Gone With The Wind and Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead Characters


Recommended Posts

Where do you get the idea that Rhett Butler "would not hesitate to defend his philosophy even if it meant killing the very woman he loved." (?)

Well, you said it yourself, Rhett takes advantage of his surroundings. I quote you, "he arranged himself quite well with the reality around him, trying to use it to his advantage." He's a guy who knows what he wants and gets what he wants. In this aspect, he's more like Gail Wynand. I remember in TF, what he said to Dominique in the hospital, if he ever found out that her and Roark were having an affair, he would strangle(?) them both. This is the same selfish passion and sense of ownership, complete ownership that is his philosophy. Essentially, the "world" is his for the taking.

I don't see Rhett Butler as a possessive character at all who would claim complete ownership, neither toward persons, nor toward the world. And unlike the Randian heroes, he does not have any moral ideals to defend. Imo Rhett is basically a (very un-Randian) 'player' type.

Both Rhett and Scarlett are ruthless (he saw her as kindred spirit here), but as opposed to Scarlett, Rhett is capable of feeling empathy. But Scarlett is completely devoid of it. This is why the viewers' sympathies lie far more with Rhett than with Scarlett.

Margaret Mitchell, Gone with the Wind, Chapter 54 (pp 939-940 of 1037)

Aw hell! if Rand wrote that, that would be a serious error in her metaphysical projections.

If you would point out what you see as a "serious error" if Rand had written this.

And what exactly do you mean by "methaphysical projections"?

Words I never read in -Atlas Shrugged-: Frankly Dagny, I don't give a f*ck.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Given the right circumstances, Roark would have said it.

Something like:

Dominique: ...but Howard, they'd murder you out there!

Roark: Frankly Dom, I don't give a f**k.

But I've no right speaking for Rand's character.

I don't think Rand would, in her fiction, have let her heroes speak vulgar language.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If you had read the novel up to that point you wouldn't have feared for Dominique in respect to Roark in the least. It was two powerful people getting what they wanted. Dominique had to resist to the point of knowing for sure just how powerful Roark was.

I have read the novel up to that point, therefore knew Roark was the hero from which it follows that he probably would not commit manslaughter. That was not my point.

My point was that the TF rape scene read out of its context could also have figured in a crime story where the victim is then killed.

One does not get this impression at all with the GWTW scene.

Rand said Dominique could be "stupid." Dominique was actually nuts. Part of the cure for that was the "rape." In real life with real people such "rape" might drive a Dominique completely into psychological oblivion, like the daughter-character in Death Wish. Rape as therapy is gasoline on a fire.

Good points.

And as I said before, how Dominique behaved after her encounter with Roark was similar to an actual rape victim. That type of sex doesn't even knock on the door of the best type of sex. It fits in well, though, with the tenor of the novel and you can't change much without destroying the edifice. I think it helps to think of The Fountainhead in surrealistic terms. The same for her magnum opus. I think her surrealism--and what was represented by that--is the beating heart of Rand's literary success.

It may be true that people are attracted to the surrealistic elements (I'd prefer the term 'unrealistic' here because "surrealistic" is linked to surrealism the art movement), but as for the message Rand tries to convey, imo it is precisely these unrealistic elements which are counterproductive.

Ayn Rand was no Alfred Hitcock who said his films are not a slice of life but a slice of cake.

Ayn Rand meant it.

Imo there is no real way out in terms of downplaying problematic scenes (like e. g. Roark 'selfishly' blowing up the building), and say since they figure 'only in a novel', doing the reality test on them would not make much sense.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before that, I had never read ANY comparisons of Gone With the Wind to Ayn Rand.

I have often thought that GWTW offers good material to do the test on some Objectivist virtues.

For example: Was Scarlett O'Hara 'rationally' selfish in snatching her sister Suellen's fiancé Frank Kennedy away from her? What do you think?

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember in TF, what [Wynand] said to Dominique in the hospital, if he ever found out that her and Roark were having an affair, he would strangle(?) them both.

