CNA

Thanks for your comments, Angie. I am too tired to say anything coherent right now, but didn't want to log off not having acknowledged them.

You're welcome, Ted. Way tired as well and going to bed soon myself.

Well, for some reason I didn’t get invited to the private screening in L.A. (I can’t imagine why. You don't suppose the organizers read OL. . .) But here are two reviews by people who did.

Jeffrey Falk is an “aspiring writer concerned about the state of the world as the Enlightenment fades into the Endarkenment,” and clearly very sympathetic to Objectivism. Despite that, he obviously felt it was very important to discuss the film's numerous flaws, because people who have not read the book need to know what was missing.

The novel is a nonpareil integration of literature and philosophy (including politics). The film could not be much more disappointing in that aspect, and the abstruse motifs of ratiocinative epistemology and laissez-faire economics are largely lost in the slapdash, inadequate translation from script to screen...[The] novel's crucial connection of technology and material progress to the unfettered human mind and free economy is given short shrift...

Here is Falk's review:

Atlas Shrugged Part I : The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Some people have all the luck. John Sexton, who writes for the blog Verum Serum, says he just finished reading the novel two weeks ago. He not only got an invite, he sat at the same table with Nathaniel Branden, and his blog entry includes a picture of Branden with David Kelley. He talks about the experience here:

At the Atlas Shrugged Premiere

And here is his glowing (he really, really liked it!) review:

Atlas Shrugged Part 1 - High Speed Rail Done Right

That's funny, on John Sexton's blog and the second picture of David Kelley, Duncan Scott and Nathaniel Branden, I'm standing right behind David Kelley but can't see much but remember when that pic was taken. I'm waiting for pics to be uploaded and released. I would like copies of some of them if I can. I know when pics were being taken in front of their premiere sign and red carpet and the people that were showing up, of course, took pics of everyone and we were told that the pics would be uploaded to the Atlas website and they would be available for download. I have not stayed up with all the sites or people giving reviews nor have I stayed up on their website as I have distanced myself a bit from it and just honestly too bummed out over it. But does anyone know if any of the screening pics have been uploaded as I would like copies of some of them -- at least the ones that I am in??

Post -- oops, not 2nd picture but the 4th or 5th one down or some such deal..anyway...

If I am turned off by it and not looking forward to the rest of the movies, what does that say for someone that is new to the philosophy when they see it? Not good. I'm sure it will bring in people wanting to understand as it appeals to them on different levels because it makes sense to them but this overall rush of people into the philosophy, I doubt very very very seriously this is going to happen. Honestly, I believe it is going to get bad reviews and may lose money on it. Or they may very well only release it in "select" theaters only but it won't go any further than that and you won't hear much about it after that.

That is a concern that I have had, Angie. It is important that people in the film audience who are unfamiliar with the novel know what the differences are. I do not want people to look at the film and decide that Atlas Shrugged is a novel about people doing lots of weird stuff that makes no sense. How is that going to help Objectivism? In my opinion, we have nothing to lose by being as honest as possible about the quality of the film—and I do believe I have adequate evidence to substantiate the doubts I have expressed. I sincerely hope I am wrong.

Thank you for your comments.

You hit the nail right on the head with this one. You say WEIRD? Wow, that's an understatement. When Dagny goes to Wyatt's house at night to find his oil ablaze, she goes running somewhat through the house and calling for him. Then scenes flash in and out as she is doing this and showing Galt standing at Wyatt's door the night before and he begins talking but fades out so you don't hear the entire speech, only small bits and pieces of it, which wasn't bad until....Oh, man, Galt then says, "I'm cultivating a society of independent minds or something like that and they live in Atlantis. WHOA....that's weird and serious creepy to word it in such a way like that. It could have been stated something or other of living in a society that's distant, etc., etc., and we call it Atlantis or some such deal. Just something to tone down that whole weird sentence that he said. I know it's not verbatim from the book because that's unlike Rand. But nevertheless, when Galt said it the way he did, there were chuckles and sighs from the audience. It was weird the way it was done and gives that whole movie deal of snatch of the body or whatever that old movie is called where aliens or whatever snatches people up and they're put in pods and cultivated, etc., etc.

I completely agree with you. Honesty is of utmost importance with this, brutally honest, rather than sugarcoating and trying to make it into something it's not. I'm like you and I don't want it to fail. It really needs to be a success, especially in the state the country is in. But man, after what I saw, my hopes have been dashed. Not everyone is going to be happy and I hope I am wrong but honestly I don't have high hopes now.

He felt it would have been well worth it to add additional time to Part One to help those unfamiliar with the book make sense of what was going on in intellectual terms. A screenwriter with anything remotely approaching a grasp of the novel’s theme could have accomplished this easily, using dialogue which underscored intelligence, intellectual self-confidence and independent judgment as opposed to mental sloth. An obvious example (and I don’t actually know if this made it into the film version or not—I strongly doubt it) is Dagny’s conversation with James Taggart early in the novel (pp. 20-21):

[NOTE: The first speaker is obviously Dagny.]

“They’re not going to be steel. They’re Rearden Metal.”

[Dagny laughs at the look on Taggart’s face. Then her voice turns cold and harsh.]

“Drop it, Jim. I know everything you’re going to say. Nobody’s ever used it before. Nobody approves of Rearden Metal. Nobody’s interested in it. Nobody wants it. Still, our rails are going to be made of Rearden Metal.”

“But. . . “ said Taggart, “but nobody’s ever used it before! The consensus of the best metallurgical authorities,” he said, “seems to be highly skeptical about Rearden Metal, contending. . .”

“Drop it, Jim.”

“Well, whose opinion did you take?”

‘I don’t ask for opinions.”

‘What do you go by?”

“Judgment.”

“Well, whose judgment did you take?”

“Mine.”

“But whom did you consult about it?”

“Nobody.”

“Then what on earth do you know about Rearden Metal?”

“That it’s the greatest thing ever put on the market.”

“Why?”

“Because it’s tougher than steel, cheaper than steel and will outlast any hunk of metal in existence.”

“But who says so?”

“Jim, I studied engineering in college. When I see things, I see them.”

“What did you see?”

“Rearden’s formula and the tests he showed me.”

That is one conversational exchange that definitely should have made it into the screenplay with minimal changes. It dramatizes the very essence of Objectivism: Think, and be willing to stake your life on your independent judgment.

The controversy over Rearden metal was one of the key plot elements used by Ayn Rand to dramatize the importance of independent thinking, and it started very early in the novel. The fact that this was not understood by the director or the screenwriter can be observed by a single line from the trailer, when Dagny says to Rearden: “I’m gambling your new metal can do what you say it can.” Like the word ‘destroy,’ this appears to be a subtle difference, but the change in wording makes all the difference in the world. Ayn Rand would never have let Dagny describe a scientific thought process as “gambling.” (I contrasted Dagny's use of the word 'destroy' vs. the word 'kill' on another thread.)

Above sequence from her book is in the movie but has been changed and quite a bit dropped that I can remember. Some of what is in the trailer such as the above and "gambling" is not in the movie itself that I can remember. I remember when seeing that part of the movie I thought to myself what I saw in that part of the trailer was absent in the actual movie. There's another area of the trailer that was edited where she says something to the effect of, "If you double cross me, I'll destroy you" or something to that effect in the trailer. The sentence right before she said that sentence was...I've never hurt a living thing in my life but if you double cross me, Jim, I'll.....or something to that effect.

Later in the novel (page 315 in my hardback version), there is a discussion about Midas Mulligan’s decision to invest in Rearden Steel and help the upstart Rearden become an enormous success in the steel industry.

“. . .When an economist referred to him once as an audacious gambler, Mulligan said: ‘The reason why you’ll never get rich is because you think that what I do is gambling.’”

There is one word which captures the essence of Phil’s ritualistic use of rationalism as a way to smear and demean his intellectual opponents.

Rationalism.

This of course is not in Part 1 of the movie. The issue with the movie and in talking with a few other people is that there are bits and pieces taken out from the entire book and pieced together. There are parts in the movie that is in the first part of the book, second part of the book, and the ending of the book and this is one of the reasons the movie is a bit hard to follow and to watch. Painful perhaps.

This is something I wrote a bit earlier elsewhere. I can go into specifics on the film but just leaving where it is at here but will include this..

Bill, I got your message and will respond soon. You know, as for an overhaul, I don't think it could be done in a month unless they work long tiring hours going through footage, etc. But they can do tweaks here and there to make it more appealing but honestly I doubt they're going to do this. It may be changed here and there but nothing major I'm sure. But the problem is is that it's not just one or two scenes that are issues..the issues run the entire movie. There was a shot in there that threw me and won't forget it. It wasn't the characters at a party, etc., but the camera man messed up and they left it in the movie and the final product. Wow... During the scene, it was a bit out of focus and then the camera zoomed in enough for it to be noticable and then zoomed out again real quick and you had to adjust your eyes a bit. It was very distracting from the movie. It's just little stuff like that as well as all the other issues that I've mentioned. It's one little snowball and with all the other issues turns into an avalanche. I don't think this camera mistake was intended "effects" for the movie and the way they were wanting to shoot this scene because this seemingly camera blooper does not appear anywhere else in the entire movie. Out of the 102 minutes of the film, this camera style or zooming in and out is shown only once in the entire movie and lasts a few seconds but nonetheless enough of a blooper to make an impression and for it to stick in your head because it was very distracting.

