Weirdest, snarkiest and... er... funny(?)

[Brant Gaede]

Michelle,

We're going to have to disagree with this re rape vrs consensual sex here. I think Dominique wanted it and consented to it, etc. Rand certainly didn't mean to depict a rape or to make Roark a rapist. If she failed she failed but it is fiction and the context is 1943, not 2009, meaning the reader then most likely experienced it differently than the reader today. My own evaluation has changed to the negative. As for real life rape, there used to be a therapist closely affiliated with Objectivism, Lonnie Leonard, who effectively raped his clients in the early 1970s by introducing sex into the client/therapist relationship. See "Therapist" by Pasil. He was sued and he lost and ended up in Florida as a bee keeper. I think he is deceased.

There was not one thing "weak" about the characterization of Dominique. She was, however, unreal and necessarily stupid at times to keep the plot going. I think the best characterization in the novel and movie is that of Toohey. Rand studied a real life collectivist and other such to make Toohey. This makes the most famous line in "The Fountainhead" created by her husband, "But I don't think of you," richly ironic because Rand sure did. Now there is a fictional life/real life disjunction for you.

--Brant

Edited June 8, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Michelle]

That engraved invitation thing is just using pretty language to evade the fact that it was rape.

"Engraved invitation" = "She was asking for it"

Rand says so herself in her journals.

"But the fact is that Roark did not actually rape Dominique; she had asked for it, and he knew that she wanted it."

Apparently Rand thinks the definition of rape is 'sex one does not want.' In reality, rape is non-consensual sex. If you don't consent to it, and he does it anyway, it is rape.

The fact is that Dominique clearly fought against his advances. And Roark raped her.

That Dominique enjoyed it and went back to the rapist is irrelevant.

It was rape. And Roark is a rapist.

That whole scene, I think, was only made possible by a mix of Rand's sadomasochistic literary treatment of sex and the view that women belong to the alpha male. You see it with male animals that fight one-another is order to win mating rights with the female. In this case, Roark is strong and masculine, and Dominique is weak and feminine, so, by this logic, it is only proper for Roark to take her, even though she is kicking and clawing in the process. Very tribal, uncivilized logic.

Michelle,

Whilst I also dislike (and disagree with) Rand's gender essentialism and violent, combat-of-wills sex scenes, it is by no means established that Roark raped Dominique.

Feminist author Wendy McElroy, for instance, argues it was consensual rough sex in "Looking Through A Paradigm Darkly" (published in "Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand").

Also, to be honest, I think when you differentiate between "sex one does not want" and "non-consensual sex" you are assuming that people do not consent to things they want. Which is a position I find rather unintelligible.

A: "Do you, B, wish to perform sex acts C in location D at time E with me, A?"

B: "Yes, I want that"

If B did not consent, they would not want to have C with A at place D and time E. On the other hand, if B wants to have C with A at place D and time E, they will consent.

But the above example is for reality as it is. Rand deliberately writes in a romantic style. She's not attempting to say "this is how ideal sex should in fact proceed in concrete reality." She's trying to stylize certain intellectual values using the common artistic tropes and conventions of her time. And remember that the novels were written in eras with very repressive gender roles.

Finally, I think its known Rand herself had sexual fantasies about being ravished by an overpowering male figure. I don't share Rand's kinks for D/s but the fantasies she was giving voice to are very common amongst both genders (and they often run both ways, its not just male-dom female-sub). Whilst I personally believe that specific fetish is often a result of negative sexual premises and/or conceptions of human nature (of course, this is a very broad statement and there are many fine details that apply in individual cases), we have to give credit where its due. Rand's heroines are not very gender-traditional for their time (again, remember when the books were written), Dagny Taggart being the obvious example.

No.

The sex scenes in ATLAS SHRUGGED were gender essentialist, and violent battles-of-will. THOSE sex scenes were 'consensual rough sex.'

Miss McElroy is wrong, in this regard.

You can have a desire for something and still not consent to it. A desire is uncontrollable. It's a physico-emotional response. Consent, on the other hand, is entirely controllable. You can have secret desires that you do not consent to. And just because you desire something does not give someone else the right to actualize that desire without your explicit consent.

