"But I don't think of you."


Recommended Posts

OK.

Not the common definition which invariably involves continuous lying to gain power or leverage which I would find Roark incapable of.

Remember, I'm just applying it to his work and it's only food for thought. Also, descriptions of behavior don't define the cause of the behavior. That's one step removed.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wikipedia says that the ICS-10 classifies sociopathy as being characterized by at least 3 of the following:

1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.

2. Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.

3. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them.

4. Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.

5. Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment.

6. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.

I think that number 6 is the only one that applies to Roark, and only in regard to his offering "plausible rationalizations" to excuse his perpetrating a fraud with Keating and then destroying Cortlandt.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keating couldn't, in the end, pay Roark in the specified coin for the sub-contracted design work. The "fraud" you refer to here is on rather soft sand. Roark had no right to blow up the building, however. Maybe Keating did(?)!!

His relationship with Keating was fraudulent respecting all the design work he did for him. That, however, was between the two of them. Guy Francon was quite happy to build what Keating gave to him. And Keating in college certainly committed a fraud submitting Roark's work and corrections as his own. That was like my Father in college when he typed the papers of other students. He was called in and told he could type the papers, but he couldn't correct the mistakes.

I think the Keating character to be kept in the novel to make the novel work had to be continually pumped up by Rand through Roark and that was done by Roark doing work accredited to Keating.

We have to acknowledge the tremendous Nietzschean influence on "The Fountainhead." That influence was more sublimated in "Atlas Shrugged."

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wikipedia says that the ICS-10 classifies sociopathy as being characterized by at least 3 of the following:

1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.

2. Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.

3. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them.

4. Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.

5. Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment.

6. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.

I think that number 6 is the only one that applies to Roark, and only in regard to his offering "plausible rationalizations" to excuse his perpetrating a fraud with Keating and then destroying Cortlandt.

J

Numbers 2 and 5 describe my dog to to a tee. Number 6 would apply to him as well, if he could talk.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Numbers 2 and 5 describe my dog to to a tee. Number 6 would apply to him as well, if he could talk.

Ghs

Well, don't judge your dog to be a sociopath based on human standards. That would be like a dog applying dog standards to Howard Roark and judging him to be a sociopath because he doesn't sniff crotches, hump legs or ride in the car with his head out the window.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found your story very interesting, Ellen, but all I have now is some superficialities concerning Creede, CO. As a young man, E. Cardon Walker worked in around Creede. Many decades later my brother married one of his daughters and having been told of Creede by him and how beautiful in was, they built a summer home and guest house near the Rio Grande about halfway between Creede and South Fork. They and their children, two boys, rode horses and biked there. (E. Cardon Walker was CEO of Disney before Eisner came in after his retirement.)

About eleven years ago I was driving a semi-tractor trailer full of Colorado potatoes (or beer) to Phoenix to be made into Frito Lay products along the Rio Grande near South Fork headed for Wolf Creek Pass. The river, little more than a raging stream, was flowing in my opposite direction of travel. It had been snowing and it was misty in light totally diffused by pervasive cloud cover. The tumbling water was flanked by the wet snow with steam rising. I have never seen anything more beautiful in nature and I knew that in hours it would be gone and I could not tarry.

--Brant

Numbers 2 and 5 describe my dog to to a tee. Number 6 would apply to him as well, if he could talk.

Ghs

Well, don't judge your dog to be a sociopath based on human standards. That would be like a dog applying dog standards to Howard Roark and judging him to be a sociopath because he doesn't sniff crotches, hump legs or ride in the car with his head out the window.

J

Although Objectivism has often been called the embodiment of a "dog eat dog" philosophy. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Roark's bon mot is meant as an indication of the benevolent universe premise, with a twist of irony for artistic purposes. Clearly meant as indifference, because the Tooheys of the world don't ultimately matter.

If so, why think about them? Remember how The Fountainhead starts: "Howard Roark laughed."

