PalePower

My last post (in Sex and OPAR) directed my train of thought to remember this one poem I wrote back in ninth grade, when I was going through an extremely odd relationship (or lack thereof). We were studying Shakespeare in English, and our teacher gave us the assignment to write a sonnet preferrably resembling his style, and preferrably on the topic of love. I turned this in, obviously centered around my then-current crazy situation, since I couldn't get my mind off it. Oh well, weird feelings produce cool poetry. I guess that's all they're good for. The Sustenance of Fancy The suffocating grayness ne’er disturb’d (Inertia shot in tendrils of cold steel) Can yet be lifted at a passing word, Or rather, drifting voice, to hear. (To feel?) No hop’d escape can be so entertain’d: To flee diurnal practicality; Fancies will leave one mourning, shell’d and maim’d, If puzzle-like, fit not reality. Thus treading misty waking hours curs’d To dull, to dim, stifle that which did thrive In rippling dreams - just recently immers’d - Of that one voice, one face which makes alive. Identity’s ign’rance cannot dismiss This one luxury’s insubstantial bliss. ~Elizabeth Nonemaker~

I would have to say that Rand's method of introducing her couple-characters by the "gut-instinct-my-god-do-they-have-intensely-sexy-eyes-they-must-be-the-embodiment-of-every-value-I-ever-cherished-and-we-will-live-happily-ever-after-together-because-of-the-MEANINGFUL!-way-they're-eyeing-that-lamp post-right-now. . .-and-then-we-DO-live-happily-ever-after-because-only-the-people-I'm-looking-for-are-the-only-ones-that-CAN-look-at-lamp-posts-like-that" style is both one of my absolute favorite aspects of her writing and one of the most disliked. The absolute favorite part comes in the genuine amount of truth in those encounters - there IS an instant sort of "Wow. . . a REAL person!" click when meeting some people, and it's one of the most thrilling, "story-book" feelings you can experience. The most disliked part comes in the seductively easy way you can end up fooling yourself by believing too readily in these instances. Just because a person walks confidently, speaks smoothly, or gazes you down like they KNOW your soul BITCH, does not mean they actually are confident, intelligent, or that discerning or interested in you yourself. I had a very very strange, but thoroughly enlightening experience along these lines of Roark/Dominique or Prometheus/Gaea that more or less slapped me in the face - that although thrilling, tacit personal relationships are indeed possible and I'm sure happen often, it doesn't give the Rand reader free reign to over-romanticize their life to the point of litereally disengaging themselves from reality. Which is why the Roark rape scene is one of the most interesting parts of the novel. . . In the first place, it totally violates Objectivist principles of personal rights and force over mind: Roark raped someone, period. And he's our hero? (Forget the fact that they both "knew" the other "wanted" it. . .) The second is some questions I guess can never be answered: Disregarding the theme and plot, would Rand have allowed Roark to rape Dominique even if she had not held his essential values but had merely come across as strong, contemptuous, and passionate? What was his purpose - to satisfy an urge, even if he had erred, to give him a taste of what the reality would be like, or to knowingly "conquer" her? (And if it was the former, shouldn't Rand, or rather Peikoff, revisit their stringent stance on sex? Or is that only permissible in story books? If that's the case, isn't Rand violating her own stand on art?) Also, if Dominique in fact did not turn how she had impressed Roark, wouldn't that put Roark in a nasty spot of trouble? Say, if she had sued him, or become pregnant, or if he contracted an STD? (I always notice that in her books - there are always these passionate sexual first encounters and there's never any thought that anything bad COULD come out of them!) Isn't Roark intelligent enough to have considered those possibilities and that they most CERTAINLY would utterly destroy his career - his career!! - and yet he STILL goes through with it? Isn't that . . . well . . . STUPID? And again - this is our hero? I absolutely am aware that it's a fictional story and a "recreation of reality according to values" blah blah however that quote goes - that the reason there's no pregnancy or STD issues is that not only is it unessential to the plot, but it would be a "submission" of sorts to the pains of life (and there'll be none of that in Rand novels!). And, technicalities aside, The Fountainhead rape scene is probably one my most favorite and the most exciting parts of the book (and leaves you wistfully longing, Oh God! why won't somebody rape me!?). However, the point is the danger that lies in taking "romanticized Objectivism" literally - life is simply NOT like that, and can't be lived as such. Otherwise, you're subjecting yourself to a lot of senseless pain and disappointment.