Honestly, I don't think there are many Objectivists involved in it...the actors for one, production staff, ones who are working close with David Kelley, etc., and they don't understand the ins and outs of the philosophy and it's showing.

I don't expect them to nail the book in all its glory into film. It would take a lot to do this. Don't think they would be able to do it without Ayn here to help.

As for the characters, Dagny is okay. Not what I envision her to be but she gives the appearance for the most part to be a strong businesswoman but lacking in other areas and too timid looking but does okay. Actor that plays Hank is a better choice and does well with his strength and perseverance and being very determined in his goals. Other actors are so so. John Galt character is or seems to be very far from what is portrayed in the book but seems to have gotten his overall stature right. He's a built man, big in stature, walks tall but looks to be a bit older than Rand portrayed and he is missing the beautiful long blonde flowing hair that she made a point in her book to draw attention to. In the movie, he has the stature but looks older and has or looks to have from what I saw underneath his hat to be short brown scraggly hair....not the luxurious picture of masculinity that Rand made a point to portray when he rescues Dagny and sweeps her off her feet when her plane crashes and she comes to in his arms and being carried and Dagny looks up at John and notices his features, hair, striking blue eyes, etc. The John Galt portrayed in the movie in what I saw of him doesn't seem to fit this picture at all. I can think of a number of men in Hollywood that would fit this persona of hers.

The first thing that comes to mind when I think of the movie is a B movie. But unfortunately the ending is sooo horrific and that's what you leave off with. It reminds me of Carrie on stage with faint lights on her before the blood is dropped on her. The overly exaggerated faces, very animated, with the blood curdling screams from Dagny and then the CGI in this part is like eeekkk...literally scream queen stuff.

There's a lot of deviations that I see. One huge one that ARI and those who really admire and love Rand and wanting to keep the philosophy as Rand wrote it and her life's work will FREAK OUT and they are going to have a heyday with it. The first romantic scene between Dagny and Hank, it's supposed to be or many hints of BDSM, chains, submission, a bit of blood flowing from Dagny's wrist, etc., and they butchered this part of the movie and the philosophy and changed it to how they want it to be portrayed. Changed Rand's philosophy as they see fit. Rand would be rolling in her grave shitting big bricks right now.

Unfortunately, I don't even have a desire to see Part 2. It's like, okay, if it looks anything like Part 1, yikes, the only time I may watch it is going to the dollar bin of movies that won't sell and picking it up then. I was told that if this is the final product, Fountainhead is a MUCH better movie. That's pretty bad because I know Fountainhead movie had issues and people say that it is quite painful to watch.

If I am turned off by it and not looking forward to the rest of the movies, what does that say for someone that is new to the philosophy when they see it? Not good. I'm sure it will bring in people wanting to understand as it appeals to them on different levels because it makes sense to them but this overall rush of people into the philosophy, I doubt very very very seriously this is going to happen. Honestly, I believe it is going to get bad reviews and may lose money on it. Or they may very well only release it in "select" theaters only but it won't go any further than that and you won't hear much about it after that.

I also attended the private screening of the Atlas Shrugged Movie in Culver City tonight. I attended the 7 pm screening. I'm still speechless and a bit at a loss for words. Unlike the reviews that have come out thus far, I am saddened at what I saw and parts of the philosophy being butchered or completely changed altogether, lacking substance and shallow. Francisco was a good choice and well chosen for the part. He's the only one in my view that did a halfway decent job, flowed very naturally and conveyed conviction in what he was saying in his scenes, although the speech to Hank at the party was so short and nothing like it should have been. The discovery of the motor at the factory was also disappointing and how it went down. Literally a 5 minute to 10 minute part at the very most and it was over. The love scene between Dagny and Hank and their first encounter was the most disappointing and if remembering correclty which I know I am the philosophy, etc., was completely changed and censored perhaps. Amazing....

I'll comment more on the movie later. But what was most telling is at the end of the 7 o'clock screening that I attended, the audience was silent and it took a few people to start the applause as if forced and then others followed suit. Some in the audience leaned forward in their seats and put their head into their hands and obviously unhappy. There was no liveliness and happiness amongst the audience afterwards as is so typical when seeing a really good movie, let alone a good movie. As everyone proceeded out of the theater, there was very little talking, just silence. I'm saddened and floored and at a loss for words. I'll write more when I can.

I am curious if you saw the Lord of the Rings movies, and if you were a fan of Tolkien before you saw them. My impression was that a hack director and screenwriter turned what was an earnest work of high art into a self-mocking action movie. Tolkien's work was incredibly rich in visual imagery. The movie adaptation largely butchered this, turning the forest of Lorien from an airy garden of trees with golden leaves and white flowers into a monochrome forest of what looked like haunted and petrified redwoods. Certain parts were done very well, the opening birthday party, the battle of Gandalf and the Balrog, the epiphanic transformations of Gandalf in the first movie and Galadriel in the second. But the color red and its adjuncts, pink, orange, yellow, magenta and purple were almost entirely lacking from the film. Original material was omitted, which could have been attributed to cutting for time, but then incongruous newly written written scenes were added. The elves, instead of being sad, noble, and timeless, were often inadvertently comical, the cast of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, recapping their role as a bunch of fay hair-drethers with long hair and pointy ears. Care was taken to show the moral conflict in such characters as Gollum, but then this was undercut by adding unnecessary comic relief, such as in the "dwarf tossing" scene.

Overall, my impression of Lord of the Rings was that 60% of the film was adequate, and 20% was excellent, but 20% was horrible, and horrible because of active decisions of the creators to second-guess Tolkien, or to have failed to understand his vision.

How does this compare with your reaction to Atlas Shrugged?

Ted,

I have seen the movies but have not read the books so I cannot comment in regards to Tolkien's work and then the adaptation to the screen. Again, my opinions are my own and I do not speak for anyone else. I mean no disrespect to David Kelley but I do not have a vested financial interest in the movie and a financial benefit to myself such as Mr. Kelley has to get people in to see the movie nor do I have associations with TAS or ARI or any other Objectivist group nor do I fear reprisal such as being ostracized or smeared for being honest in my views such as may be the case with others who are directly involved with ARI or other groups who may also carry a pessimistic view but is afraid to speak up and express their opinions publicly.

The movie itself has the foundation of the philosophy and this is of utmost importance and it is portrayed well in the movie on this level but there are areas that I saw issues such as I had made comment in my earlier post to Steve, one that directly contradicts the philosophy and is well documented in Atlas and elsewhere. I'm unsure as to the motivating factor for this but can make an educated guess based on what I know and how others may respond to it and what I'm referencing now is the first romantic encounter between Hank and Dagny and it was downplayed and changed compared to how I know the philosophy to be. I truly was hoping that the movie would stick as close as it possibly could to that of Ayn's ideas and of her philosophy but unfortunately this was not the case.

Visually it is appealing without a doubt. The first minutes into the movie I was very impressed and thought to myself, Wow, this is going to be really good but then it flatlined. The movie started off very abruptly with no lead in other than pictures portraying the present state but nothing to build up and lead into the next scenes. It was abrupt and went almost straight in to the scene of Rearden's bracelet and it being given to Lillian and then Lillian's unpleasant reaction to being given such a monstrocity rather than diamonds or the like. There was no lead in at all. It was just, wham, there it was. Since I know the book, it was easy for me to pick up and to understand it. But if it is an individual new to the philosophy, it will leave them wondering what is going on and that of confusion. The movie did not flow at all. It was very choppy from scene to scene and almost as if being given still pictures from one to the next but nothing in between and giving it substance to lead into the next shot and to help make it cohesive. I thought to myself that I was watching Part 2 of the movie rather than Part 1 because of the way it started off.

I'm not going to go into painstaking detail with this but the actors leave much to be desired with the exception of the gentleman that portrayed Francisco as I think he did a pretty decent job. Aside from what I mentioned in earlier posts, the acting was very animated to the point oftentimes looked uncomfortable in their movements and deliberate movements rather than flowing smoothly as is most common when observing someone that is more natural and relaxed. It also lacked emotion throughout most of the movie such as in the John Galt Line scenes. Knowing the book and how Rand portrayed it so elegantly, I was expecting to see that of excitement and exhilaration going into it, the set up before and during it, passion and drive, but it fell short and unable to portray this successfully in the movie. Just a flatline, disconnect to it. Another is the ending of the movie and a bit surprised to hear blood curdling almost scream-queen B movie screams coming from Dagny -- almost as if it had been dubbed in and wasn't the actress herself screaming -- as she saw Wyatt's inferno, the facial expressions made by Dagny were strange. There are other issues that I saw with the movie but I'm not going into painstaking detail.