HUH?? Quote please.

Ellen

There is no hospital scene with GW and D in TF.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be true that people are attracted to the surrealistic elements (I'd prefer the term 'unrealistic' here because "surrealistic" is linked to surrealism the art movement), but as for the message Rand tries to convey, imo it is precisely these unrealistic elements which are counterproductive.

Ayn Rand was no Alfred Hitcock who said his films are not a slice of life but a slice of cake.

Ayn Rand meant it.

Imo there is no real way out in terms of downplaying problematic scenes (like e. g. Roark 'selfishly' blowing up the building), and say since they figure 'only in a novel', doing the reality test on them would not make much sense.

I did not mean "surrealistic elements." The novels in their entirety are surreal. That a literalist as yourself only sees "elements" does seem understandable for that. You specialize in ripping out context and then ripping the ripped.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ask myself what Readen and D'Anconia are going to do after 'rationally' accepting that the alpha male Galt gets the love of their lives Dagny in the end.

During the extensive Q&A period following an informal talk Branden gave in 1996, he told a pertinent story which, he said, since it would shock some in the audience, he swore on his grandchildren's lives was true.

He said he was expressing some sadness to Ayn over Hank's and Francisco's being left without Dagny's favors, and Ayn said, "Oh, I don't think John would mind if she spends an occasional night with them." (She might have said "the boys" instead of "them." I'd need to double check to be sure I have the rest of the exact phrasing. I haven't re-listened to the tape since I first heard it.)

I was pleased by the story. It reflected what I thought should happen.

Re comparisons of GWTW and Atlas, the thread is taking me back to happy memories from my sophomore year of college, the first year after I first read Atlas. My roommate had also read Atlas during the break between our freshman and sophomore years, and we'd both read GWTW before that (as well as having seen the movie). We spent many, many entertaining hours discussing similarities/differences between the stories, the characters, the literary methods. I look back to those discussions as the Garden of Eden stage of my knowledge of Rand. My roommate and I were blissfully ignorant of anything about Rand except that she'd written Atlas Shrugged (and the little she says in the "About the Author"). I never afterward, when I'd met Objectivist admirers of Rand, had quite such fun discussions of Rand as writer.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ask myself what Readen and D'Anconia are going to do after 'rationally' accepting that the alpha male Galt gets the love of their lives Dagny in the end.

Settle for second best.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the extensive Q&A period following an informal talk Branden gave in 1996, he told a pertinent story which, he said, since it would shock some in the audience, he swore on his grandchildren's lives was true.

He said he was expressing some sadness to Ayn over Hank's and Francisco's being left without Dagny's favors, and Ayn said, "Oh, I don't think John would mind if she spends an occasional night with them." (She might have said "the boys" instead of "them." I'd need to double check to be sure I have the rest of the exact phrasing. I haven't re-listened to the tape since I first heard it.)

Of course John wouldn't mind. The author would make sure he wouldn't.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the extensive Q&A period following an informal talk Branden gave in 1996, he told a pertinent story which, he said, since it would shock some in the audience, he swore on his grandchildren's lives was true.

He said he was expressing some sadness to Ayn over Hank's and Francisco's being left without Dagny's favors, and Ayn said, "Oh, I don't think John would mind if she spends an occasional night with them." (She might have said "the boys" instead of "them." I'd need to double check to be sure I have the rest of the exact phrasing. I haven't re-listened to the tape since I first heard it.)

Of course John wouldn't mind. The author would make sure he wouldn't.

--Brant

Foursome, anyone? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen Stuttle wrote:

During the extensive Q&A period following an informal talk Branden gave in 1996, he told a pertinent story which, he said, since it would shock some in the audience, he swore on his grandchildren's lives was true.

He said he was expressing some sadness to Ayn over Hank's and Francisco's being left without Dagny's favors, and Ayn said, "Oh, I don't think John would mind if she spends an occasional night with them." (She might have said "the boys" instead of "them." I'd need to double check to be sure I have the rest of the exact phrasing. I haven't re-listened to the tape since I first heard it.)