Michael, When I read your first couple comments about casual sex, I thought you were referring to casual sex already within a non-casual relationship - that's, at least, what I was talking about. I'm not going to say I out-and-out disagree with you; I don't think I do disagree, but neither do I say I heartily concur. In the realm of rational, passionate people with standards, I suppose it's a matter of opinion and individual comfort - whether you, personally, feel alright with casual sex with more-or-less unfamiliar people, or whether that is just Not Cool with you. To say either option is the one and only "moral" way to go is reverting back to Orthodoxy, whether Objectivist or Hedonistic. I, personally, don't think I would be okay with casual sex outside of a substantial relationship (and by relationship I don't necessarily mean romantic, simply that you intimately know your partner and vice versa) simply because as sex is the MOST INTENSE physical-pleasure experience a person can know, I wouldn't want to share it with anyone with whom I did not have one of the MOST INTENSE mental-pleasure experiences. To say otherwise seems to me to be a blatant mind-body dichotomy, regardless of the "biological" benefits sex can have upon a person. And, almost or perhaps just as important as your own standards, is the consideration a person should have for their future sexual partners - namely, the steady, "ultimate" ones, that fully satisfy you both in body AND mind. Wouldn't you want to reserve something physically "special" for them, who are so mentally/emotional special? (No jokes - you know what kind of "special" I'm talking about! ) And how exactly would it make them feel to know if there was nothing special for them to receive? Again, I still consider this a matter of opinion and personal comfort - dare I say, subjective?! To use myself as an example, I would not want to have sex with anybody unless they fully met my pre-set mental standards. However, I would not restrict myself from "messing around" with them. I also would not feel insulted or cheated in some way if my future "ultimate" partner had had sex with other people before me, even if they were not his ultimates - but just as long as he consciously valued them, in some ways, above the rank and file. I would, however, have a problem with him if he had participated in indiscriminate casual sex, just to satisfy a physical or emotional itch, even if it was just one time. I also see nothing wrong with this attitude - of course you can be sexually attracted to someone without their being your "ultimate." However, does that necessarily mean that you must, or even cannot help but, give in to those desires? Can't you mess around and satisfy the sexually attracted part of your relationship, without giving in to the "ultimate" - physically - when it does not exist - mentally? I'd say I even endorse "messing around" with "non-ultimates" because you can definitely lean too far to the other extreme - saving yourself, EVERY BIT OF IT!, ALWAYS and ONLY to the ONLY one that meets EVERY single standard. I'm still just a teenager and already I have some friends that are becoming aloof, withdrawn, dissatisfied, and almost inescapably sad as a result of this stringent self-alienation. I can't imagine what decades of this self-denial could to do a person's psyche. On another note, I think this is one of more interesting aspects of Rearden - interesting because while Rand acknowledges that people sometimes have urges that they "need" to satisfy, they still can't escape the reality of A is A. Rearden definitely felt bad about being in Lillian's bed, but he kept going back. Why is this? Because he had an indescribably intense desire not only to quench physical thirts, but to also unite with someone spiritually; in the latter context, Rearden kept going back to Lillian's bed to get the illusion of experiencing a fully satisfying sexual experience, but he could not escape the fact that it WAS just an illusion: A is A - Rearden was Alone. (How depressing. ) The fact that he kept going back doesn't mean that the act was somehow in itself "good" - it just means that it was, at least at the immediate moment, it was the lesser of the two evils: either being undeniably physically alone, or being with a surrogate. Rearden probably felt worse after being with Lillian than after being alone because when he was with his wife, he was cheating reality (in that making love to your wife, to him, was supposed to be both a physically and mentally joyous occasion, while with him it was definitely not mentally gratifying, and sometimes neither - though the urges to satisfy those desires were what drove him to her bed).