I can't leave this off with such a dismal review of what I saw. There are a number of scenes in the movie that are well done. Some with tremendous potential but again flat lined after 2 or 3 minutes into it and left much to be desired. I will see the movie again. Unfortunately, I heard a number of people that I do not know say underneath their breathe that they would not see the movie again. If I don't see it in theaters, I will definitely buy the DVD and will watch it a few more times in hopes that my initial impressions can be changed. But right now, after what I saw, my optimism for the movie and being successful has diminished unfortunately to my dismay. I truly hope I am wrong and my expectations were way too high considering the limited budget and limited time invested into it and it ends up doing really well, much needed right now and the state of this country.

Will I recommend the movie to others? I'm unsure at this point after what I saw. I may very well suggest not to see the movie first but to read the book first PLEASE as the movie may be a complete turn off because of the way it is presented. Of course, given how complex the book is and the depth of ideas by Ayn, it'll be next to impossible to replicate if you will the book BUT I know there is tremendous potential there and how I know this movie could be -- a powerhouse hit without a doubt if appropriate funding and time is invested and in the right hands. But I know this was a serious issue because of potentially losing rights to the movie if production didn't start very quickly. I'm truly hoping that the movie will be a success and Part 2 and Part 3 if it is made more funding and time will be invested into it to make it the powerhouse hit I know it can be.

If I had to give it a percentage such as you did, Ted, in regards to portraying the basic foundation of the philosophy 70 to 75 percent adequate and enough to get the point across. But overall movie, 45 percent adequate, 5 percent excellent, 50 percent borderline not too good.

Again, everyone who is waiting eagerly for this movie will see it and I encourage those who are familiar with the philosophy to see it and make your own judgment. There will be those that are happy with the movie obviously not only myself but others and others that will be very critical and others that will downright hate the movie because of what it represents and the philosophy portrayed in it.

Angie

I also attended the private screening of the Atlas Shrugged Movie in Culver City tonight. I attended the 7 pm screening. I'm still speechless and a bit at a loss for words. Unlike the reviews that have come out thus far, I am saddened at what I saw and parts of the philosophy being butchered or completely changed altogether, lacking substance and shallow. Francisco was a good choice and well chosen for the part. He's the only one in my view that did a halfway decent job, flowed very naturally and conveyed conviction in what he was saying in his scenes, although the speech to Hank at the party was so short and nothing like it should have been. The discovery of the motor at the factory was also disappointing and how it went down. Literally a 5 minute to 10 minute part at the very most and it was over. The love scene between Dagny and Hank and their first encounter was the most disappointing and if remembering correclty which I know I am the philosophy, etc., was completely changed and censored perhaps. Amazing....

I'll comment more on the movie later. But what was most telling is at the end of the 7 o'clock screening that I attended, the audience was silent and it took a few people to start the applause as if forced and then others followed suit. Some in the audience leaned forward in their seats and put their head into their hands and obviously unhappy. There was no liveliness and happiness amongst the audience afterwards as is so typical when seeing a really good movie, let alone a good movie. As everyone proceeded out of the theater, there was very little talking, just silence. I'm saddened and floored and at a loss for words. I'll write more when I can.

Perhaps you misinterpreted the audience reaction, Angie.

Consider this: when I read or think about Atlas Shrugged -- and I KNOW I am not alone -- I am not moved to wild enthusiasm, but to growing despair and depression ("head into hands") about the state of our culture. It is SO MUCH WORSE than when I first read Atlas in the mid-60s. So much worse.

Another point: the silence following the movie could have been a 1776 moment. Watch the second episode of the HBO special "John Adams" and feel the unworldly, eerie mood that settles over the Congress immediately after it passed the Declaration of Independence. There was no wild cheering, until the proclamation was made several days later.

In other words, maybe some of the Atlas viewers were moved to cultural despair, others to deep solemnity. And maybe your response of disappointment in the movie was not typical.

But as Michael has said, each individual viewer's response and review is important, and I am ~still~ looking forward avidly to April 15, even if I have to travel several hundred miles and pay through the nose to see Atlas. :-)

REB

Yes, Roger, and I agree to an extent with what you say. But I also heard the whispers and comments underneath the breathe afterwards which is more evidence that there are those that were disappointed in the movie and it did not live up to expectations. It pains me to say this but it is what it is. Given my expectations going in and then my being disappointed afterwards, I already anticipate seeing the movie again in hopes that my first impressions can be changed and perhaps the movie may "grow" on me.

Angie

Angie, how did you (and Angela Keaton, who hasn't yet replied to my question about it) and all the others get these tickets in the first place? You can't all have won the producers' drawing. They only gave out one prize.

Steve,

To answer your question, it was by invitation but I can't speak for anyone else and by what means that brought them to attend the screening.

But I do want to say this now and get it on the record, my opinions are that of my own and I do not speak for anyone else. Please keep in mind, I do not want this movie to fail in the least. But unfortunatley not everyone is going to be satisfied for whatever reasons and each person will have the opportunity to judge the movie upon its release. This movie needs to be put out there to draw more attention to the philosophy and promoting it, especially the state of affairs that we're in now in our country. I was very excited to see this movie and I had high hopes going in and very happy to finally see the final product. But perhaps my expectations were too high and what I know the potential of the movie to be if appropriate funding and time is invested into it. I did not go in there with a negative, pessimistic attitude. In fact, it was the opposite going in and I was ecstatic to be there.

In a bit, I'll respond to Ted's post. My overall assessment of the movie is not all dire as there are aspects of the movie that are good such as the visual aspects and CGI for the most part and the foundation of the philosophy is there and I can't deny this and perfectly conveyed in the movie. I'm just a bit more critical of other issues such as the acting, no emotional draw and it was flat, one main area that contradicts the philosophy, some issues with lead ins and not so choppy to where you're like, where the hell did that come from, more substance and meat in the speeches such as Francisco to Hank at the party and so forth. But more later on this when I respond to Ted's post.

Angie

I also attended the private screening of the Atlas Shrugged Movie in Culver City tonight. I attended the 7 pm screening. I'm still speechless and a bit at a loss for words. Unlike the reviews that have come out thus far, I am saddened at what I saw and parts of the philosophy being butchered or completely changed altogether, lacking substance and shallow. Francisco was a good choice and well chosen for the part. He's the only one in my view that did a halfway decent job, flowed very naturally and conveyed conviction in what he was saying in his scenes, although the speech to Hank at the party was so short and nothing like it should have been. The discovery of the motor at the factory was also disappointing and how it went down. Literally a 5 minute to 10 minute part at the very most and it was over. The love scene between Dagny and Hank and their first encounter was the most disappointing and if remembering correclty which I know I am the philosophy, etc., was completely changed and censored perhaps. Amazing....

I'll comment more on the movie later. But what was most telling is at the end of the 7 o'clock screening that I attended, the audience was silent and it took a few people to start the applause as if forced and then others followed suit. Some in the audience leaned forward in their seats and put their head into their hands and obviously unhappy. There was no liveliness and happiness amongst the audience afterwards as is so typical when seeing a really good movie, let alone a good movie. As everyone proceeded out of the theater, there was very little talking, just silence. I'm saddened and floored and at a loss for words. I'll write more when I can.

Always thinking about something or other and just soooo figured I had to, eh, what the hell.....bwahahaha!!! Quickly sneaks in undetected but leaves not so sneakily and making all kinds of noise but no intent to stay. Enjoy whoever wants to listen and take what you want from it. Some not up your alley but eh, wtf, may be worth a "listen"...LOL

So let me get this straight--you started a new topic so everyone could fret about your sudden leave of absence?

Isn't this what the "status update" function is for? CNA's recent parting shot is an underhanded slap in my face but at least she didn't start a new topic on her disillusionment with this "Objectivist."

In psychology we call this attention-seeking behavior.

Well, we couldn't let you go without appropriate fanfare....

Dennis,

I see absolutely no reason to bring my name into this and your bringing up your personal issues with me and our falling out on a public forum. Personal matters are personal matters. But if you would like to discuss why we had a falling out on a public forum, I don't mind doing so. It was brought to my attention this morning that you had brought my name up and their asking why and what happened. I have not discussed and named names and explained what happened. You see it as an underhanded slap when no one on this forum knows what happened and the meaning of my status update which you seem to think it is geared towards you which it is not. Most here have known for many many months why I was getting tired of online forums which the reasons are numerous some of which are posted here in public. Dennis, I don't have a problem with you. You were expecting more from me as you made it abundantly clear what you wanted from me so I made my own intentions very clear. You became upset over this because what you wanted was not something I was interested in.

I apologize if you took what I said with such a great offense but you also said a few things that upset me and offended me and you ultimately requested to no longer speak with me. But I'm not here on a public forum and discussing private matters and smearing your name or badmouthing you. It saddens me more now that you are doing this. I understand that it hurt and that the feelings were not mutual but it's life and we don't always get what we want.

Angie

Dayyaammm.....wanted to read the book first but DVR is ready TA GO!!!!, can't watch it soon because of work but YAY, will be able to watch it way later on when I can!!!

Thanks, Vegas!!!!