I was pleased by the story. It reflected what I thought should happen.

End quote

Given the close ties between the Atlas Society and OL I don't think anyone will mind.

Peter

Ayn Rand's Inspirations—In Real Life and In Fiction

An Exclusive Banner Interview with Nathaniel Branden

From 1950 until the end of their association in 1968, psychologist Nathaniel Branden was the foremost spokesman for Ayn Rand and her philosophy, Objectivism. Founder of the Nathaniel Branden Institute and the organized Objectivist movement, a prolific and best-selling author, and a brilliant public speaker, Dr. Branden is also known as "the father of the self-esteem movement" in psychology. The following are excerpts from a recent exclusive interview with The Atlas Society's Robert Bidinotto, to appear in The Banner, the newsletter of The Atlas Society.

Copyright © 2002 by The Atlas Society. This material may not be reproduced or circulated in any form or medium without written permission.

The Banner: Do you know if there were any real-life inspirations for any of Ayn Rand's fiction heroes?

Nathaniel Branden (NB): There wasn't, in any important sense.

Banner: How about composites of people—or actors and actresses whose faces she liked?

NB: No, I never heard a word from her to suggest that… Possibly Zorro—who was a fictional character, not a real person—possibly Zorro, in a very general, abstract way, played a small role in Ayn's concept of Francisco [d'Anconia, a hero in Atlas Shrugged]. I remember her talking about Zorro. Francisco is almost like a classic figure in literature of a certain kind. The Scarlet Pimpernel, that's another variation of the same idea: the man who pretends to be a fop, but who's really involved in a grimly serious mission. Zorro was obviously that.

Banner: Did the appearance of any of her heroes draw upon anyone—her husband Frank, for instance?

NB: All of her heroes grew from Cyrus, the hero of that children's story she loved about the British soldier in India [The Mysterious Valley]. That was the imprint. And Frank was of that same physical type. Gary Cooper was. And Wallace Reed, an earlier actor. But that was set was she was nine years old.

Banner: I've thought that there seems to have been two stylistic types of hero in Rand's fiction: the classical type—reserved, somewhat stoic, less expressive, like Galt or Roark—and the more expressive, flamboyant, romantic type: Francisco, Midas Mulligan. She seems to go back and forth between the Rearden and the Francisco type. Do you think that is true?

NB: I don't see that. No, she used to say that she loved Viennese operettas. And Francisco for her was tied up with the gaiety of those operettas, and came out of that music. She said she wanted to create a character who would embody the spirit of that music. It was a spirit that she wanted to capture. I can't say that I see any deep stylistic difference. I can't join you with that. But perhaps "style" isn't the word you mean?

Banner: As far as actors and actresses whom she liked…

NB: Well, she adored Greta Garbo, and she would have loved for Greta Garbo to play Dominique [in the film version of The Fountainhead]. According to what Ayn told me, Greta Garbo declined, and for what to me was the most odd reason I ever heard: she didn't think that Gary Cooper [who played Howard Roark] would have been a suitable lover for her. I gather Garbo wasn't a fan of Gary Cooper. But that's merely what Ayn was told by somebody; I have no knowledge as to whether that was true.

Banner: How about for Dagny?

NB: Well, she used to say, "the young Katherine Hepburn in physical appearance"—that's how she saw Dagny.

Banner: She said that once at a Ford Hall Forum I once attended.

NB: I know she wanted Cooper for Roark, even though he was really too old for the part. He was clearly her physical ideal.

Banner: Any other actors that she was partial to?

NB: I can no longer remember. I know she said that [in any movie version of Atlas Shrugged), Galt needed to be played by an unknown—someone with no other associations with any other movie. That makes sense dramatically.

Banner: Were there other people whom she was impressed by?

NB: Well, he was not a public person, but she very much liked the businessman William Mullendore. There were not that many people whom she really liked or admired, as I'm sure you know. Isabel Patterson—until everything went wrong. Ludwig von Mises.