I'm probably missing a lot, but this passage partly struck me as a little bit bombastic and psychologically ignorant. (That's, obviously, aside from the bits I agreed with, like, Michael, you said, identifying sex as spiritually satisfying.) Yes, sex is (or should be - my mostly virginal self wouldn't know. . . ) a summation of values, but that's not all it can be or the only purpose it serves. If sex is SOLELY the affirmation "I CAN LIVE!", then what makes sex so special or even different than daily work or even a simple, gratifying conversation? Don't all a rational man's actions carry that same message? I'm almost tempted to say that Peikoff's statement, "As in all such cases, the mind is the ruling factor" is reversed; sex is, first and foremost, a physical act - it is the mind and values that take it to that next, much higher level. Plus, to say otherwise is to ignore all the other aspects of human life that "rational" sex can encompass - does it always have to be strictly, one-sided-philosophical, or can't it at times become more personal according to the individual partners? Say, for physical or emotional comfort, or, hell, sex for warmth or even for humor! Or maybe it's just that it's a physical act that feels really damn good - SO good, in fact, that you wouldn't want to share with anybody else than your best friend. Like sophisticated back rubs! You wouldn't want to give/receive a back rub to someone you hated (probably because they'd have really greasy, pimply, disgusting backs) - you would want to back rub with someone you liked and trusted, but the fact that you like them isn't what causes you to want a back rub in the first place. It sort of reminds me of this one person I know who (at least in the past) didn't seem to really enjoy being in my company unless we were having some deep, utterly important, philosophical conversation. If I tried to tell them about my dog's latest escape, or the ridiculousness of last night's homework, or some stupidly hilarious yet pointless story, they'd assume a very polite - but very fake, insulting, and hurtful - attitude which more or less equated to "I try, but I really don't give a shit about you or your life unless your every action has blatant philosophical significance that I can then in turn apply to myself" - depsite what I had hinted to them on former occasions that some of the joys I get from associating with people I highly value were the seemingly insignificant or stupid conversations, or just simply sitting saying nothing, because it was everything unsaid that spoke the loudest - just the sheer joy at the knowledge of being in the presence of a Good Person, and that nothing "important" NEEDED to be said to reinforce that joy. In the same way, does sex always have to be unbearably intense, unfathomably revolutionary, and intimately focused on mental self-development, or can't it also be, at times, recreational, comfortable, and simply "fun?"

I love "Disappoint!" It's one of my favorite songs, along with "Lullaby." Go on and make me feel inferior, why don't you! I really don't have that much equipment, or sophisticated equipment at that. . . attribute it to my being 17 (and so have only been really hands-on involved in this stuff for a year or two) and wanting to save up for college. What I use the most is Finale Printmusic for notation - since most or a lot of the stuff I write is intended for live performance. But for recorded stuff, my software is Cakewalk's Sonar Home Studio; electric guitar is Fernandes Dragonfly X, a Marshall amp, a Zoom 515II guitar pedal, a whole crapload of drum loops both bought and downloaded, and - for all other instrument sounds - my Yamaha Portable Grand DGX-505 keyboard. For a recent movie short sountrack, though, I got one of my friends to come over and record an acoustic piano and cello with his equipment. I know I'll need TONS more equipment in the future, but as of now I'm too new to even know what exactly it is I'll need. *sigh* Collaboration - hey! Why not? As you could guess, I probably wouldn't be able to contribute recording-wise unless I get some new stuff, but I'm up for structure or melodic/harmonic composition! You can get an idea of some of my stuff at this site: http://www.acidplanet.com/artist.asp?songs=450345&T=9324 Some of the files are MIDI. . . ergh. ~Elizabeth