Adam, Dennis, et al,

I don't know when I'm going to be able to continue any more discussions. I've got a lot coming up BUT one huge one is the job from the other day with all the attorneys, I received an email a bit ago from work telling me they need the job asap. Always work 24/7 with the nature of my job and the beast never sleeps. LOL Hell, even holidays such as Christmas is fair game and have been asked numerous times to work on such days. Anyway, with it being such a large job, it's going to take me some time to get the work product out so I don't know when I'll be able to continue any further discussions. I have a few other things going on or coming up as well such as a move so that's also going to take more of my time. Always so busy as usual. It's been interesting and the conversations up to this point on some of the psychological aspects of it, some of the philosophical aspects as well but I don't know when I'll be able to pick it back up again at this point. I do apologize but a busy life I have no doubt.

At any rate, hope everyone has a great weekend!!!

Angie

Angie,et al,

I recently read several essays in a collection of them by Steven Jay Gould, the biologist, geologist, teacher of the history of science and evolutionist who advocated for the concept of punctuated equilibrium. I have always admired him as a popularizer of science along with Isaac Asimov who was most prolific. I once met Gould when he gave a talk in Worcester MA but didn't get the chance to engage him in a discussion of his concession of ethics to the religionists in one of his books entitled Rock of Ages or the like. He died some years ago.

Well one of his essays in a collection of his Nature magazine columns (Bully For Brontosaurus) was entitled something about the purpose of the male nipple which led to a discussion of the embryological development of the various parts of the human sexual anatomy. What becomes the penis in the male becomes the clitoris in the female and what becomes the scrotum in the male becomes the labia majora in the female. That led to his pointing out how Sigmund Freud got it quite egregiously wrong when he postulated that a mature female should reach an orgasm through sexual intercourse with stimulation of the vagina. It turns out that the work of Masters and Johnson and others confirm that there are precious few nerve endings in the vaginal walls.

Evidently many women were led to believe there was something wrong with them thanks to the psychoanalysts of the Freudian persuasion and many were labelled as frigid.

Gould points out that stimulation of the clitoris leads to the female orgasm and also to a kind of intimate bonding between the male and female who discover this. Males who skip this step and proceed to the act which leads only to the male orgasm cause their relationship to come up short, no pun intended.

Rand's love scenes are sufficiently vague and inexplicit so that one may assume that Dagny does find joy in it even if she has to remove splinters from the railroad ties afterwards.

I post this because I assume all of us except perhaps a newcomer already knows this and it is for the sake of romantic relationships everywhere.

gulch

Gulch,

Human sexuality is an area I am heavily interested in. But very quickly and wanted to respond. A woman has 5 spots externally/internally that can lead to very intense orgasms if done correctly; that each person communicates and experiments with it, main goal is to know yourself very well not only psychologically but anatomically as this is a huge aspect of BDSM and knowing anatomical features, shared values, and so forth so there is much obviously intertwined with this and the complexities of it. I don't have a lot of time to go into it now but no doubt wanted to respond to your post and the inaccuracies of these individuals and to offer up a bit of education. Of course, the psychological aspects of it are there, values, BDSM which does enhance it as it seems Dagny had splinters in her tush or elsewhere, the D/s relationship, etc., etc., but a quick sex ed on a woman's body that many it seems do not know about. There are also areas of the man's body that are zones rather than just the typical penis as being the main one to be stimulated. For a guy and your question regarding Dagny, there are 5 spots on a woman's body that are errogenous zones externally and internally that can and will produce orgasms without the so called needed clitoral stimulation. 1. Of course, clitoris (external). 2. G spot (internal) 3. X spot (internal) 4. AFE zone (internal) 5. PFE zone (internal) All of these spots exist as I have personally experienced them and can produce intense orgasms aside from the BDSM aspects, D/s aspects such as Rand's views on sex. Please do not take this response as comprehensive and complete as it is not because there's a lot to it that I don't have time to go into it now. But I'm offering this up a bit now for you and any other person interested in wanting to understand or educate themselves a bit. Also, intense foreplay in my experience is not required as it seems many have drawn this conclusion in order for a woman to reach an intense vaginal orgasm or what have you.

I'll provide a few quick links now that you can read up a bit on it. There's other areas on OL where these types of issues are discussed aside from the one I've provided here but don't have time to track them down and the anatomical aspects.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2979&view=findpost&p=21598

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anterior_fornix_erogenous_zone

http://bodyecstatic.com/deepspot.htm

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199911/beyond-orgasmatron

Posterior Fornix Errogenous Zone, PFE zone (which is harder to find info regarding this spot but is definitely there)

Of course, the G spot.

Angie

Adam, Dennis, et al,

I don't know when I'm going to be able to continue any more discussions. I've got a lot coming up BUT one huge one is the job from the other day with all the attorneys, I received an email a bit ago from work telling me they need the job asap. Always work 24/7 with the nature of my job and the beast never sleeps. LOL Hell, even holidays such as Christmas is fair game and have been asked numerous times to work on such days. Anyway, with it being such a large job, it's going to take me some time to get the work product out so I don't know when I'll be able to continue any further discussions. I have a few other things going on or coming up as well such as a move so that's also going to take more of my time. Always so busy as usual. It's been interesting and the conversations up to this point on some of the psychological aspects of it, some of the philosophical aspects as well but I don't know when I'll be able to pick it back up again at this point. I do apologize but a busy life I have no doubt.

At any rate, hope everyone has a great weekend!!!

Angie

Dennis:

Interesting that you are attracted to men who are larger and bulkier, on the assumption that they will be stronger. Muscle size and muscle strength are not necessarily related. Bodybuilders, for instance, tear down their muscles so that they will increase in size when the muscles repair themselves. This actually tends to damage the muscle and muscle density. It’s the difference between Olympic gymnasts and professional wrestlers; gymnasts strive for genuine muscle strength, but wrestlers are primarily concerned with looking strong as opposed to being strong. Strength is really based on the brain’s ability to send neurological impulses to the muscle—the better the neurological wiring from the brain to the muscle, the stronger the electrical current, the higher percentage of fibers get activated when a muscle is contracted. That’s what makes a muscle rock hard—the 'mind to muscle' link; increasing the neural pathways is really the route to strength, not muscle size. That’s why there’s a whole different approach to exercise according to whether the person is looking to develop size as opposed to strength. When bodybuilders damage muscle to increase muscle size, they also damage the ability of the neural pathways to activate muscle fibers.

In other words, lean muscle is often stronger than bulk muscle. That’s why boxing matches are typically won by the boxer who has the better muscle tone, not the fighter who is bigger. Lean muscle also provides drastically improved performance as opposed to bulk muscle, which is particularly important when it comes to the bedroom. So don’t assume that a leaner man will not be just as able to “throw you around.”

But, hey, if a guy has to look like Arnold Schwarzenburger to get your home fires burning, far be it from me to criticize. If bulk excites you, terrific. But that’s just superficial appearance—not strength. You really shouldn’t equate the two.

Dennis

Hi Dennis,

I didn't make mention of muscle size and his being excessively muscular such as that of Arnold Schwartzneger and his strength (sp) as quite honestly this is a turn off. But I do find men that are larger than the average man to be more appealing to me, not in the way of being muscular and my saying bulkier as I believe your taking or assuming that by what I mean by bulk is that of muscular or ripped men such that you see in magazines or that of Arnold. I'm talking about men that overall have a larger stature, such as men that are 6 feet or taller and larger framed say in the weight of 225 or 250. Not fat, not muscular, just overall larger men. I do some work with the NFL and I do have to admit I do enjoy taking some of these players testimony because of how they are in size and my admiring their size...LOL. At any rate, but you are correct, a man that is my size or smaller than I am can still possess enough strength. But experience does tell me otherwise that these men, as most men are not conditioned like a gymnast would be, have more trouble if say he wanted to carry me for a distance or to pick me up and to keep me there for a while without potentially dropping me quickly versus men that are of larger frame and stature that can do it with relative ease. I'm comparing the two based on my personal experience of these types of men and the differences between the two. Please don't assume me of all people of superficiality without asking for a clarification of how I may be defining a certain term or in how I may be using it in the context that I may be using it.

I believe genetics also will play a factor. I'll take myself as an example. I have stocky legs, don't work out regularly anymore, and where most of my strength is, quite a bit of strength. For the most part, even when I was exercising very heavily after the birth of my son and continued to workout for long periods of time and primarily used my own bodyweight as the form of resistance but occasionally would do a lot of squats with upwards of over 100 pounds, I was extremely lean, very toned, and possessed more strength than I have now. But no matter how much I worked out my upper body, I still lacked tremendously upper body strength despite being muscular, lean and well conditioned or "ripped" if you will. There have been numerous studies that show these types of people who are leaner and/or use their own body weight as their primary form of resistance are stronger than that of someone who uses weights excessively. But I'm not talking about these types of people as a great majority of people do not work out excessively to gain that type of physique and conditioning themselves. At that time believe it or not and how much I enjoyed working out like that as I've posted here on OL about it many years ago with how to lose a lot of weight, diet, and to get into shape, I thought very seriously about competing geared towards such people. There are those that do exercise for staying in shape but it's not their goal to become lean and ripped if you will. What I'm speaking of is natural strength and without working out. I have more natural body/muscle strength throughout my legs. I'm very stocky. I am very much built similar to that of my mother whereas my sister is the other way around and is built or has similar body structure of my father. She has strong legs but her upper body strength is quite amazing. So I'm not basing my ideal man physically to be that of a man that has muscles on top of muscles and ripped to the tee and because of these muscles he must be strong. I am basing it on my experiences of the men whom for the most part do not work out excessively and are not gymnasts or body builders....that men of larger stature of 6 foot 5 and weighing perhaps 235 will possess more natural body strength and his ability to literally pick me up and my 5 foot 6, 7 frame, weighing about 135 or 140 without hesitation and ease than say a man who may be 5 foot 2 and weighs 130, 140, or 150 pounds. He will possess the strength to overtake me but he would struggle a bit more if I decided to put up a fight as I know how to defend myself well based on my past experiences throughout childhood.