Banner: Figures in history? What about Victor Hugo?

NB: Well, I'm sure she would have loved to have met him. I'll tell you a great Ayn Rand story about Victor Hugo.

I remember coming to her apartment one day, and I was raving about a Hugo novel—I think it was The Man Who Laughs. She asked me to bring down the book; she wanted to check the translation. She read a page or two and said, "Oh, oh, you don't know what you are missing. This is not a good translation. You cannot know from this what a great writer Victor Hugo was."

She went into her office and she got a notepad and she translated the first page or two of Hugo's novel. And it was like a whole new world opened up. It was dazzling, beyond my ability to communicate, because here was a great writer translating a great writer. See, you had to be an extraordinarily gifted writer to do the kind of translation that Hugo warranted. And it was a thrilling moment—I'll never forget it—because it was like I was in a murky room, and somebody turned all the lights on.

Banner: Do you recall having ever attended movies or plays that ever moved her?

NB: Yes. The English playwright Terence Rattigan wrote a script called Breaking Through the Sound Barrier, which was a fictional account of how the sound barrier was broken by a British aviation company. I didn't realize what a strange movie it was, because when I later learned how that actually happened in America, I couldn't imagine how a person could justify inventing a totally fictional portrayal that bore no relation to historical reality. Just the same, the movie was brilliant in its own terms. I saw it and raved about it, and I took Ayn and Frank to see it, and they were very enthusiastic.

Later, Frank had a birthday, and as kind of a birthday present, Barbara and I took Ayn and Frank to see My Fair Lady. I can't say that she was deeply moved, but again, they were very enthusiastic—"That was beautifully well done," etc.

We loved The Untouchables on TV, especially the first two seasons. Then it began to fall apart. But we all watched that religiously.

She rarely, rarely went to the theater, and I can never remember her coming home with a positive reaction.

Banner: Did she like musicals?

NB: No, not American ones. She liked 19th century Viennese operettas, but she didn't like musicals in general—not the American ones.

Banner: When she was dealing with [producer] Al Ruddy to do a screen version of Atlas Shrugged [in the 1970's], did she see The Godfather?

NB: She didn't know Al Ruddy. So as kind of a self-introduction, he asked her to come and see his production of The Godfather. And that sold her on him, and she entrusted him with the project. What happened later on was that she wanted final cut approval—which [they] cannot give. That means they could spend $80 million on a movie, and if she didn't like something they wouldn't agree to, she could have kept it from being released. So the deal foundered over that.

Banner: Is there anything you'd like to add about those evenings you and your friends spent at her apartment reading Atlas Shrugged and discussing her ideas?

NB: The level of intellectual excitement of those evenings is almost indescribable. There was such a passion for ideas, there was such enthusiasm, there was such intensity of interest. It kind of ruined me for social life after that part of my life came to an end. Nothing that happened later quite equaled it.

A week ago I was in Washington, D. C., and Devers (my ex-wife and best and closest friend) and I had brunch with Alan Greenspan, and he was saying the same thing—that it was just a unique experience that nothing later in life quite touched.

Edited by Peter Taylor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember in TF, what [Wynand] said to Dominique in the hospital, if he ever found out that her and Roark were having an affair, he would strangle(?) them both.

HUH?? Quote please.

Ellen

There is no hospital scene with GW and D in TF.

--Brant

Brant:

In the movie, there is a scene where, after the Cortland explosion, Wynand is at Dominique's bedside, may or may not be in a hospital, her arms are bandaged and Wynand tells her that the next time she tries to make it look like a suicide, she should have asked for some advice because, as he tells her, you are not supposed to cut your artery!

Dominique desperately asks Gail if the police believed her and he says yes because you almost died, they had to believe you!

So that may be the scene he is referring to.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember in TF, what [Wynand] said to Dominique in the hospital, if he ever found out that her and Roark were having an affair, he would strangle(?) them both.

HUH?? Quote please.

Ellen

There is no hospital scene with GW and D in TF.