Sexual consent is usually expressed in two ways:

- physically

- verbally

It is this which allows, for example, rape roleplay where one person struggles with the other. The sex is still consensual if they verbally agree to the manifested physical conditions of the sex.

If both are actively going at it and not trying to stop it, it is also consensual, even if a word is not spoken.

No consent is given by Dominique to Roark to mess with her. She actively fights him and tries to push him away, and says nothing. Even if she is secretly desiring this, it is still unconsensual sex, and rape.

If Rand meant to portray this as rough sex and not as rape, then she failed, because everything in the text points to rape. Hell, even Dominique's reaction afterward points to rape.

It was rape. Following this 'engraved invitation' logic is a nice way for young men to stupidly stumble their way into a crime.

And from what I recall, Rand was a romantic realist. You can't discount the realist element just because it's tempting to read it from a purely symbolic POV. This was not Rand's style (only Night of January 16th and Anthem are supposed to operate on purely symbolic levels).

Hell, I've conceded that the scene should probably be read as a mix of Rand's abominable views on gender relations and her own sexual fantasies. But it is rape. Let's be straight.

[Michelle]

Michelle,

We're going to have to disagree with this re rape vrs consensual sex here. I think Dominique wanted it and consented to it, etc. Rand certainly didn't mean to depict a rape or to make Roark a rapist. If she failed she failed but it is fiction and the context is 1943, not 2009, meaning the reader then most likely experienced it differently than the reader today. My own evaluation has changed to the negative. As for real life rape, there used to be a therapist closely affiliated with Objectivism, Lonnie Leonard, who effectively raped his clients in the early 1970s by introducing sex into the client/patient relationship. See "Therapist" by Pasil. He was sued and he lost and ended up in Florida as a bee keeper. I think he is deceased.

There was not one thing "weak" about the characterization of Dominique. She was, however, unreal and necessarily stupid at times to keep the plot going. I think the best characterization in the novel and movie is that of Toohey. Rand studied a real life collectivist and other such to make Toohey. This makes the most famous line in "The Fountainhead" created by her husband, "But I don't think of you," richly ironic because Rand sure did. Now there is a fictional life/real life disjunction for you.

--Brant

Dominique is weak in relation to Roark. The female characters are always being overpowered by the men in Rand's novels. Hell, if that's Rand's thing, I don't care. The sex in ATLAS SHRUGGED was violent, but always consensual.

And I'll remind you that people have had issues with the rape scene since the novel was first published. There are cultural differences in-between the America of the late 30s/early 40s and America in 2009, but it's not a different country.

I'll concede this: the scene was less objectionable then than it is now. But the rape aspect has always been controversial.

[studiodekadent]

Dominique is weak in relation to Roark. The female characters are always being overpowered by the men in Rand's novels.

Sexually, yes, Dominique is overpowered by Roark.

But in any other area? Roark might be philosophically more correct than Dominique (at least according to the novel... I think in the real world some level of Dominique-like pessimism is rational, a position Rand endorsed in Atlas Shrugged (at least by implication) since Dominique was essentially a proto-striker; denying a corrupt world the values that it would desecrate), she is no less intelligent, competent or confident in general life. I admit, if someone likes to be degraded (or to degrade) in bed but not in general life, I'd suspect some sort of bifurcation in their psyche or some sort of philosophical mistake, but to say that the entirety of their person is in fact irredeemably weak on that basis is not a judgement I'd make.

[Michelle]

Dominique is weak in relation to Roark. The female characters are always being overpowered by the men in Rand's novels.

Sexually, yes, Dominique is overpowered by Roark.

But in any other area? Roark might be philosophically more correct than Dominique (at least according to the novel... I think in the real world some level of Dominique-like pessimism is rational, a position Rand endorsed in Atlas Shrugged (at least by implication) since Dominique was essentially a proto-striker; denying a corrupt world the values that it would desecrate), she is no less intelligent, competent or confident in general life. I admit, if someone likes to be degraded (or to degrade) in bed but not in general life, I'd suspect some sort of bifurcation in their psyche or some sort of philosophical mistake, but to say that the entirety of their person is in fact irredeemably weak on that basis is not a judgement I'd make.