My ex husband was a smaller stature man, a few inches taller than me and weighed perhaps 20 to 40 pounds more than I did and does still but still possessed enough natural strength to put me in my place if we were playfully wrestling but did have difficulty with me, could pick me up but not easy for him in the least. But the last man I was in a relationship with, not anymore, he was a larger stature man, 6 foot 2 or 3 maybe, 230/240 perhaps and when wrestling playfully with him, wow, quite amazing how he was able to pick me up without any hesitation and throwing me around with such ease. He knew that my natural strength was in my legs and that I used them to my advantage. Once he realized this and how strong I was from the waist down, all he had to do was take my legs out and I'm done and he knew this.

But regardless of this, his ability to pick me up as if I was a rag doll and didn't phase him in the least even impressed me and he was not a man that worked out. This was another example that confirmed that these such men possess more natural body strength than their smaller counterparts if you will, although there are exceptions depending on conditioning of the man and how regularly they work out to attain such strength and physique and to keep it. But reality is, a lot of men and women are not this way and more in their natural state if you will.

But do I discriminate and don't date men that may be of average size or a tiny bit taller than me as was my ex husband, no, I don't. But do I have my preferences for larger stature men, taller men, etc., most definitely I do for very specific reasons. I still feel feminine with both types of men but superiority over me is more so present with a larger stature man in comparison to my own size and highlights if you will my fragility and femininity and goes to the D/s relationship as well. Obviously this is coming from my perspective; that of a female. Whether yourself or other men carry such preferences for some types of women can be judged by you and whether it is right for you or wrong. I know some men that don't care and don't hold preferences for whatever their reasons but there are others that definitely do. I had a gentleman friend and have known him for well over 15 years maybe now that prefers to date Asian women because of their petite size but still dated other women who were not quite as petite but did admit he found himself less attracted to women that were larger than he was both in height, weight, etc., and enjoyed tremendously women that were more on the petite side similar to that of Asian women.

Angie

Angie:

"I believe Roark to be a far more observant man than most, already has a set defined value system..."

And there in lies the the difference in men and women who are fully alive and life force is projected, I would say that it actually screams out to those who wish to hear or see it.

It is the difference in being fully present and being present to the other persons or persons.

The former makes life so much more enjoyable.

Adam

Amen to that one!!!! Makes life that much more enjoyable and achieving happiness but even better when you have another that is as observant, hears, and sees you and are present in the eyes of your partner and adds that much more to your enjoyment and happiness.

But far more important, as you know, in Rand's view of sex and many aspects of BDSM -- self-awareness, knowing yourself very well, your limits, your values and where you place yourself as the supreme value, trust in your partner, knowing his values, etc., is absolutely crucial. It definitely is not a game and is a thinking man's pleasure if you will as there are huge differences between what is called vanilla sex and that of BDSM, as you know, and more thought, being that much more aware, and communication that needs to be utilized during it.

Angie

Dennis:

Angie,

Of course, we have to keep in mind that some people are very good at putting on an act and do succeed in fooling others about the kind of person they are. But, in general, unless we are talking about someone who works hard at being deceptive—e.g., a professional con-man, or a highly paid call-girl who has spent years making herself into the epitome of what men find desirable—yes, you can definitely know a lot from their appearance, their manner, their physical conditioning or lack of it, the way they move and the way they talk, et al.

I have absolutely no doubt about that. That of the chameleon, one who adapts and changes who they are to fit every situation, denying their true selves, and fulfilling whatever purpose/goal they have at that time. The epitome of attaining the unearned. The further they become entrenched into it, I would imagine the harder it becomes to retain who they truly are and knowing themselves but that of only bits and pieces of each character they may play. Tormented life no doubt and losing yourself completely, absolutely no identity of self. At some point, I am sure the question comes up and may persist with frequency over time of "Who am I?" But many, if not all, do slip up though at some point or another and showing their true colors, most often can be observed, concrete evidence. What comes out of their mouths contradicts their actions, just depends if it is caught by another in time or how arrogant and confident they believe they are and that they can fool everyone no matter how flagrant the offenses over time become. God complex if you will. But reality will nip them in the bud at some point.

And no, I would not be sexually attracted to the unkempt, pathetic version of Angelina, regardless of her physical beauty. Even more important than physical beauty—for a woman—is femininity—i.e., the projected attitude of a woman enjoying her female sexuality, and that requires a certain level of self-esteem and self-confidence. If a woman does not put some effort into making herself attractive to men—if she just wakes up in the morning and walks out into the world and says—“this is it, guys, the unvarnished me, take it or leave it” (like a lot of feminists)—I would definitely leave it. I would have zero desire for such a woman.

Yes, and that of femininity and her fragility if you will as compared to that of a man and his masculinity, his strength, his stature and in this sense being superior to that of a woman. But this is not always the case as there are women out there that are extremely strong and stronger than some men, etc., but there will always be a man out there somewhere that is superior to her in strength, size, etc. I am the same with men, how masculine he is, his overall size to me, his strength, is very much an attractant for me and do very much enjoy the man-handling type aspects. His being able to pick me up if you will and for lack of a better word throwing me around; hence, the male dominance and female submission roles, gender roles. But I can't deny, although most attracted to men, larger than the average man, a lot of men that are my height or shorter are still that much stronger than I am. BUT I also can't deny that when in a relationship with such a man and his not being strong enough to pick me up if he wanted to, makes me miss if you will a man that could do it with ease.

The other Angelina, who holds herself with pride, who exhibits strength and confidence in her posture and movements, who dresses stylishly to make the most of her physical assets and projects pleasure and playfulness in her femininity---I can say without a doubt that I would be very strongly attracted to her sexually. I’m not sure how much of her character I would be able to surmise from these attributes—there could be a lot of women who meet this standard who lack integrity or who are not necessarily that rational. It is also possible that the person might be ‘going through the motions’ in order to be popular with men for whatever reason—e.g., to attract men with a lot of money (the classic gold-digger).

Yes, this is true; such as the chameleon reference up above but the more you observe them, eventually getting to know them personally, you can check the validity of the quick judgments you make on them when first seeing them. Also the more aware you are, the more observant you are, you are more likely to nail it the first time with better accuracy. You say pretty much the same thing here below:

I feel certain that Ayn wanted her readers to believe that there was some kind of extraordinary subliminal “communication” going on between Roark and Dominique, and that both of them knew—due to their observational skills and heightened sensitivity—much more about the other than most people could possibly know in such a brief period of time.

Angie

Dennis:

Hi Angie,

I’m sure it’s true that you can read a lot about a person from their facial features. That’s one reason I tend to distrust people who have beards. It’s like they’re hiding behind camouflage. Did you know that many blind people have “facial vision”—i.e., the capacity to perceive the proximity of objects nearby via heightened sensitivity of facial nerves. I’m sure it works the other way as well—the facial nerves record and store data that reflect the experiences of our lives. I would guess that repression--the refusal to allow our emotions to integrate our experience—would result in the sort of facial distortions you describe. I doubt if pain would cause such distortions as long as it was processed, worked through and discharged.

Interesting and I did not know that regarding "facial vision." I do know that when one sense is lost others are heightened so it doesn't surprise me. Yes, I agree in the years of abuse they have put themselves through and that of aging quickly because of it as well. You can tell how much pain they are carrying at the present time and an indication of what and the severity of what they are going through.

Stories of abuse such as the one you describe involving your sister’s friend are tragic. I worked with a lot of kids who had experienced the worst kind of abusive trauma during my years as a therapist at a Youth Center. The worst of it is that usually the scars from such abuse are indelible—no amount of therapy is going to restore the childhood that was destroyed. And the premature loss of innocence often leaves the adult jaded about life. Given those handicaps, the challenge of achieving happiness is magnified enormously.

Yeah, no doubt and making it that much more difficult to achieve happiness for her and her mind set. At the time that I had met her, she was a few years if you will into her rescue from that environment. There was a happiness there and a decent outlook on life but I think it was more due to the fact that her happiness stemmed from no longer being in the situation she was in and being saved if you will and that of her freedom but psychologically struggling still and probably continues to this day. I won't give all the details that she told me but apparently it started when she was extremely young, 5 or 6 years old and continued into her teenage years. No schooling throughout her ordeal and held captive. Dad left and mother was a crack addict -- the epitome of evil and what she did -- her mom offered her up for sex and prostitution to grown men when she was 5 or 6 years old. Chained her to the tree in their backyard and the men that wanted this young girl would bring crack to the mother for payment. They would sometimes put cigarettes and cigars out on her arms, thighs, back, etc. Scars from being cut with knives. She pretty much was brutally tortured and held captive for most of her childhood and teenage years. She endured too much. These challenges and coming to grips with what happened to her will be lifelong, if she'll ever be able to and finding some type of normalcy. It's downright disgusting and the epitome of evil -- this woman and no doubt can't forget those who participated in it as well. Truly so sad.