"But I don't think of you" is an extension of this first, very important line, and an application to a particular circumstance that the reader was presumed--at that point in the narrative--to have adequate context for.

I am embarrassed to say I used the line once almost 30 years ago, but at least tried to soft-peddle it some by attributing along the lines, "As Ayn Rand would say right now,...."

Still embarrassing. Ugh.

Fascinating conversation, this thread. We need more of these! Somebody do so, pronto!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Roark's bon mot is meant as an indication of the benevolent universe premise, with a twist of irony for artistic purposes. Clearly meant as indifference, because the Tooheys of the world don't ultimately matter.

Rand may have indeed meant the line as indifference, but her authorial intentions are what she would call "outside considerations," and not relevant to judging the content of the novel, at least not by her aesthetic standards.

Rand may have wanted her readers to come away with the message that evil is impotent, but I think the opposite is generally true. I think most readers recognize how much importance she granted to evil within her novels' conflicts. Despite some of the words that she put into her characters' mouths, their actions betray their true evaluations of the power of evil.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Ghs replying to a poster on the LL 2 list]:

Roark would need to be an aspie to fit your characterization of him.

A while back on another thread, Ba'al made an interesting remark about Roark:

Howard Roark might have been autistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Ghs replying to a poster on the LL 2 list]:

Roark would need to be an aspie to fit your characterization of him.

A while back on another thread, Ba'al made an interesting remark about Roark:

Howard Roark might have been autistic.

Not. Rand didn't know, I'd bet, anything about autism in 1943--or care regardless--so her hero couldn't have been.

Let's not work off the default that Rand was perfectly consistent with her characterizations and ideas throughout her novels or that she really knew what she was talking about all the time--as in that sex/rape engraved invitation with Howard. (Note how the guys are generally thought of by her readers by their last names and the females by their first. One reason is the male heroes are not encumbered by relatives so when we say "Roark" we aren't referring to three different people. Dagny had her brother and Dominique, her father. However, there may be a subtle sexist bias involved too, on both the author's and readers' part. With Dagny as the exception, the guys are the big doers and the last name tends to be more powerful than the first which is the more humanizing.) I mention that as it so clearly shows Rand's complete ignorance--it had to be much more common in her day--of how traumatizing that kind of sex could be to an actual, real world Dominique. That's someone you start out slowly and carefully with. She may have been a victim of childhood sexual trauma. And then Rand's depiction of the aftermath is the depiction of an actual rape victim, though not of course her intent. Dominique was Rand "in a bad mood." What happened to her throughout the novel was Rand's "wishful thinking" about what she wanted sexually, but Rand was not a frigid, inexperienced woman. She was then in her mid-thirties and 15 years married. Patricia Neal, of course, loved that sort of thing with Gary Cooper, but she was Patricia Neal, not Dominique, and they spent several years having one hot affair.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Ghs replying to a poster on the LL 2 list]:

Roark would need to be an aspie to fit your characterization of him.

A while back on another thread, Ba'al made an interesting remark about Roark:

Howard Roark might have been autistic.

Not. Rand didn't know, I'd bet, anything about autism in 1943--or care regardless--so her hero couldn't have been.

I didn't mean that it was conscious attempt by Rand to portray a character with autistic traits, but think that Roark may have reflected some of her own problems in communicating with others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Ghs replying to a poster on the LL 2 list]:

Roark would need to be an aspie to fit your characterization of him.

A while back on another thread, Ba'al made an interesting remark about Roark:

Howard Roark might have been autistic.

Not. Rand didn't know, I'd bet, anything about autism in 1943--or care regardless--so her hero couldn't have been.

I didn't mean that it was conscious attempt by Rand to portray a character with autistic traits, but think that Roark may have reflected some of her own problems in communicating with others.

First I've heard of this problem of hers. What in the hell are you talking about?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is another pertinent passage from one of my LL2 posts:

Toohey set out to destroy Roark and everything he stood for. Are we to

assume that Roark didn't know about this or, if he did know, had no opinion

about it one way or the other, since he "never" thought about Toohey? Much

of Roark's courtroom speech is a passionate attack on the mediocrity that

Toohey embodied. Roark had clearly thought about Toohey and his values a

great deal.