Not just on that basis. Rand has said repeatedly that hero-worship of a great man is proper to a woman, and that it is the essence of her femininity. Rand's heroines are allowed some amount of strength (Dagny, for instance, is quite capable), but she subscribed to the belief that women were inherently inferior to men. Women in Rand novels are strong only to the degree that the men are strong. In The Fountainhead, Roark is a great man, but not the kind of primal prime mover one found in Rand's capitalist heroes in AS. Thus, Dominique is strong-willed, but is inferior to Roark, and worships him. In ATLAS SHRUGGED, John Galt is almost a kind of mythological demi-god. Thus Dagny is strong almost on the level of a Roark. But she's still clearly inferior to Galt and worships him.

Ayn Rand would never have written John Galt as a woman. John Galt is fine. But Jane Galt would not fly. Same with Roark.

Oh, and consider these two quotes by Rand:

"By the nature of her duties and daily activities," a female president ". . . would become the most unfeminine, sexless, metaphysically inappropriate, and rationally revolting figure of all: a matriarch" (The Voice of Reason, ed. Leonard Peikoff, New York: Meridian, 1990, p. 269).

"It is because men are metaphysically the dominant sex . . . that a thing such as Women's Lib could gain plausibility and sympathy among today's intellectuals" (New Left, p. 175, emphasis added).

Taken from this article

Edited June 8, 2009 by Michelle R

[studiodekadent]

Dominique is weak in relation to Roark. The female characters are always being overpowered by the men in Rand's novels.

Sexually, yes, Dominique is overpowered by Roark.

But in any other area? Roark might be philosophically more correct than Dominique (at least according to the novel... I think in the real world some level of Dominique-like pessimism is rational, a position Rand endorsed in Atlas Shrugged (at least by implication) since Dominique was essentially a proto-striker; denying a corrupt world the values that it would desecrate), she is no less intelligent, competent or confident in general life. I admit, if someone likes to be degraded (or to degrade) in bed but not in general life, I'd suspect some sort of bifurcation in their psyche or some sort of philosophical mistake, but to say that the entirety of their person is in fact irredeemably weak on that basis is not a judgement I'd make.

Not just on that basis. Rand has said repeatedly that hero-worship of a great man is proper to a woman, and that it is the essence of her femininity. Rand's heroines are allowed some amount of strength (Dagny, for instance, is quite capable), but she subscribed to the belief that women were inherently inferior to men. Women in Rand novels are strong only to the degree that the men are strong. In The Fountainhead, Roark is a great man, but not the kind of primal prime mover one found in Rand's capitalist heroes in AS. Thus, Dominique is strong-willed, but is inferior to Roark, and worships him. In ATLAS SHRUGGED, John Galt is almost a kind of mythological demi-god. Thus Dagny is strong almost on the level of a Roark. But she's still clearly inferior to Galt and worships him.

Ayn Rand would never have written John Galt as a woman. John Galt is fine. But Jane Galt would not fly. Same with Roark.

Oh, and consider these two quotes by Rand:

"By the nature of her duties and daily activities," a female president ". . . would become the most unfeminine, sexless, metaphysically inappropriate, and rationally revolting figure of all: a matriarch" (The Voice of Reason, ed. Leonard Peikoff, New York: Meridian, 1990, p. 269).

"It is because men are metaphysically the dominant sex . . . that a thing such as Women's Lib could gain plausibility and sympathy among today's intellectuals" (New Left, p. 175, emphasis added).

Taken from this article

I concede that Rand in fact was a gender essentialist that did believe silly stuff about women as meant to be worshippers of great men etc, but no Objectivist these days would defend her preposterous belief in that. I certainly will not. It contradicts her technical philosophy on numerous levels.