I don’t know that Branden or anyone else could look into her eyes and tell her any specific things that occurred. It’s possible, but I think it’s more likely that her eyes would tell of bewilderment, of shame and of hopelessness. The story of her abused childhood would be there in her eyes, but in more general terms. For instance, I might tell her: “Your father did horrible things to you when you were very young, things which made you feel like you were a bad person. You are carrying the pain, the bewilderment and the guilt to this day.”

When you said what you did regarding Branden's group and my understanding of what I read that specific events could be nailed down threw me a bit. But yes, no doubt, can read much in a person's eyes, fear, pain, pity, shame.

P.S. Love the last sentence of your new status update: “I’m way too damned selfish….” Me, too.

Oh, most definitely too damned selfish and don't like to share, especially in very specific contexts. It just does not work and ultimately there is nothing there and not much satisfaction, not happy and fulfilled so obviously that's my cue to stay away from it which has been done.

I gotta start getting ready for today's job. Oi. I'm hoping it will be far less painful if you will and goes relatively smoothly with no infighting if you will. Yikes. Hoping later this evening will be able to respond more to your earlier posts as well as to one of Adam's posts unless he becomes a bit more involved in the discussion and will have more to respond to.

Angie

Dennis:

Angie,

I’m pretty sure you already know the answer to your questions, but sometimes it’s worthwhile to ask a question like that just to clarify the issues involved, which you did very well. We definitely do make judgments and draw conclusions about people based purely on instantaneous observation, often without any exchange of words. And all the factors you mentioned—posture, grooming, cleanliness, the expression in the person’s eyes—typically do speak volumes about their values, at least in a very general way. Of course, we have to keep in mind that some people are very good at putting on an act and do succeed in fooling others about the kind of person they are. But, in general, unless we are talking about someone who works hard at being deceptive—e.g., a professional con-man, or a highly paid call-girl who has spent years making herself into the epitome of what men find desirable—yes, you can definitely know a lot from their appearance, their manner, their physical conditioning or lack of it, the way they move and the way they talk, et al.

And no, I would not be sexually attracted to the unkempt, pathetic version of Angelina, regardless of her physical beauty. Even more important than physical beauty—for a woman—is femininity—i.e., the projected attitude of a woman enjoying her female sexuality, and that requires a certain level of self-esteem and self-confidence. If a woman does not put some effort into making herself attractive to men—if she just wakes up in the morning and walks out into the world and says—“this is it, guys, the unvarnished me, take it or leave it” (like a lot of feminists)—I would definitely leave it. I would have zero desire for such a woman.

The other Angelina, who holds herself with pride, who exhibits strength and confidence in her posture and movements, who dresses stylishly to make the most of her physical assets and projects pleasure and playfulness in her femininity---I can say without a doubt that I would be very strongly attracted to her sexually. I’m not sure how much of her character I would be able to surmise from these attributes—there could be a lot of women who meet this standard who lack integrity or who are not necessarily that rational. It is also possible that the person might be ‘going through the motions’ in order to be popular with men for whatever reason—e.g., to attract men with a lot of money (the classic gold-digger).

In general,though—all other things being equal—there is no question but that I would want to sleep with the Angelina whose persona suggested pride and effort and strength. I would have no interest in the Angelina whose only apparent goal in life was to drown her brains in her next drink or her next quick fix.

Did you notice that the scenes I transcribed were all written from the female perspective? Dominique was looking at Roark through Ayn’s eyes—so to speak. For much of the novel, we get frequent glimpses into Roark’s thinking and motivation. But in the scenes leading up to the sexual episode between Roark and Dominique, Roark is the object of observation—not the observer. We are watching Dominique’s reactions for the most part—i.e., what she observes, what she is feeling and how she is responding to him. It is almost all from the female point of view. But Ayn does tell us that both of them have clearly been watching the other, and I’m sure you are right that Ayn wants us to conclude that both are making numerous judgments about each other’s values based on those observations. It is definitely not just Dominique’s beauty that is attracting him. It is everything about her.

You seem to suggest that both are responding to objective evidence, but I am convinced that there is an enormous amount of communication going on between people every day on a subliminal level. You mention the importance of the expressions of pride, self-pity, etc. that you see in a person’s eyes. I believe we can read much, much more than that in a person’s eyes. In fact, if we open ourselves to it, you can read a person’s entire life story in their eyes. I once participated in a weekend self-awareness marathon where the leader (Nathaniel Branden, you may have heard of him) asked everyone to pair up with a stranger and spend several minutes just looking into the person’s eyes, without speaking. Then we were asked to tell the person what we saw in their eyes. Afterwards, Branden asked people to volunteer to talk about the experience. My partner for this experiment told the group that he was astonished that I somehow knew he had been separated from his family for several years as a youth, and that this was a very painful trauma for him. He could not believe I had “read his mind,” so to speak. He had said nothing to me about this beforehand. I read it all in his eyes.

I feel certain that Ayn wanted her readers to believe that there was some kind of extraordinary subliminal “communication” going on between Roark and Dominique, and that both of them knew—due to their observational skills and heightened sensitivity—much more about the other than most people could possibly know in such a brief period of time.

Incidentally, I think you’re right that Ayn had not fully defined her philosophy until she wrote Atlas Shrugged. She had defined much of it as of the time The Fountainhead was written, but she was not ready to write Galt’s Speech (fully defining Objectivism) until many years later.

More later.

Dennis

Hi Dennis,

Yes, I do know the answers already to my questions but I'm looking for the verification of it in the book or any passages posted. I'm going to have to make this very short unfortunately. I do agree that there is a tremendous amount of nonverbal communication going on as is highlighted in some of the passages of her book and an unspoken understanding between them that their body language has conveyed. We all, for the most part, have our own experiences to draw upon in this type of a situation when it comes to the opposite sex and attraction. I'm interested in not only Roark's observations but Dominique's as well but yes, it is coming from a woman's perspective. Instantaneous observations can reveal a lot but when done over a period of time, it will reveal even more such as what Roark and Dominique have done with each other and sizing each other up if you will as time went on up to the encounter.

Since I can't give a full post right now, I'm going to limit quickly an intriguing aspect of your post and that is in regards to being able to potentially read a person's life through their eyes. Facial features will also tell someone a lot about how they've lived their lives, how much strain and pain there is on their face and the distortion and gives indication that they've had a more painful life than another person may have had. I just looked for a picture from a photographer friend of mine that highlights this very well and the amount of strain and pain that is on this elderly woman's face but unfortunately his pictures have been set to private and only friends and family can view them. So even if I posted the link here, you wouldn't be able to see the picture unless a friend or family contact of his.

Anyway, although Branden may have headed such a group or study, I am a bit skeptical but not surprised that an individual can nail down exact events just by looking at someone's eyes as I'll explain a bit. As we both know, there's dysfunctionality in most homes to varying degrees; ie, strained relationship with either parent, verbal abuse, physical abuse, divorce rates being so high, parents separating and then getting back together and then separating again, dead beat dads or moms, one parent being excessively controlling or drinking excessively, etc., as this is pretty common in today's society. So the probability of nailing one or two events or many events would be much higher. But yes, you can no doubt detect fear, etc., in someone's eyes. But I would be most interested to see a reading of sorts on a girl that was introduced to me a very long time ago and no longer in contact with her but it would be no doubt interesting to see what Branden or another individual would be able to come up with by just looking into her eyes and to nail down some of these less traditional events and what she had been through. This girl who was a friend of my sister's had all the traditional (sad to say) abuses that is common in today's society and homes. But this girl and what she ultimately endured and experienced is no doubt one of the worst cases I have ever come across. As she spoke about them with me, it's not often that my jaw drops to the floor by what I'm hearing but mine sure in the hell did and unfortunately she had the evidence on her body to prove it. Some insane crap with her and shit that is not the standard if you will in what society accepts or is aware of as common problems in a person's childhood. This girl would ultimately need lifelong psychological counseling. Absolutely horrific stuff.

At any rate, I want to respond more but it may take me a bit of time to further go through your first post I wasn't able to finish and this post as well. It may be just a few days or worse yet a week or two but I won't know for sure until tomorrow. I have a job tomorrow that is going to push me to my absolute limits and skill level and what I'll be able to endure with work and already know I will be downright exhausted tomorrow and possibly for a few days to come. They want it videotaped, real-time, and to my understanding upwards of 12 attorneys present. Big OI I'm not looking forward to it at all and the amount of pressure and stress on me that will be involved. I've looked at the caption and looks rather innocuous but for all I know it can be an expert witness testifying as a neurosurgeon or worse a pediatric neurosurgeon which is even more pressure and stress. Even bigger OI But I'm going to go in with an open mind, thinking it won't be so bad but preparing for the potentials of it and psyching myself out of sorts and kicking my determination, concentration, and focus into high gear because I'm definitely going to need it but more the better because it will make tomorrow that much easier for me.