Fictional characters can serve several purposes.

Roark is the embodiment of the Randian hero against whose 'moral superiority' types like Toohey come across as something like 'despicable, inferior vermin', not worthy of being thought of. "I don't think of you" reflects this attitude.

But Roark also serves as "The voice of Ayn Rand" in the courtroom speech, where she lets pour out her profound aversion and disgust against the likes of Toohey destroying the world by attempting to stifle 'human greatness'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I've written that one problem with Americans is that they don't believe in the reality of evil. You better take evil and irrationality seriously: not in the sense of regarding it as important-not in the sense of letting it determine the course of your life...but in the sense of not evading its existence. You should do everything in your power (though not at the price of self-sacrifice) to counteract evil and irrationality, which requires taking it seriously. But that is not the meaning of the this line from ATLAS SHRUGGED." ["We didn't have to take any of it seriously.]

-Ayn Rand, as quoted in Ayn Rand Answers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Ghs replying to a poster on the LL 2 list]:

Roark would need to be an aspie to fit your characterization of him.

A while back on another thread, Ba'al made an interesting remark about Roark:

Howard Roark might have been autistic.

Not. Rand didn't know, I'd bet, anything about autism in 1943--or care regardless--so her hero couldn't have been.

I didn't mean that it was conscious attempt by Rand to portray a character with autistic traits, but think that Roark may have reflected some of her own problems in communicating with others.

She's got several million books out there - she rang bells with somebody - not bad for a woman

with "problems in communicating with others."

(I'd like some of her problem.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Ghs replying to a poster on the LL 2 list]:

Roark would need to be an aspie to fit your characterization of him.

A while back on another thread, Ba'al made an interesting remark about Roark:

Howard Roark might have been autistic.

Not. Rand didn't know, I'd bet, anything about autism in 1943--or care regardless--so her hero couldn't have been.

I didn't mean that it was conscious attempt by Rand to portray a character with autistic traits, but think that Roark may have reflected some of her own problems in communicating with others.

She's got several million books out there - she rang bells with somebody - not bad for a woman

with "problems in communicating with others."

(I'd like some of her problem.)

Good point.

An old friend from my college years used to give seminars (mainly at LP conventions) on how to communicate effectively. He asked me to sit in on one and then give him feedback.

My friend used Rand as a foil, i.e., as a model of how not to communicate. She was supposedly too dogmatic, acerbic, etc. Afterward I made the same point you did. I said that Rand reached a hell of a lot of people for a woman who was supposedly deficient in communication skills. If fact, her writings have been read by more people throughout the world than any other libertarian, and by far.

The point here, at the risk of being corny, is to be true to oneself. There is no one "right" way to communicate. People have different interests, skills, and personalities. The trick is to tap into one's strong points and develop those.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't mean that it was conscious attempt by Rand to portray a character with autistic traits, but think that Roark may have reflected some of her own problems in communicating with others.

She's got several million books out there - she rang bells with somebody - not bad for a woman

with "problems in communicating with others."

(I'd like some of her problem.)

Good point.

An old friend from my college years used to give seminars (mainly at LP conventions) on how to communicate effectively. He asked me to sit in on one and then give him feedback.

My friend used Rand as a foil, i.e., as a model of how not to communicate. She was supposedly too dogmatic, acerbic, etc. Afterward I made the same point you did. I said that Rand reached a hell of a lot of people for a woman who was supposedly deficient in communication skills. If fact, her writings have been read by more people throughout the world than any other libertarian, and by far.

The point here, at the risk of being corny, is to be true to oneself. There is no one "right" way to communicate. People have different interests, skills, and personalities. The trick is to tap into one's strong points and develop those.