However, Rand did deny the idea she believed women were in fact inferior to men. She also said that hero-worship was not about "anything she [the woman] might lack" [square brackets mine] but, as Nathaniel Branden argues in "Was Ayn Rand A Feminist?" (also published in Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand) that Rand wasn't so much talking about men in general or any specific concrete male, but more "the masculine principle" and man "in a highly abstract sense."

I agree with you that Rand was inconsistent on that point. She was gratifying her own fantasies in writing and decided to make them a philosophical issue (in spite of the contradiction), but I don't think this means Objectivism (the system of ideas) is inherently sexist at all. I'm not saying you believe that, by the way.

[ginny]

There have been countless discussions about the rape scene. For the most part, men think its fine and women agree it's rape. As far as I can see, the scene was a fantasy of the author's. She was strong and intimidating. She was also desperate for someone to overpower that strength. Barbara B. in her book said that Rand initiated most of the sex between her and her husband. I can see where she was desperate for some man to do the initiating, and by that, I mean initiating in a powerful way. As I understand it, it is not that unusual for some women to have rape fantasies (Can't speak for myself here.) It's harmless and safe enough, I guess. I think Rand attempted to reproduce that fantasy of being overwhelmed by some powerful stud in her book. That is why she herself didn't see it as rape. This was her goddamned fantasy come to life! The problem is, there's a big difference between fantasy and life. I mean, I've always been mildly curious about threesomes. But if anyone approached me in reality, I'd shot them!! I don't want it for real! Rand overstepped the legitimate boundaries of fantasy and tried to call it sex. Personally, I think she was wrong. Roark acted like a rapist. If Dominique happened to enjoy it (I don't think she enjoyed the actual act), then I'd recommend some heavy therapy. If a guy did to me what Roark did to Dominique (even I were somewhat intrigued by the guy), I'd have him up on charges.

Ginny

[Michelle]

Dominique is weak in relation to Roark. The female characters are always being overpowered by the men in Rand's novels.

Sexually, yes, Dominique is overpowered by Roark.

But in any other area? Roark might be philosophically more correct than Dominique (at least according to the novel... I think in the real world some level of Dominique-like pessimism is rational, a position Rand endorsed in Atlas Shrugged (at least by implication) since Dominique was essentially a proto-striker; denying a corrupt world the values that it would desecrate), she is no less intelligent, competent or confident in general life. I admit, if someone likes to be degraded (or to degrade) in bed but not in general life, I'd suspect some sort of bifurcation in their psyche or some sort of philosophical mistake, but to say that the entirety of their person is in fact irredeemably weak on that basis is not a judgement I'd make.

Not just on that basis. Rand has said repeatedly that hero-worship of a great man is proper to a woman, and that it is the essence of her femininity. Rand's heroines are allowed some amount of strength (Dagny, for instance, is quite capable), but she subscribed to the belief that women were inherently inferior to men. Women in Rand novels are strong only to the degree that the men are strong. In The Fountainhead, Roark is a great man, but not the kind of primal prime mover one found in Rand's capitalist heroes in AS. Thus, Dominique is strong-willed, but is inferior to Roark, and worships him. In ATLAS SHRUGGED, John Galt is almost a kind of mythological demi-god. Thus Dagny is strong almost on the level of a Roark. But she's still clearly inferior to Galt and worships him.

Ayn Rand would never have written John Galt as a woman. John Galt is fine. But Jane Galt would not fly. Same with Roark.

Oh, and consider these two quotes by Rand:

"By the nature of her duties and daily activities," a female president ". . . would become the most unfeminine, sexless, metaphysically inappropriate, and rationally revolting figure of all: a matriarch" (The Voice of Reason, ed. Leonard Peikoff, New York: Meridian, 1990, p. 269).

"It is because men are metaphysically the dominant sex . . . that a thing such as Women's Lib could gain plausibility and sympathy among today's intellectuals" (New Left, p. 175, emphasis added).

Taken from this article

I concede that Rand in fact was a gender essentialist that did believe silly stuff about women as meant to be worshippers of great men etc, but no Objectivist these days would defend her preposterous belief in that. I certainly will not. It contradicts her technical philosophy on numerous levels.