More hopefully sooner rather than later!!

Angie

Dennis:

Hi Angie,

Here are some excerpts from The Fountainhead which might give you the flavor of how Rand described their relationship prior to the so-called ‘rape’ scene.

The first encounter between Roark and Dominique:

She came back many days later. She saw him, unexpectedly, on a flat stretch of stone before her, by the side of the path. She stopped short. She did not want to come to close. It was strange to see him before her, without the defense and excuse of distance.

He stood looking straight at her. Their understanding was too offensively intimate, because they had never said a word to each other. She destroyed it by speaking to him.

“Why do you always stare at me?” she asked sharply.

She thought with relief that words were the best means of estrangement. She had denied everything they both knew by naming it. For a moment, he stood silently, looking at her. She felt terror at the thought that he would not answer, that he would let his silence tell her too clearly why no answer was necessary. But he answered. He said:

“For the same reason you’ve been staring at me.”

“I don’t know what you’re talking about.”

“If you didn’t, you’d be much more astonished and much less angry, Miss Francon.”

“So you know my name?”

“You’ve been advertising it loudly enough.”

Thank you for posting these excerpts but they have raised more questions than anything else. I do want to see their actual interactions but also am looking for "observations" where there isn't any communication between them; say for instance from afar and his noticing her walking around the site, etc. He seems to have been watching her for some time. Although it is implied the reason they both have been watching each other, but it's not clearly stated. What has he observed in the past and what thoughts were going through his mind based on those observations of her? When you watch someone, you notice more than just their physical beauty. You notice how they may hold themselves. How well groomed they are. What types of clothing they are wearing, etc. If they're in action while working, you may notice how efficiently they work or how erratic it may be. I'm also interested to know how she's been advertising herself so loudly. What has he been told by others regarding her if there was any communication, to what degree has she flaunted her stuff around the site so to speak. I'm very interested to see all the events leading up to any thoughts, observations, etc., of each other with or without communication.

I'll give a good scenario or an experimentation that will or should make you look strictly extrospectively/objectively at reality as it is presented to you as well as subjectively at yourself and what you may be feeling and desiring as well as introspectively and what your thoughts are regarding such a person. I'll place a visual of a woman before you but presented to you in two forms before you and present a situation wherein you make judgments and draw conclusions regarding who they are, what values they must hold, etc., and tell me which one, without ever speaking to her, you would be the most attracted to and it will or should be based on your standards of ethics or some type of standard in general as to who you are most attracted to sexually. It will give you insight as to who this person is, what they may stand for, where they may put themselves in relation to others and these give indications without ever being spoken as to what they may potentially value. All based on your objective observations of her. I'm not sure as to what female to use wherein you have no clue who she is or have heard anything about her that you would or may find visually attractive in the way of beauty and someone you would want to sexually experience.

I'm sitting here trying to think of a lady you have no personal knowledge of. Perhaps will give the example of a woman well known such as someone as Angelina Jolie or choose a woman that you don't know personally but perhaps are somewhat familiar with such as another movie star. This one woman, Angelina, is standing before you but in two different forms:

One of her is she is not well groomed. Hair has not been brushed and is dull looking as if hasn't been washed in a while. Perhaps has dirt smudges on her face and underneath her fingernails. Has no makeup on. She doesn't stand erect but is slightly hunched over. Does not stand with head held high. She is wearing raggedy dirty clothing similar to that of a bum but you can see that she may have a nice figure. When she looks up at you, it's one of victimhood and passiveness and that of pity me; almost as if asking for the unearned such as a bum looks at you when they are approaching you for money. Although you notice she is a beautiful woman, how she has presented herself to you will speak volumes as to who she is, where she places herself and how she values herself and how she views herself and takes pride in who she is, her self-confidence. It would give you an idea of her values or lack thereof. Based on these observations alone of her and never speaking to her before, would you be interested in having sex with her? Probably not, this figure before you may very well repulse you and there may be absolutely no sexual attraction whatsoever as I would expect there wouldn't be.

Beside this unkempt Angelina, there is another Angelina standing next to her, quite the opposite. Her hair has been brushed and well kept, not dull. Her face is clean and fingernails groomed. She has some makeup on but not excessive, enough to highlight her natural beauty as you notice she is a beautiful woman. She stands before you erect with head held high. She has a business suit on or perhaps a white dress, very feminine. When she looks up at you, there is no look of being the victim and expecting the unearned; but that of a woman who has determination and a fierceness about her that is undeniable; she is not meek and passive; she knows she has to earn it and has by how she is presented to you objectively. How this particular Angelina has presented herself to you without ever speaking to you, based on your observations of her, you will have an idea as to who she is, where she places herself and how she values herself, her self-confidence and the pride she takes in who she is. It would give you an idea of her values, as you notice this particular Angelina does carry them to whatever extent and there isn't a lack thereof. Based on these observations alone and her never speaking to you, would be you more interested in this Angelina sexually than that of the unkempt Angelina? Probably so. These are judgments made very quickly based on your observations of her as I know you know this. They may be unspoken or unidentified by you in the seconds or minutes that have passed by as you observe her standing before you. In order to attain these potential values she has and how she has presented herself to you in this outwardly appearance, there must be a thinking woman there, a woman with some form of intellect. If there is a defined value system there and set of ethics that you have defined to whatever degree, you will choose and desire accordingly.

Although, I know this and what I've written is rather superficial in details, but I've done it to highlight a point in judgments that people make sometimes very quickly regarding others and who they may want to sleep with. Some truly do not care and there is nothing defined there and will sleep with just about anything that walks without thought to themselves. But for most, their standards have been defined to varying degrees of level and they aren't propelled entirely by their emotions and only on a visceral level. Would you sleep with a beautiful woman that you know to be a bum or that same beautiful woman who takes care of herself and by your observations can surmise her character and what potential values she has? Although Roark may not know her personally and has had very little communication with her up to the so-called rape scene, he has no doubt observed her and has been watching her. Based on these observations, he's been sizing her up if you will and has been making judgments regarding her character and potential values, although may not be entirely defined by her as of yet. Roark may not have defined it as much himself but you can't deny that it is still there to whatever degree. I experience it and others experience it as well, even if it is judgments made quickly regarding someone without ever knowing them personally or speaking with them.

I believe Roark to be a far more observant man than most, already has a set defined value system, these are judgments he has made to some degree regarding Dominique and his observations of her and who she may be, her character, her potential values, where she has placed herself, and so forth, without speaking with her. Although there is possibly only beauty that is attracting him and her defiance to him because of her attitude towards him, I truly believe there is much more to it that Rand may not have defined at this point and observations that are made of people and who they may find sexually attractive. To my understanding and correct me if I'm wrong but when writing the Fountainhead, the philosophical system and identification had yet to be fully defined or more complete I should say so there may very well be aspects in the Fountainhead that she had yet to discover herself but was to later be discovered. For me and picking the two men presented before me, the one of a possibly bum to the other man that is his opposite, I would not desire the possible bum in the least bit but would desire the man that is his opposite and desiring and wanting to experience him sexually.

It's already taken quite a bit of time to write this...longer than I expected. Have needed to stop writing in the middle to attend to other things. I've read this over again and have attempted to edit it as much as I can but I have to stop it here to get ready for work.

More later I am sure.

Angie

“You’d better not be insolent. I can have you fired at a moment’s notice, you know.”

He turned his head, looking for someone among the men below. He asked: “Shall I call the superintendent?”

She smiled contemptuously.

“No, of course not. It would be too simple. But since you know who I am, it would be better if you stopped looking at me when I come here. It might be misunderstood.”

“I don’t think so.”

After she asks him to come to her home for some work:

She walked away, disappointed. She felt that their secret understanding was lost; he had spoken as if it were a simple job which she could have offered to any other workman. Then she felt the sinking gasp inside, that feeling of shame and pleasure which he always gave her: she realized that their understanding had been more intimate and flagrant than ever—in his natural acceptance of an unnatural offer; he had shown her how much he knew—by his lack of astonishment.

When Roark first comes to her home to replace the marble:

She watched him approaching, looking up at her. She held the pose long enough to let him suspect that it was a deliberate pose deliberately planned; she broke it at the exact moment before he could become certain of it. She said: “Good evening.” Her voice was austerely quiet.

He did not answer but inclined his head and walked on up the stairs toward her. He wore his work clothes and he carried a bag of tools. His movements had a swift, relaxed kind of energy that did not belong here, in her house, on the polished steps, between the delicate, rigid banisters. She had expected him to seem incongruous in her house; but it was the house that seemed incongruous around him.

She moved one hand, indicating the door of her bedroom. He followed obediently. He did not seem to notice the room when he entered. He entered it as if it were a workshop. He walked straight to the fireplace.

“There it is, “ she said, one finger pointing at the marble slab.

He said nothing. He knelt, took a thin metal wedge from his bag, held its point against the scratch on the slab, took a hammer and struck one blow. The marble split in a long, deep cut.

He glanced up at her. It was the look she dreaded, a look of laughter that could not be answered, because the laughter could not be seen, only felt. He said:

“Now it’s broken and has to be replaced.”

Dominique tells him to go ahead and remove the marble, then watches him work.