I agree on the tapping into one's strong points, but if the emphasizing of one's strong points goes as far as not (at least) realizing what one's weak points are - if it goes as far as not seeing any deficits, any gaps - it can cause problems (especially in ethics) if one presents a code of moral absolutes for others to follow.

Imo not being plagued by any self-doubt was one of Rand's strong points. But one can get the impression that this extreme self-confidence went so far that the thought never occurred to her that she might be wrong on an issue, that might she have made a mistake. This weak point, a lack of realistic assessment of herself, influenced her philosophy, and had a profound impact on her followers as they were trying to put her teachings to work in practice.

If they accepted the implicit premise that Rand must have got it right, this would shut out criticism and possible doubt.

And even if doubt about something Rand said should have crept up, I'm convinced that virtually none of her followers tried to criticize her in a direct face-to face communication because they feared her outbursts of anger directed any anyone who dared to challenge her views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't mean that it was conscious attempt by Rand to portray a character with autistic traits, but think that Roark may have reflected some of her own problems in communicating with others.

She's got several million books out there - she rang bells with somebody - not bad for a woman

with "problems in communicating with others."

(I'd like some of her problem.)

Good point.

An old friend from my college years used to give seminars (mainly at LP conventions) on how to communicate effectively. He asked me to sit in on one and then give him feedback.

My friend used Rand as a foil, i.e., as a model of how not to communicate. She was supposedly too dogmatic, acerbic, etc. Afterward I made the same point you did. I said that Rand reached a hell of a lot of people for a woman who was supposedly deficient in communication skills. If fact, her writings have been read by more people throughout the world than any other libertarian, and by far.

The point here, at the risk of being corny, is to be true to oneself. There is no one "right" way to communicate. People have different interests, skills, and personalities. The trick is to tap into one's strong points and develop those.

I agree on the tapping into one's strong points, but if the emphasizing of one's strong points goes as far as not (at least) realizing what one's weak points are - if it goes as far as not seeing any deficits, any gaps - it can cause problems (especially in ethics) if one presents a code of moral absolutes for others to follow.

Imo not being plagued by any self-doubt was one of Rand's strong points. But one can get the impression that this extreme self-confidence went so far that the thought never occurred to her that she might be wrong on an issue, that might she have made a mistake. This weak point, a lack of realistic assessment of herself, influenced her philosophy, and had a profound impact on her followers as they were trying to put her teachings to work in practice.

If they accepted the implicit premise that Rand must have got it right, this would shut out criticism and possible doubt.

And even if doubt about something Rand said should have crept up, I'm convinced that virtually none of her followers tried to criticize her in a direct face-to face communication because they feared her outbursts of anger directed any anyone who dared to challenge her views.

There is only so much one person can do. The point is to do it as best as one can and then let the chips fall where they may.

In 1972, during the the early stages of writing ATCAG, I became worried about certain features of my writing, especially my natural polemicism. I feared this would turn many people off and, moreover, would mean that few "serious" philosophers would take ATCAG seriously.

I got to the point where I could scarcely write. Then I recalled a passage that I had read by Rand, and I located it -- though I do not now recall where it was published. Nor can I recall the passage verbatim, but it said essentially this: If a writer worries about his intended audience and how they might react, then he will end up paralyzing himself and not be able to write at all. You will not please everyone, no matter what you do, so write to please yourself.

I typed Rand remarks on a 3x5 file card, and I taped the card to the front of my monster Adler typewriter, immediately below the keys. Then whenever I stalled, I glanced down at the card and read the quotation aloud, and I kept reading it aloud until I starting typing again.

This was not a perfect solution, but it was the best damned solution to writers' block that I have ever used.

You may not think that I have addressed your comments, but I have. The lesson, again, is this: Don't worry about that other shit. Write from the heart, no matter what kind of writing you are engaged in. Write to please yourself, and fuck the rest of the world. Period, end of story.

(I assume that people understand that I would acknowledge certain exceptions here, but I am talking about creative writing, whether fiction or nonfiction.)