--Brant

Oh sorry. p616 TF Centennial edition. It was actually a bedroom of GW's penthouse: "She knew she had been brought here after many days in a hospital." and p618 D: "Yes, I want to see him. Gail, if I decide to make him my lover?" GW: "I'll kill you both. Now, don't move..." Perhaps, I remembered kill as strangle because it is usually the method preferred by those who commit crimes of passion. Up close and personal. :mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you comparing book to book, or movie to book? Get a load of this:

Margaret Mitchell, Gone with the Wind, Chapter 54 (pp 939-940 of 1037)

Aw hell! if Rand wrote that, that would be a serious error in her metaphysical projections.

I don’t know why you say that. It’s pretty similar to a Rand sex scene, and the female psychology is, well, what’s different about it? You tell me. The main difference I see is that Scarlett has had earlier, unsatisfying sexual experiences before this, with men she was able to dominate. Kind of like Dominique with Peter Keating, but for Scarlett this comes as a revelation.

"He was like death, carrying her away in arms that hurt. She screamed, stifled against him and he stopped suddenly on the landing and, turning her swiftly in his arms, bent over her and kissed her with a savagery and a completeness that wiped out everything from her mind but the dark into which she was sinking and the lips on hers. He was shaking, as though he stood in a strong wind, and his lips, traveling from her mouth downward to where the wrapper had fallen from her body, fell on her soft flesh. He was muttering things she did not hear, his lips were evoking feelings never felt before. She was darkness and he was darkness and there had never been anything before this time, only darkness and his lips upon her."

Emphasis mine.

I never got the impression where Rand would describe something utterly gratifying and life giving such as sexual ecstasy like this. This is why I think that Mitchell and Rand were complete opposites when it comes to their view of life.

Oh, this also answers for Xray's Q

"If you would point out what you see as a "serious error" if Rand had written this.

And what exactly do you mean by "methaphysical projections"?"

Well, for metaphysical projections I was thinking along the lines of what she would consider "essential elements" to describe what was happening based on how I read the book. I seriously have to re-read TF though.

Edited by David Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand in fact did admire the novel and said so in one of her 60s essays, anthologized in The Romantic Manifesto.

Yes, that's one of the reason I was so curious to watch/read it. I've heard it was good from some my of my peers and I came to see for myself. I'm through with criticizing GWTW, I still think it's good because of the vividness of the descriptions and characters - based on the movie still. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps, I remembered kill as strangle because it is usually the method preferred by those who commit crimes of passion. Up close and personal.

David,

This has happened to me in reading fiction before. If I get really, really involved, I read quite fast, have very good memory of what I read, but once in a while one of these clunkers will happen. I totally remember something occurring in the book and it didn't.

The first time this happened to me was at the end of 1984 by George Orwell. Winston is sitting in a pub and grows to love Big Brother as his brainwashing becomes complete. In my mind's eye, I was sure he heard news on something like a background radio, took a drink of gin with tears in his eyes and burped as he looked up at a poster of Big Brother and realized his love.

One day someone challenged me on this and I checked. I was astonished to read that there was no radio, no burp and no poster. but there was gin and there were tears. Instead of a radio and poster, there was a TV-like screen. I don't know where the hell the burp came from. :)

I have recently been studying speed-reading and advanced learning methods and I believe this explains it somewhat. When I read fiction very fast, this is "right-brain" reading. The inner images are just as powerful as the words, maybe even more so since I don't stop to take in each word. I read whole chunks of text at one whack instead.

It's weird that as I have become more precise in my verbal thinking and more interested in writing, my fiction reading speed has slowed down drastically and I can't seem to get back into that former flow. Actually, I suspect I haven't tried. Nowadays, when I read fiction, I find myself busy analyzing style, plot, dialogue, etc. instead of just giving myself over to the story.

Anyway, the right brain is where the world is creative, emotional and less precise. If you are doing right-brain reading, that would explain a remembered impression that was not in the book. Something extra in your mind jumped in and went along for the ride as you read. Whereas the logical part of the brain would reject it, the holistic part says, "Cool," and goes on with the story.