Very interesting, satisfying responses. I'm loving this forum, and I'm picking up Branden's book probably tomorrow. To sort of contribute my own answer (even to my own question), the idea of specifically a romantic partner, and, even more specifically, sex, reminds me of Roark's quote, that went something like, "We live in our minds, and life is the process of bringing this existence into physical reality." And isn't that what a lover is, or should be? Your values incarnate - everything you ever loved and cherished and adored in this world made into something you can touch and love and interact with. I suppose that, in some forms, people can satisfy that desire - to love something precious and also tangible - even more than valued actions can, even if those actions are your chosen and "definite" passion, such as art or music or business. I think the reason behind this is that while you yourself give meaning to your "career" actions, your lover gives meaning to themselves; while a sheet of music or a building's girders remain just a piece of paper or a hunk of steel without your blessing, a lover (ideally!) always retains their own individual passion, and can become no less - because they think - and the same way you do. They are the physical embodiment of your values. And friends are just another form of this. ~Elizabeth

Hi there Andrew, I'm a newbie as well, but so far I can say this place is turning out pretty nicely! Electro-industrial music is awesome; VNV Nation is one of my favorite bands, and I love "Hellraiser" by Suicide Commando. Do you listen to any Assemblage 23? I'm also a musician/composer, but I focus more on classical composition and movie soundtracks, though I DEFINITELY am going to dabble in industrial/techno one of these days. So good. Be sure to post some of your stuff up here one of these days; I'd like to hear it! ~Elizabeth

It's a short film (short as in 10 minutes) by an NYU film student - as of now the circulation is just to his class, family, and the people who helped to make it, but there's a possibility he'll submit it to a festival or something. It's basically about a young boy, Marty, who's overshadowed by his older baseball-star brother, and struggles to assert his own individuality. I'll get a link up here when he manages to get it in the proper format - the cinematography is really beautiful and professional-looking. Oh, and, I meant that I hadn't seen the completed version. It was a rush project - I was writing the music as he was filming, but he did manage to get a rough cut to me so that I could time accurately. However, his final cut came at the very last minute, so I was up the morning before the recording session, writing new music!! And, yeah, I'm super excited about this and some other short-music I'm working on. Not only is it such a thrill to be able to apply your skills in the areas you prefer, but I hope that some relationships I'm establishing will carry over for when (yes, WHEN!! not if) we all go pro.

Check out some clips of music I just wrote and recorded for my friend's short film! (Still haven't seen the blasted movie!!! ARRRGH!) http://www.acidplanet.com/artist.asp?PID=915581&t=8502 http://www.acidplanet.com/artist.asp?PID=915582&t=8502 http://www.acidplanet.com/artist.asp?PID=915578&t=8502

We all know that the best life is a (rationally) self-centered one: do what you gotta do to make you and only you happy - get that career you wanted, that house, that book, that trip around the world, that adorable puppy, and screw all those other losers who say you should think more about the opinions of other people or that your money would be better spent buying a rosary to give to a mother in Africa. It's about you and your wants. But we also all know that, as incredibly awesome as your personal success is, it can also quite dreary unless you have someone to share it with (in the same way that having a significant other would mean nothing if you had achieved nothing from your own life - if your "love" with that person was unearned). So, my query is, what exactly is it that makes worthwhile social interaction so essential to happiness? You have someone to understand you, yes; you have someone to share your life with, yes - but if life is about success and individual achievement, can't you accomplish that all without someone's understanding or sharing it, and enjoy it fully? If that's what brings happiness (and it does), why is it not complete happiness if it's all alone? What is it in being with rational people that makes life seem meaningful (or so I would imagine)? (Note - I'm not in any way saying that Objectivists "theoretically" shouldn't need others' company; I'm honestly wondering exactly why it is that we do so much.) Enlighten me!

No, I've actually never heard of him. Thanks very much!! I'll definitely pick up some of his work.