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:) There was that "60's Rick Nelson song :-

"But it's all right now, I learned my lesson well - you see, you can't please everyone, so you gotta please yourself." ('Garden Party').

After he was booed off the stage at Madison Square Gardens for singing new songs,

instead of his older material, I believe.

Great advice, Ghs, and apart from stifling one's creativity and originality, fixating on one's target audience compromises the completed work and oneself. It sets a precedent one can't follow next time, too, and anyway it endears one to the wrong audience for the wrong reasons. Failing at something is relatively painless because it can be corrected and redirected - but 'succeeding' through expediency or insincerity will always be the occasions that cause painful regrets later, I found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...
  • 1 month later...

In reply to the original post, Rand's heroes were always willing to teach others about their own philosophy (Objectivism--although it seems an error now that they never consciously knew why--"Maybe it's because I never believed in God."--they were Objectivists), which is what I think Roark was doing with that line.

When asked to tell Toohey what he thinks of him, Roark replies honestly for Toohey's sake. To lie to someone seeking information is worse than an insult, it's a transgression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to the original post, Rand's heroes were always willing to teach others about their own philosophy (Objectivism--although it seems an error now that they never consciously knew why--"Maybe it's because I never believed in God."--they were Objectivists), which is what I think Roark was doing with that line.

When asked to tell Toohey what he thinks of him, Roark replies honestly for Toohey's sake. To lie to someone seeking information is worse than an insult, it's a transgression.

I am afraid that is a bridge too far.

Roark wasn't saying this for anybody's sake. It was a statement of fact, placed in the book to demonstrate the proper mindset of a creator and the (metaphysically) insignificant role of second-handers, even the Crown Prince of second-handers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to the original post, Rand's heroes were always willing to teach others about their own philosophy (Objectivism--although it seems an error now that they never consciously knew why--"Maybe it's because I never believed in God."--they were Objectivists), which is what I think Roark was doing with that line.

When asked to tell Toohey what he thinks of him, Roark replies honestly for Toohey's sake. To lie to someone seeking information is worse than an insult, it's a transgression.

It was just a factual statement. A courtesy. That's what made it so devastating. Roark would only lie in the context of an emergency. The question of whether he might lie to Toohey would never have occurred to him. Roark didn't even know he had wiped the floor with him and wouldn't have cared.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to the original post, Rand's heroes were always willing to teach others about their own philosophy (Objectivism--although it seems an error now that they never consciously knew why--"Maybe it's because I never believed in God."--they were Objectivists), which is what I think Roark was doing with that line.

When asked to tell Toohey what he thinks of him, Roark replies honestly for Toohey's sake. To lie to someone seeking information is worse than an insult, it's a transgression.

It was just a factual statement. A courtesy. That's what made it so devastating. Roark would only lie in the context of an emergency. The question of whether he might lie to Toohey would never have occurred to him. Roark didn't even know he had wiped the floor with him and wouldn't have cared.

--Brant

Exactly right, I believe. What I often think of as the innocence of honesty.

That it was off-handedly said to the one person who thought of everybody, at all times (toward his power and control over them) is an added frisson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to the original post, Rand's heroes were always willing to teach others about their own philosophy (Objectivism--although it seems an error now that they never consciously knew why--"Maybe it's because I never believed in God."--they were Objectivists), which is what I think Roark was doing with that line.

When asked to tell Toohey what he thinks of him, Roark replies honestly for Toohey's sake. To lie to someone seeking information is worse than an insult, it's a transgression.

It was just a factual statement. A courtesy. That's what made it so devastating. Roark would only lie in the context of an emergency. The question of whether he might lie to Toohey would never have occurred to him. Roark didn't even know he had wiped the floor with him and wouldn't have cared.

--Brant

Yeah, I was thinking about Toohey's perspective and it reminded me of all the other characters that had learned things from Roark, or Fransisco, or Galt. They taught people a lot, but they didn't usually aim to do that. But you're obviously right.

Link to comment
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