However, Rand did deny the idea she believed women were in fact inferior to men. She also said that hero-worship was not about "anything she [the woman] might lack" [square brackets mine] but, as Nathaniel Branden argues in "Was Ayn Rand A Feminist?" (also published in Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand) that Rand wasn't so much talking about men in general or any specific concrete male, but more "the masculine principle" and man "in a highly abstract sense."

I agree with you that Rand was inconsistent on that point. She was gratifying her own fantasies in writing and decided to make them a philosophical issue (in spite of the contradiction), but I don't think this means Objectivism (the system of ideas) is inherently sexist at all. I'm not saying you believe that, by the way.

Oh, I don't think Objectivism is a sexist philosophy, anymore than I think it is a philosophy that endorses smoking. Objectivism and Randism are inherently different. One is a principled philosophy. The other is a cult of personality.

Given that Rand was a traditionalist and an essentialist about gender and gender expression, when she spoke of man she was, yes, speaking of masculinity, but also of men in a concrete sense.

Rand was fundamentally uncomfortable with the idea of a woman who is more powerful than the men around her. Which is why she didn't like the idea of a female president. Dagny Taggart existed as she did in AS only because John Galt existed as he did in AS. Otherwise, I think Rand would have found her an intolerable character.

Also note that, while strong, Dagny is searching for a man great enough to subjugate her. A man, in other words, who she is inferior to. She respects and is attracted to Rearden, but notice how that relationship goes the way of the South when she meets Galt? Rearden was her equivalent, but Galt is her superior.

Of course, I think that Rand felt disappointed about being dominant to every man in her life. Dagny is essentially Rand, and her finding Galt is Rand's ultimate wish fulfillment.

[Brant Gaede]

No, Dagny was NOT looking for a man to "subjugate" her. That's completely off the track. Even Dominique wasn't subjugated by Roark. If that's what she was about she wouldn't and couldn't have left him. Now, the "rape" scene might be described as a subjugation but it wasn't followed up on.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's all fiction, of course, but I personally think that if Dominique had gone frigid in the middle of the dastardly deed and said something to the effect of, "Stop it. I really don't want this. You misunderstood the signals. I mean it," or something like that instead of acting like a cat in heat, Roark would have stopped and even been embarrassed enough to apologize before making a quick exit.

At least I believe that was the way Rand figured him. That's certainly the message that comes across to me.

Michael

[Selene]

Rand says so herself in her journals.

"But the fact is that Roark did not actually rape Dominique; she had asked for it, and he knew that she wanted it."

Apparently Rand thinks the definition of rape is 'sex one does not want.' In reality, rape is non-consensual sex. <<<< Actually, rape is a crime of violence and has absolutely nothing to do with sex.

Moreover, the "rape of Dominique" and the "rape of Dagny" in the Taggart Tunnel < geez my retroactive apologies to Freud, Rorschach etc., would be viewed by a submissive as a total power exchange [TPE] which is empowering, e.g., "In that kind of relationship, the submissive is freed to be all of herself. She is safe enough to feel her exquisitely sensitive reactions to others, to play like a child, to give care and to take care, to be angry, to lose shame."

Therefore, it is not that clear cut.

Jury nullification exists for every case wherein a common law jury is empaneled and is implicit in common law juries and should be used heavily by us and every other libertarian, conservative. etc.

Interesting thread.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

Adam, rape has a lot to do with sex, plus violence, etc.

We don't say bank robbery has nothing to do with money.

--Brant

Edited June 8, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Selene]

Sorry that is what the "expert's" from the district attorney's offices and the rape victims argue.

I should have specified - getting late lol

[Michelle]

No, Dagny was NOT looking for a man to "subjugate" her. That's completely off the track. Even Dominique wasn't subjugated by Roark. If that's what she was about she wouldn't and couldn't have left him. Now, the "rape" scene might be described as a subjugation but it wasn't followed up on.

--Brant

Wrong word. I shouldn't post when I'm tired.

But she was looking for a man who was superior to her.

