judith

aka Preservatrix of Victorian and Edwardian English

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[use of the subjunctive mood has been] going out of fashion in general; even good writers will sometimes think it's wrong in contexts where once it would have been considered right. "Whom" is another one on which usage is changing.

Over my f***ing dead body.

And note that that's f***ing, not f***in'.

Judith

aka Preservatrix of Victorian and Edwardian English

LOL. You and MH -- although MH has been known to bend to the winds of changes in grammatical style at least as regards "whom." I haven't watched thus far to see if you always use the subjunctive and/or "whom" in "Preservatrix of Victorian and Edwardian English" fashion. But I shall watch hence. Be warned...

Ellen

___

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rand did not believe in the idea of “love at first sight” but rather: knowledge of that person is a precondition of love, or any other emotion or feeling you might have toward somebody. I think much of the confusion towards this “love at first sight” business comes from this: people can feel an initial attraction to another person—that they take to be “love”--but that is rather adolescent or too rash a conclusion. The confusion is compounded if one does fall in love with a person where an initial attraction was experienced, and so one can easily conclude: “Yeah, it was love at first sight.” But it wasn’t. To think otherwise is, to my mind, to empty the word “love” of any genuine meaning. Whatever is faulted in Rand’s definition or conception of love, I think it is extremely reasonable to say that a powerful emotion such as love requires knowledge of a person, something much more than a first look could offer, love being something other than a mere physical attraction.

As for Rand, she was attracted to Frank’s looks, his manner even—and then, after some dating, she fell in love with him. But love at “first sight”—without any knowledge of that person? No, I don’t see that.

-Victor

Edited by Victor Pross
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rand did not believe in the idea of “love at first sight” but rather: knowledge of that person is a precondition of love, or any other emotion or feeling you might have toward somebody. I think much of the confusion towards this “love at first sight” business comes from this: people can feel an initial attraction to another person—that they take to be “love”--but that is rather adolescent or too rash a conclusion. The confusion is compounded if one does fall in love with a person where an initial attraction was experienced, and so one can easily conclude: “Yeah, it was love at first sight.” But it wasn’t. To think otherwise is, to my mind, to empty the word “love” of any genuine meaning. Whatever is faulted in Rand’s definition or conception of love, I think it is extremely reasonable to say that a powerful emotion such as love requires knowledge of a person, something much more than a first look could offer, love being something other than a mere physical attraction.

As for Rand, she was attracted to Frank’s looks, his manner even—and then, after some dating, she fell in love with him. But love at “first sight”—without any knowledge of that person? No, I don’t see that.

-Victor

Victor,

I partly agree with you there, but partly don't. The disagreement is because I think that Rand believed that one could tell much more about a person "on first sight," or at any rate with minimal acquaintance, than you seem to allow for. The theme of immediate attraction is so prevalent in her novels (and in her earlier stories, too). Consider Kira, for instance, Kira's immediate willingness to be Leo's lover. She even pretends to be a street-walker, when Leo at first thinks that that's what she is. Consider Rand's own attraction -- on the basis of what, realistically? -- to the real Leo of her own life. Consider her languishing in distress after she'd seen Frank once and didn't know if she'd ever see him again -- she was worried about by others at the place she was living, I forget off-hand the name of it. It isn't that she thought of love as springing from how a person looked, from straightforward appearance, but she did have an attitude that one could discern character so quickly as to amount to "at first sight."

Ellen

___

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ellen; According to Passion of Ayn Rand Ayn seeing of Frank O'Connor on the set of King of Kings was love at first sight. She may have written about it because she thought it was part of her own life.

Edited by Chris Grieb
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victor,

I partly agree with you there, but partly don't. The disagreement is because I think that Rand believed that one could tell much more about a person "on first sight," or at any rate with minimal acquaintance, than you seem to allow for. The theme of immediate attraction is so prevalent in her novels (and in her earlier stories, too). Consider Kira, for instance, Kira's immediate willingness to be Leo's lover. She even pretends to be a street-walker, when Leo at first thinks that that's what she is. Consider Rand's own attraction -- on the basis of what, realistically? -- to the real Leo of her own life. Consider her languishing in distress after she'd seen Frank once and didn't know if she'd ever see him again -- she was worried about by others at the place she was living, I forget off-hand the name of it. It isn't that she thought of love as springing from how a person looked, from straightforward appearance, but she did have an attitude that one could discern character so quickly as to amount to "at first sight."

Ellen

___

Ellen,

I do follow the line of your reasoning here. Regarding Rand’s stressing over wondering if she would ever see that handsome man, Frank, ever again and only after first meeting, (or look) could be based on that this man suits her physical requirements and intrigue was there. My god, she must have thought, this holds a lot of promise. But LOVE? If you recall of how Rand conceives of love—or even as you would—can you really reconcile that to a first meeting? Physical attraction, yes, that one is easy, but love becomes more difficult.

-Victor

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all a matter of definition, how do you define "love"? It may encompass everything from the first infatuation to the comradeship in later years. How Rand later in her life defined "love" is not relevant, she could rationalize very well, a prime example being that she imagined Frank as a Galt on strike, while he according to all accounts was a quiet, nice, good-looking but not very gifted or ambitious man who had very little in common with John Galt.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether or not "love" is the right word, Rand believed you could take people's measure at first sight, or at least before meeting them. Some other examples are Hank R's first sight of Dagny Taggart, Galt's recollection of his first sight of Rearden and the Anthem narrator's first sight of the beloved. Galt may not have fallen in love with Dagny at first sight, but he falls years before he meets her. Dominique is hot to trot before she even finds out the quarry worker's name. Kin to this is her preoccupation with "disappointment" with people who turned out not to be what she expected. I think this is, in some TBD way, a part of the appeal of her novels, well worth literary study.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL. You and MH -- although MH has been known to bend to the winds of changes in grammatical style at least as regards "whom."

I wouldn't mind if "whom" were abandoned. But people who can't understand the difference surely need euthanasia---no one could possibly doubt that. Professional journalists who write about "The man whom police believe is the culprit...." (You wouldn't say "Police believe _him_ is the culprit.) That sort of thing.

And let us not forget what James Thurber wrote:

Take the common expression, "Whom are you, anyways?" That is of course, strictly speaking, correct - and yet how formal, how stilted! The usage to be preferred in ordinary speech and writing is "Who are you, anyways?" "Whom" should be used in the nominative case only when a note of dignity or austerity is desired. For example, if a writer is dealing with a meeting of, say, the British Cabinet, it would be better to have the Premier greet a new arrival, such as an under-secretary, with a "Whom are you, anyways?" rather than a "Who are you, anyways?" - always granted that the Premier is sincerely unaware of the man's identity. To address a person one knows by a "Whom are you?" is a mark either of incredible lapse of memory or inexcusable arrogance. "How are you?" is a much kindlier salutation.

-- Mike Hardy

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now