She approached him and stood silently over him. She had never stood so close to him before. She looked down at the smooth skin on the back of his neck; she could distinguish single threads of his hair. She glanced down at the tip of her sandal. It was there, on the floor, an inch away from his body; she needed but one movement, a very slight movement of her foot, to touch him. She made a step back.

He moved his head, but not to look up, only to pick another tool from the bag, and bent over his work again.

She laughed aloud. He stopped and glanced at her.

“Yes/” he asked.

Her face was grave, her voice gentle when she answered.

“Oh. I’m sorry. You might have thought that I was laughing at you. But I wasn’t, of course.”

Angie:

Understood.

I would suggest that you see the movie after you read the book though.

I thought Patricia and Cooper handled that scene well especially Patricia Neal's incredible eyes!

I am a big eye contact person.

Just this morning I was meeting a client in Elisabeth and as I was walking to meet him, as I usually do, I make eye contact with every stranger I pass.

More than 70% of them react with a smile or nod and some with an actual good morning!

Adam

Adam,

Yes, most definitely the eyes for some people, including that of myself. There was a gentleman attorney that I had met, no longer in contact with him, about 4 years ago maybe. I remember it as clear as day and won't forget it. I was sitting in a conference room in a law office waiting for the proceedings to begin. I heard footsteps coming down the hall in such a way that spoke volumes as to who the person was as he was approaching. Purposeful, deliberate, the surety in every step he took, a force to be reckoned with if you will, a confidence portrayed just by the sounds of his walking down the hall, how forcefully each step fell -- there wasn't a meekness, passiveness to it at all. It raised my curiousity very much so. I watched the door as I wanted to know who it was...not sure if this person was to come in or just even to walk by but I wanted to see him. The second he stopped and stood at the threshold of the door, standing fully erect with absolutely no slouching at all through the shoulders, head held high, his self confidence and self esteem was blaringly obvious. He looked at me and said, "You must be my court reporter for the day? My name is John Volz" Holy FUCK, OMG *phew* Instant attraction towards him, aside from his overall stature that I'm attracted to the most, this first impression, how he carried himself and his actions spoke volumes well before he even spoke to me!!!!! There was nothing about this man that wreaked of poor self-esteem, fear, doubt. He knew who he was, what he wanted, and took pride in it and this was my first impression of him the day we met. Anyway, just by this first observation of him, it told me tremendously about who he was, what he valued, where he placed himself above others, how he viewed himself -- well earned no doubt. As I got to know him better in the coming months and talking with him, it just verified what I had already known about him. In my experience, these types of men are higher up on the intellectual rung if you will.

I can see the sexual chemistry between Roark and Dominique and the superficiality to it if you will but I think there's a lot more to it and what was being portrayed and what they were conveying about themselves by their actions and behaviors, their values although unspoken, so forth, before the encounter and this is what I want to see or read and IF it is present which I think it will be but then again it may very well not be. I honestly believe from my own experiences and identifying why that there is much more to sexual attractions than just the aesthetic and more visceral aspects of it but I will soon see as Rand portrays it.

Angie

Angie and Dennis:

Out of curiosity, did either of you see the movie?

Adam

I haven't seen the movie. I would watch it but more interested in reading the book as the book will reveal a lot more than an adaptation to film would. I do enjoy watching movies but books are always so much better and enjoy reading rather than watching a film where they've had to leave out or have left out crucial pieces that they didn't think was important but may be important to the observer if you will. Also, how one person interprets/percieves it may be quite different than another's perception. In reading it, I may understand it entirely different or I may pick up things that another reader may not have picked up on or has overlooked for whatever reason. I'm not saying this is the case with Dennis and his missing pieces or overlooking something. It's just the way we all are; ie, their overlooking crucial pieces that builds on and up to the rest, they've misunderstood what they've read or they're concentrating on one area because it appeals to them the most or what rings true for them and puts a piece of the puzzle for them together, their potential emotional attachments, etc., etc.

Similar to the so-called rape scene, I'm not basing my opinions on what I've read from others' perspectives. I'm basing it on what I read in the book and these pages being posted on websites. I would much rather hear it from the horse's mouth, although there does seem to be many many opinions that are similar to that of Dennis' that I've read which gives consistency. But again, there may be many aspects well before the scene that highlights certain areas that others may overlook because they don't think it is connected when in reality it may be connected and building up to it.

Angie

Dennis:

Hi Angie,

To begin with, Ayn Rand did not consider what Roark did to Dominique as “rape.” She stated this in a Q&A session following an NBI lecture on sex (the same lecture I referred to in an earlier post). Ayn Rand felt that Dominique had given Roark permission to do everything he did. It was Dominique who wanted to think of their sexual episode as rape.

Well, that's interesting that Rand in the Q & A session says that she didn't consider it "rape." But states at some point that it was "Rape by engraved invitation," or some such deal. Interesting....

The story sequence is as follows. Dominique sees Roark working at the quarry and obviously likes what she sees. She deliberately scratches her marble fireplace and requests that he come to her home to replace it. Roark takes one look at the fireplace and knows what she’s up to. Because the scratch is relatively minor, he takes a hammer and smashes it, then turns to her and says: “Now it’s broken and has to be replaced.” She clearly expects him to be the one to set the new marble, but Roark sends a co-worker instead, knowing how she she will react. So obviously, you can see there is a great deal of nonverbal communication going on here, long before the alleged ‘rape.’ Dominique rides her horse to the quarry and finds Roark walking along the road. She stops and angrily asks why he didn’t come to replace the marble. Roark plays dumb, telling her that he didn’t think it would matter who did the job. Dominique then slashes Roark across the face with her horsewhip and rides off.

Ayn Rand felt that Dominique’s act of slashing Roark in the face was her advance consent to whatever he cared to do with her. So what happened between them on the night that he broke into her bedroom was really not “rape.” But again, Dominique enjoyed thinking of it that way.

You can surmise that, prior to the rape, almost all of the communiction between Roark and Dominique was nonverbal. She clearly projected a strong attraction to him, while he acted aloof and oblivious. She responded to his physical strength and his self-confidence in the way he spoke and carried himself. He, on the other hand, obviously found her extremely beautiful and sexually desirable. Her defiant manner was also undoubtedly a source of her appeal to him. I don’t think there is any way to read more into their mutual attraction beyond that kind of visceral sexual chemistry. He knew she was the rich daughter of a famous architect, but he did not know anything about her character or values. She is not in any sense, at that point, his “ideal woman.”

Very interesting and an eyebrow raiser. I will be reading the Fountainhead very soon and the reason being is I want to know all the events leading up to this scene and any interactions and more details, behaviors, observations, etc., displayed by both. But I do see where they both are coming from in reading body language and can gauge a person's self-esteem and self-confidence by this which gives insight of their values and where they place themselves by how they speak and carry themselves as this is a huge attractant for myself and many other women I know, not all though, when it comes to men. There is more to it obviously and not so superficial if you will. I know hard to convey it all in just a few paragraphs. I know my impressions at the screening wherein this was touched on a bit is slightly different in what I saw and heard and curious for further clarification and verification.

Angie

Angie:

Totally agree.

I have worked with the leadership - female - of some D/s groups to increase caution and awareness.

For example, being in a bonded or restrained position and the Domme or Dom has a seizure. Deadly.

Yes. Or that of your partner having their own health issue and worst case scenario there is nothing you can do other than scream and hope someone comes to your aid. Or if someone with ill-will walks in, there is not much the restrained person can do and to act in self-preservation or an earthquake, etc. They should be able to get out of the situation on their own freewill, easily or with a bit of work of their own.

Lots of work needs to be done in this area. I would love to see "dead man's" devices used that are similar to what a train brakeman has.

I don't practice the more "extreme" aspects of it as is done with some people, although there are a few that are used but are more symbolic of the D/s relationship than what the actual end result is designed for if you will. I don't participate in the BDSM community and actively pursue them, although do on ocassion read the forums geared towards it. For me, when I find a person I am interested in, it's introduced into the relationship as I get to know them better, knowing their values, and so forth. But if I can find another O'ist who does share the same values, even better for me and potentially him as well if he's willing and comfortable with it.

Angie:

Correct. There is much argument amongst folks in D/s, etc. as to the "rape" "fantasy".

The rule of thumb is that there are no "safe words" in the "rape" scene, but the Dom should be so aware, I would declare hyper aware of every pulse, breath and skin color change of the submissive to be almost one with the submissive.

It is certainly not a game and should not be engaged in except by a couple who is almost blended with each other.

Adam

This is an area that should be re-worked and where exactly values are being placed rather than solely in the hand's of your partner as he cannot fully judge what is too much for her, although he may know her extremely well and their being in sync. Her/his ultimate supreme value is their own life and you, her, or I should not submit it entirely to the point you cannot act in accordance of self-preservation and are entirely dependent on another. This scenario and putting your life entirely in the hands of another who cannot fully judge psychological freakout points and pushing them beyond their limits, too much S/M...wow and is as irrational as you can get. Any woman that puts herself into that scenario or man as well does not carry their own life as the supreme value. This type of scenario where safewords and communication is nonexistent or is forbidden is a potential death sentence.