[kiaer.ts]

No, Dagny was NOT looking for a man to "subjugate" her. That's completely off the track. Even Dominique wasn't subjugated by Roark. If that's what she was about she wouldn't and couldn't have left him. Now, the "rape" scene might be described as a subjugation but it wasn't followed up on.

--Brant

Wrong word. I shouldn't post when I'm tired.

But she was looking for a man who was superior to her.

The word is Dominate. There's a big hint in the novel about that, somewhere...

[Michelle]

Rand says so herself in her journals.

"But the fact is that Roark did not actually rape Dominique; she had asked for it, and he knew that she wanted it."

Apparently Rand thinks the definition of rape is 'sex one does not want.' In reality, rape is non-consensual sex. <<<< Actually, rape is a crime of violence and has absolutely nothing to do with sex.

Moreover, the "rape of Dominique" and the "rape of Dagny" in the Taggart Tunnel < geez my retroactive apologies to Freud, Rorschach etc., would be viewed by a submissive as a total power exchange [TPE] which is empowering, e.g., "In that kind of relationship, the submissive is freed to be all of herself. She is safe enough to feel her exquisitely sensitive reactions to others, to play like a child, to give care and to take care, to be angry, to lose shame."

Therefore, it is not that clear cut.

Jury nullification exists for every case wherein a common law jury is empaneled and is implicit in common law juries and should be used heavily by us and every other libertarian, conservative. etc.

Interesting thread.

Adam

No. Rape IS unconsenting sexual activity.

From merriam webster dictionary online:

"Main Entry:

rape

Function:

noun

Date:

14th century

2 : unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent"

Now, it is true that the psychological motivations behind rape almost never have anything to do with a simple sexual desire. It's a desire to subjugate (how I would have actually used the word on a better day), humiliate, dominate, destroy, all channeled through the sexual act.

[Michelle]

No, Dagny was NOT looking for a man to "subjugate" her. That's completely off the track. Even Dominique wasn't subjugated by Roark. If that's what she was about she wouldn't and couldn't have left him. Now, the "rape" scene might be described as a subjugation but it wasn't followed up on.

--Brant

Wrong word. I shouldn't post when I'm tired.

But she was looking for a man who was superior to her.

The word is Dominate. There's a big hint in the novel about that, somewhere...

Yes, thank you.

[Brant Gaede]

The Insanity of Ayn Rand: The Fountain-Brain-Dead.

by Tallulah Morehead

June 4, 2009

Huffington Post

This is the weirdest of the weird, snarkiest of the snarky and most boneheaded of the boneheaded critiques or satires of Rand I ever read. But it's funny, too, if you don't take it seriously...

From the article:

I just finished watching a doozy of a terrible movie on TCM, one that has to be seen to be disbelieved: the ultra-hilarious piece of right-wing objectivist claptrap, the movie of Ayn Rand's ridiculous novel, The Fountainhead, starring Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal, as glamorous, sexy Fascists, I mean an architect and his best gal.

. . .

Enormously well-hung Gary Cooper plays Howard Roarke, the most brilliant, unpopular, and egotistical architect in the world. The movie is all about how people are always trying to get Howard Roarke to design buildings just like the same ones everyone else designs, but Howard is too great to listen to anyone, even his clients.

. . .

The villain of the story is a newspaper architectural critic, who wields tremendous public power. He writes a column of architectural criticism, and his slightest word can bring the city to a halt. What planet is this? When the publisher fires the architectural critic, the staff walks out in support of the critic, and the paper buckles under to the critic, and the publisher shoots himself.

. . .

He's [Roark's] found innocent, and the jury and the whole courtroom erupts into applause at this horrific miscarriage of justice. He has admitted committing the crime on the stand. His defense was that he has way better taste than the pigs who paid for it, so he should be able to blow it up.

. . .

Patricia Neal is an architect's daughter who hates anything that makes her happy, because her taste is too supurb, and the masses with their bad taste will destroy anything she likes, so she deliberately throws out any stuff she has that she likes (We first meet her dropping a lovely nude statue down an airshaft), and she refuses to marry the man she loves, and instead marries a man she finds creepy, to avoid being happy, so happiness can't be taken from her. She'd rather be miserable, than be happy, and risk being made miserable by the masses. If you can find any sense in that, let me know.