The good news is that once you later correct the wrong impression, the original impact of the scene stays the same, only now it has the correct facts. The importance doesn't go away.

Some in our subculture would call this process "reading out of focus," but it actually isn't. It's a kind of super-fucus where you allow the words in your mind to access a whole lot more conceptual referents that are stored in memory than you usually do. (There are techniques to encourage this in some of the speed-reading and advanced learning materials I am studying.) These referents are sensory (images, sounds, feelings, etc.), not word-like. There's a trade-off, that's all. You gain in intensity of image, idea and emotions, and you gain in reading speed, but you lose a little in precision.

I need to get back to that kind of reading when I read fiction. I used to enjoy it immensely. When a work is really good, you usually read it a second time (or more), so the few extra mental hitchhikers aboard can be let off on that go around.

That's the best explanation I have found so far to explain this reading illusion.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps, I remembered kill as strangle because it is usually the method preferred by those who commit crimes of passion. Up close and personal.

David,

This has happened to me in reading fiction before. If I get really, really involved, I read quite fast, have very good memory of what I read, but once in a while one of these clunkers will happen. I totally remember something occurring in the book and it didn't.

The first time this happened to me was at the end of 1984 by George Orwell. Winston is sitting in a pub and grows to love Big Brother as his brainwashing becomes complete. In my mind's eye, I was sure he heard news on something like a background radio, took a drink of gin with tears in his eyes and burped as he looked up at a poster of Big Brother and realized his love.

One day someone challenged me on this and I checked. I was astonished to read that there was no radio, no burp and no poster. but there was gin and there were tears. Instead of a radio and poster, there was a TV-like screen. I don't know where the hell the burp came from. :)

I have recently been studying speed-reading and advanced learning methods and I believe this explains it somewhat. When I read fiction very fast, this is "right-brain" reading. The inner images are just as powerful as the words, maybe even more so since I don't stop to take in each word. I read whole chunks of text at one whack instead.

It's weird that as I have become more precise in my verbal thinking and more interested in writing, my fiction reading speed has slowed down drastically and I can't seem to get back into that former flow. Actually, I suspect I haven't tried. Nowadays, when I read fiction, I find myself busy analyzing style, plot, dialogue, etc. instead of just giving myself over to the story.

Anyway, the right brain is where the world is creative, emotional and less precise. If you are doing right-brain reading, that would explain a remembered impression that was not in the book. Something extra in your mind jumped in and went along for the ride as you read. Whereas the logical part of the brain would reject it, the holistic part says, "Cool," and goes on with the story.

The good news is that once you later correct the wrong impression, the original impact of the scene stays the same, only now it has the correct facts. The importance doesn't go away.

Some in our subculture would call this process "reading out of focus," but it actually isn't. It's a kind of super-fucus where you allow the words in your mind to access a whole lot more conceptual referents that are stored in memory than you usually do. (There are techniques to encourage this in some of the speed-reading and advanced learning materials I am studying.) These referents are sensory (images, sounds, feelings, etc.), not word-like. There's a trade-off, that's all. You gain in intensity of image, idea and emotions, and you gain in reading speed, but you lose a little in precision.

I need to get back to that kind of reading when I read fiction. I used to enjoy it immensely. When a work is really good, you usually read it a second time (or more), so the few extra mental hitchhikers aboard can be let off on that go around.

That's the best explanation I have found so far to explain this reading illusion.

Michael

Wow. That explains a lot. BTW Michael, have you ever read Mission by Patrick Tilley? I've lost the book but when I read it the first time, I clearly remember Jesus saying the F-word there... I read it twice and thrice (and I think a fourth time) IT WASN'T THERE ANYMORE! *gasp*

Yes! Indeed I have heard of that "out-of-focus" description and I emphatically reject it because it was all too vivid and bright and real to "not be in focus" or control of your faculties. Every time I read fiction, it is if I am an observer and the author is my guide to his/her world.