You've got writing talent, that's sure, but always keep in mind the axiom, "Show, don't tell." I would say, to make it super effective, use only a paragraph or two to describe her physical condition - and just that. Wrap it up with a one-sentence reaction, like, "She was on the bed, blah blah, her hair, blah, blah, (then): The only sensation stronger than my shock as I gazed at her naked, mutilated form, was the overwhelming urge to throw myself down on the floor and scream until I coughed blood." If you're describing your own personal mental state too much, it sounds forced: you're looking at your dead lover - you're in shock, you aren't CAPABLE of in-depth introspection. Same thing with describing her character - don't make sweeping generalizations like "unceasing wit" and "gentle kindness" or use weak language like "beautiful smile." That doesn't impress readers whatsoever, lots of people they know are beautiful or witty or kind. . . give them examples to dwell upon, so they can feel the character's pain by themselves and not by command. Tell them instead, like, "All I could think of was her smile. . . how it always took her several moments, starting with her eyes. You could tell a smile was coming by a slow sparkle, a warm shimmer within the deep green, then an explosion of brilliance spreading down over her lashes, her cheeks, and finally to her lips, which would part in a gasp of uncontainable joy, spilling laughter all over the glimmering world." Etc. etc. Good job!

You're killing me! Towson is about an hour away - my sister actually goes there - but if everything goes the way I'm planning, I'm going to be in Pittsburgh for the entire month of July at a music pre-college program. But - smack me up the face should I ever start complaining about going away to do musics for extended periods of time! And, Can I be really obnoxious and say, "Haha, that sucks for you, my sister and I have an awesome relationship"? But, taunting aside, that does suck, and I can relate, as my aforementioned sister's at college. "Keep pluggin."

"What kind of music and literature do you like? Who are your favorite composers? Who are your favorite authors?" Oh God. . . my music tastes are all over the place, except the radio (and that excepts the classical station). For classical. . . music from mainly any period can enthrall me, but romantic and some twentieth-century are my loves. (Debussy's piano music is possibly some of the most fun stuff to play - ever.) Tchaikovsky is my all-time favorite composer. Some top classical pieces off the top of my head, I'd say. . . Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake Waltz, his first piano concerto, Smetana's "Moldau," Shostakovich's Russian Waltz, Prokofiev's 3rd piano concerto, Rachmaninoff's second, Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue, Beethoven's Tempest Sonata. . . I also love industrial/orchestral/progressive metal and weird, un-genre-able music like Cirque du Soleil and Rasputina. Good stuff. I'm a fiction-bug for reading, though I don't mind occasional breaks with history or philosophy or whatever fits my rare non-fiction mood at the time. And, fiction-wise, I veer mostly to the classic literature (but I'll make exceptions for Dan Brown and Tolkien and Harry Potter) - modern fantasy/sci-fi is chock full of just BAD writing and horrible characters and about a toenail's size worth of originality. Favorite books include (besides the obvious). . . East of Eden, Girl With a Pearl Earring, Catch-22, Hunchback of Notre-Dame, Rebecca, and probably a bunch of others I forget right now. And as for your suggesting you be more sympathetic, PLEASE, the thing I need the most is to be told to shut up and that there's no reason to kvetch. Probably the only reason I ever do whine - to be told to stop, if that makes any sense whatsoever. =D Thanks for the college/life advice!

Hello! I stumbled across (meaning I sought out. . .) this forum and decided it'd definitely be worthwhile to join. My name is Elizabeth, I'm 17, and I live in Maryland. My passions include music and the written word - I plan to become a composer and an author when I'm older. (Well, actually, I already am, but I hope to not starve as a result of those.) I first discovered Ayn Rand three years ago when I read The Fountainhead for the first time: I felt my life take a somersault - here was a completely unfamiliar book, by a totally unfamiliar person, describing a totally unfamiliar plot, and yet the thoughts and sense of life I encountered could only be described as something I had always felt and known, but had never been able to articulate or fully grasp. I quickly read all the rest of her fiction and about 75% of her nonfiction. Since then I've grown and matured a lot. . . I still have a lot to learn about Objectivism, but as of right now my life is hectic as anything (which leaves little time for reading =(...)and I'm trying to decide whether I love it or it's driving me nuts. The majority of stuff I'm doing is super satisfying, but the presence of uber-controlling Catholic parents and the lack of any valued friends (it's high school, what can you say?) kind of detracts from its awesomeness. It's great to be a part of this group - I hope I can dig out some time from the day to stay up-to-date with everything that goes on!