. . .

Her idea of sight-seeing is riding her horse to the quarry and then wandering around, drooling over the hunky, muscular workmen driving pickaxes into walls of granite. This is, in my opinion, the only sensible thing in the whole movie. And her favorite workman is Howard Roarke, who is working there after driving himself out of business with his too-high standards of taste. She first sees him holding a jackhammer, drilling away into into solid rock. She is turned on by the ever-so-subtle sexual implication of his drilling into rock with a jackhammer. She must imagine she has a marble hymen.

Now she can't get him out of her mind. She rides around on her horse, imagining Howard and his drill while she's being jostled in the saddle. At one point she rides up to him and slashes him across the face with a riding crop, which makes him grin, and the unforgettable final shot of the film is her riding up over 100 stories in an outdoor elevator (No elevator can go that far. It takes three to get to the top of the Empire State Building.) to where Howard is standing, on top of his not-yet-finished "Tallest building in the world." The shot tracks in on his crotch as he stands astride his masterpiece, the world's-biggest-phallic symbol.

. . .

When Ayn learned that some slight cuts had been made to her speech, she squawked and hollered, but she did not blow up Warner Brothers, nor set fire to the negative and all prints, nor even beat Jack Warner into paste with a poker (Damn!), which makes her a raging hypocrite. It's what Howard Roarke would have done. It's what Bette Davis would have done.

. . .

Ayn died the day after John Belushi died...

I wonder if the consistent misspelling of Roark's name as Roarke is intentional. I bet it is not, since nothing snarky came of it.

I admit I feel a bit guilty for finding some of this stuff funny, but DAYAAMM!

If you gotta let it out, might as well do it all at once...

Michael

EDIT: Incidentally, Tallulah Morehead is fictional (I think). Here is her blog: The Morehead the Merrier.

I think the misspelling of Roark is intentional. It's there to support her contention she just came upon this ridiculous movie, but she obviously knows much more about Rand, Objectivism and "The Fountainhead" than she's willing to admit.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I thought about some reasons for the misspelling. If it was to be a point of satire, there should have been some emphasis on it. There wasn't, so I don't think satire was the point. But I can think of 2 very good reason outside of satire.

1. People who do these things usually have cliques and insider jokes. This could be some sort of insider joke.

2. It is really easy to track in Google searches and does not get mixed up with Roark-related stuff, especially from other authors. Thus the "Tallulah" authors (using a search term like roarke tallulah) can see where the article has penetrated without relying only on the title and/or author, and keep it article-specific.

For instance, as a very simple use, later if this fictional author wishes to refer to "Roark" in another article, a comparison between the two articles can be compiled easier from searches.

Michael

[studiodekadent]

Oh, I don't think Objectivism is a sexist philosophy, anymore than I think it is a philosophy that endorses smoking. Objectivism and Randism are inherently different. One is a principled philosophy. The other is a cult of personality.

Thank you for clarifying. Apologies if I sounded accusatory.

Of course, I think that Rand felt disappointed about being dominant to every man in her life. Dagny is essentially Rand, and her finding Galt is Rand's ultimate wish fulfillment.

Whilst I disagree with Rand turning her sexual fantasies into the barometer of psychosexual health (and I do so because, using your distinction, I am an Objectivist and not a Randist), is Rand's wish fulfilment really a bad thing (in and of itself)?

[Brant Gaede]

While there is a lot of amusing stuff in T. M.'s screed it's important to understand what's going on: it's all an act of intimidation: If I can do this to Rand look at how easy it will be for me and others to do similar stuff to you if you poke your Rand-head above ground. We'll just cut it off. We'll just make some snarky remarks. We'll make fun of you. We won't take you seriously. We'll dismiss you with a wave of the hand. This crap--and it's all crap--is also a way to establish her credentials as a bullier: you cross her at your peril. You ally yourself with her if only for self-protection. She's got her own clique/claque going you can be sure. I first ran into cliques in kindergarten--the one my Mom founded over 60 years ago so I could get "socialized." The kids had too much time on their hands so some made claques. Yeah, sure, instead of helping me develop my brain as with language exposure and what have you I got "socialized," played with blocks and studied how to make orange marmalade. (I hate marmalade.) The same school today is still going strong doing the same damn thing as a cooperative. If I hadn't been born it wouldn't exist. Anyway, I had to take care of my own brain development while most of my classmates went brain dead.