Whenever I had to make a critique, analysis or such, I leave the emotional content out and approach it surgically. But here at OL, seldom do I see the need to do that and just reply or write on the fly.

Thanks!

PS

I never thought that Synthia's comment was hinting at something like plagiarism. I chuckled when I read your comment about it. I'd love to have a go with the author of that article sometime but I have to read the book GWTW first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do you get the idea that Rhett Butler "would not hesitate to defend his philosophy even if it meant killing the very woman he loved." (?)

Well, you said it yourself, Rhett takes advantage of his surroundings. I quote you, "he arranged himself quite well with the reality around him, trying to use it to his advantage." He's a guy who knows what he wants and gets what he wants. In this aspect, he's more like Gail Wynand. I remember in TF, what he said to Dominique in the hospital, if he ever found out that her and Roark were having an affair, he would strangle(?) them both. This is the same selfish passion and sense of ownership, complete ownership that is his philosophy. Essentially, the "world" is his for the taking.

I don't see Rhett Butler as a possessive character at all who would claim complete ownership, neither toward persons, nor toward the world. And unlike the Randian heroes, he does not have any moral ideals to defend. Imo Rhett is basically a (very un-Randian) 'player' type.

Both Rhett and Scarlett are ruthless (he saw her as kindred spirit here), but as opposed to Scarlett, Rhett is capable of feeling empathy. But Scarlett is completely devoid of it. This is why the viewers' sympathies lie far more with Rhett than with Scarlett.

Margaret Mitchell, Gone with the Wind, Chapter 54 (pp 939-940 of 1037)

Aw hell! if Rand wrote that, that would be a serious error in her metaphysical projections.

If you would point out what you see as a "serious error" if Rand had written this.

And what exactly do you mean by "methaphysical projections"?

Words I never read in -Atlas Shrugged-: Frankly Dagny, I don't give a f*ck.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Given the right circumstances, Roark would have said it.

Something like:

Dominique: ...but Howard, they'd murder you out there!

Roark: Frankly Dom, I don't give a f**k.

But I've no right speaking for Rand's character.

I don't think Rand would, in her fiction, have let her heroes speak vulgar language.

Exactly my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an entry from The Art of Fiction.(edited by Tore Boeckmann) called "Obscenities."

Since the ARI scholars who edit Rand are generally not real scholars, but instead self-appointed coauthors of Rand who use her original words as a frame to scribble on, the following quote should be understood as more-or-less Rand, not authentic Ayn Rand.

The excerpt occurs on pp. 160-161:

Do not use obscenities—and never mind all the arguments about "realism."

Obscenities are language which implies a value judgment of condemnation or contempt, usually in regard to certain parts of the body and sex. Four-letter words all have non-obscene synonyms; they are obscene not by content, but by their intention—the intention being to convey that what is referred to is improper or evil.

Obscene language is based on the metaphysics and morality of the anti-body school of thought. Observe that the more religious a nation is, the more varied and violently obscene is its four-letter-word repertoire. It is said that the Spanish are the most obscene. I do not know Spanish, but I know that Russians have a whole sublanguage—not just single words, but ready-made sentences—all of it concerning sex. (I myself know only a few examples.)

Obscene language is not an objective language which you can use to express your own value judgments. It is a language of prefabricated value judgments consisting of the denunciation of sex and this earth and conveying that these are low or damnable. You do not want to subscribe to this premise.

If you write about slum inhabitants or men in the army, you have a difficult literary problem. Modern writers specialize in conveying that men in the army talk in nothing but four-letter words. That I do not believe, but I have heard men of that sort use obscene words under stress. If you have to establish such an atmosphere, a few "darns" or "damns" will not quite do it. It is not, however, necessary to use prefabricated language for the sake of "realism."

The trick is to suggest by the context of what is being said that it is abusive or obscene. Do not use the actual terms. Avoid them on the principle by which you would avoid describing horrible operations or ghastly physical illnesses. You may suggest these if you want a description of horror—but you do not go into every detail of the color of an infected wound or the maggots on a dead body.

If you are ever tempted to describe something ghastly, ask yourself what your purpose is. If it is to suggest horror, one or two generalized lines will do. It is sufficient to say that someone stumbles upon a half-decomposed corpse; to describe that corpse in every horrible detail is horror for horror's sake. All you will achieve is that your book, no matter what the rest of it consists of, will always connote in the reader's mind that particular touch of horror.

For my own writing, I agree that obscenity should be used judiciously and on purpose, but I do not agree that if you use it, you are subscribing to the "metaphysics and morality of the anti-body school of thought."

I hold that sometimes wide usage dilutes all cognitive content from a word and leaves only the shock value and the emotional intent. I seriously doubt that a person who--in jest--calls another a "crazy motherfucker" is actually thinking that the person has sex with his biological mother. If he actually imagined that like in a mental image, I believe he would feel revulsion. I believe this hold true for practically anyone listening, too--except, maybe, for people who want to establish rules of conduct (it's unfortunate to say, but I mean someone like Rand).

I have no idea how Rand justified to herself the pass she gave to "men in the army" "under stress" in the quote above, presuming that Boeckmann correctly conveyed the gist of what Rand said. Does combat stress annul "anti-body school of thought" to her for those men? If so, why?

It's really obvious that being shot at makes a person think very clearly about keeping his body intact, even if he does let rip with a string of four-letter words. There's anything but anti-body thinking going on in that situation. I seriously doubt such a person uses those words to intend that the body parts or acts he mentions are "improper or evil." I don't even think the image of those things are in his mind at the time he says them.

But, I don't think Rand thought in these terms (i.e., people purposely ignoring the cognitive content of a word in order to make it mean something else), so what makes obscenity acceptable to her in this instance (portraying men in the army under stress), but unacceptable in others?

This is one of those cases where I believe Rand's approach to teaching writing stifles writers. Each writer (budding or otherwise) needs to come to his own terms on the use of obscenity, not accept the dictates of another based on reasons and observations that might be contrary to his own experience. He needs to find his voice, not channel Rand's.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was riding the NYC subway in 1968 when a young boy used the "f" word. I was truly shocked and I had just spent three years in the army. I don't remember much use of obscenity in my military service. Maybe you had to be in the navy to get that then. Anyway, it seems that everybody and his dog uses that word today.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

You had polite drill sergeants in your experience?

:)

Michael

I guess I had only one drill sergeant, in basic training. He was also, believe it or not, a lay minister. He never, ever, cursed or even raised his voice. His appearance and bearing were impeccable and he was black as coal. In those days they weren't called "drill sergeants" in the army, that formal appellation came soon after along with smokey-bear hats, but I was gone. We did get drilled. Toward the end of basic whole companies of men were marching as a battalion, perfectly. It was awesome to be a part of that but the whole exercise was worthless for any thereafter, except parades. It might have been of use in charging across European battlefields as you were swept along with your unit to near-certain death from machine gun and artillery fire.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I had only one drill sergeant, in basic training. He was also, believe it or not, a lay minister. He never, ever, cursed or even raised his voice.

Sounds like you missed out on all the fun.

Mine eyes have seen the misery of the coming of the draft,

And the day I got the letter was the day I got the shaft.

They said, "My son, we need you,

'cause the army's understaffed."

And I'm in the F.T.A.*

Thomas Pynchon, The Secret Integration

* Future Teachers of America

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mine eyes have seen the misery of the coming of the draft,

And the day I got the letter was the day I got the shaft.

They said, "My son, we need you,

'cause the army's understaffed."

And I'm in the F.T.A.*

Thomas Pynchon, The Secret Integration

* Future Teachers of America

I think teachers were draft exempt in the 1960s.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think teachers were draft exempt in the 1960s.

Beats me, and I don’t think it affects the story either way. BTW this comes from a short story first published in 1964. Were “future” teachers exempt? I guess that means if you planned to major in education.

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