--Brant

founding locus for The Tucsn Comunity Sch'l

Edited June 8, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Michelle]

Whilst I disagree with Rand turning her sexual fantasies into the barometer of psychosexual health (and I do so because, using your distinction, I am an Objectivist and not a Randist), is Rand's wish fulfilment really a bad thing (in and of itself)?

I think Rand ruined the book's romantic aspect by imposing this fantasy on the organic character growth until that point. Her relationship with Galt is the only relationship in the book that I didn't buy at all. Moreover, considering the emotional intensity of her relationships with Francisco and Rearden (consider the scene where Rearden finds out about Francisco and Dagny), doesn't it seem farfetched that they have no qualms whatsoever with her choosing Galt? They just laugh and accept it like Buddhist saints. Everything about Galt weakens the book. And Galt is her ultimate sexual fantasy.

[Rich Engle]

I've watched that movie. Hell, I went out years ago on a search for it and finally got a crappy VHS from the Mentor Library (thank whatever they had it).

I saw better cuts later.

That is a horrible fucking movie. If you cut it down to the sexual tension/phallic stuff it would be good for the five minutes after you have dinner with your significant other and have good food and wine under you, then onto the wah-wah pedal.

It stinks, but I like the opening scene with Roark in the quarry. I like this because A: I like watching other people suffer, at times, and B: I can relate, having been there, figuratively speaking.

But still, nothing I'd recommend for movie night. Even the music is haenky.

rde

[studiodekadent]

I think Rand ruined the book's romantic aspect by imposing this fantasy on the organic character growth until that point. Her relationship with Galt is the only relationship in the book that I didn't buy at all. Moreover, considering the emotional intensity of her relationships with Francisco and Rearden (consider the scene where Rearden finds out about Francisco and Dagny), doesn't it seem farfetched that they have no qualms whatsoever with her choosing Galt? They just laugh and accept it like Buddhist saints. Everything about Galt weakens the book. And Galt is her ultimate sexual fantasy.

I think that is a valid criticism in many respects. My favorite relationship in Ayn Rand is actually the one between Dagny and Rearden. I love Dagny's guiltlessness about sex, and how the relationship reverses the traditional gender roles in that respect (Rearden's "Fallen Woman" scene was brilliant). I never liked Galt as a character.. he was more a plot device than an actual character as far as I'm concerned.

[Xray]

[Michelle]:

Of course, I think that Rand felt disappointed about being dominant to every man in her life. Dagny is essentially Rand, and her finding Galt is Rand's ultimate wish fulfillment.

Whilst I disagree with Rand turning her sexual fantasies into the barometer of psychosexual health (and I do so because, using your distinction, I am an Objectivist and not a Randist), is Rand's wish fulfilment really a bad thing (in and of itself)?

If it were only about Rand's sexual wish fulfilment, one could just shrug it off, for what turns people on is their own business. But Rand had an agenda: she conceived her heroes/heroines "as man (and woman) should be", i. e. as role models for her readers to emulate.

Imagine a 17 old boy reading those novels and thinking he will now have behave violently, dowright sadistically as Roark, Rearden & Co to fully qualify as "man should" be. Or young girls thinking sexual subservience (as shown in Dagny Taggart) is an essential ingredient of how "the ideal woman" should be.

[Michelle]:

Moreover, considering the emotional intensity of her relationships with Francisco and Rearden (consider the scene where Rearden finds out about Francisco and Dagny), doesn't it seem farfetched that they have no qualms whatsoever with her choosing Galt? They just laugh and accept it like Buddhist saints.

Totally farfetched indeed.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Xray