Stange Passage in Fountainhead

The problem with understanding Dominique, I believe, is that she is presented on a slightly different level of abstraction than the other characters in the book. Let me explain what I mean.

If Roark were a character in, say, feudal times, a noble crusader for the right and the good, able to accomplish great deeds and to conquer armies with his magical sword, instead of a modern day architect in a suit and tie -- we would accept him as that kind of character and find nothing strange or contradictory about him. And if the beautiful woman who loved him begged him to give up his dangerous way of life, terrified that he will die for the sake of men who are unworthy of him, we would not find this strange. And if he refused to abandon the dangers he faced, and she then swore to harm him physically so that he no longer would physically be able to engage the enemy with his sword, but he would live -- we might say she was wrong, but we would not find her attitude strange or unconvincing.

In this latter version of Roark and Domimique, both characters exist on the same level of abstraction. Both are highly abstract -- one a fighter for an undefined good, the other a woman frightened of the peril faced by the man she loves. But in The Fountainhead, Roark is a man living in New York and seeking architectural commissions -- while Dominique is the crusader's lover who cannot bear to have him lose his life in battle.

And play the rape scene back in the version my crusader story suggests.

Does this help?

Barbara

Post 61

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 5:21am

Barbara, as one who characteristically thinks in metaphors anyway, I found your explanation compelling.

Except for my first reading of the novel as a callow teen boy, before I understood even the first thing about women, I've never had much trouble figuring out Dominique.

But after five decades of sometimes brutal experience with you creatures, I think I now understand the first thing about women. Among men, that puts me way ahead of the game.

Post 62

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 5:41am

Well...

When I first read The Fountainhead in the sunset of my teenage years, I gotta admit that I kinda got off on the rape scene.

You know, hot stuff with a moral sanction...

I thought it was great.

Michael

Post 63

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 6:10am

Thanks, Robert. I realized this because of something that happened when I was writing my stage play of "The Fountainhead." I wrote the scene in which Roark blows up the housing project, with Dominique as the focus of the scene as she is in the book, and I knew it was the best writing I'd ever done in my life. I was madly in love with what I'd written; I felt like singing it because it was like music. (Yes, this is terribly immodest, but it really was good.) And I also knew I'd have to delete it and try again. I recognized, after my initial euphoria, that it had an almost fairy-tale-like quality, it was more poetry than prose, it totally didn't fit the rest of the play. The rest of the play was relatively realistic; this scene was extremely abstract. So, with a broken heart, I abandoned it to the trash.

Barbara

Post 64

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 6:11am

And why, on Solo, are we always discussing music -- which I passionately love -- when writing is so much more interesting? (She ducks under nearest desk.)

Barbara

Post 65

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 6:23am

Michael, do you need an engraved invitation or what.... git to the kitchen....git!

Post 66

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 6:29am

Well, kat, the speculation's over! What a brassy thing to say!

(For anyone missing it, Michael already ordered kat to the kitchen. So perhaps her statement should have read "Come to the kitchen." But git is so much better.

Jason

Post 67

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 6:33am

Barbara, oh Barbara!

and I knew it was the best writing I'd ever done in my life. I was madly in love with what I'd written.

Who cares if it's immodest? Saying this tells me "Yes, this is possible. You can have moments when your own writing makes you sing." Doesn't that make it worth it to keep writing?

And why, on Solo, are we always discussing music -- which I passionately love -- when writing is so much more interesting? (She ducks under nearest desk.)

And I would LOVE to see more discussion of writing on this site. Please feel free to post anything in the forum (or maybe an article even?) on writing! With these articles I've written for SOLO, writing is fast becoming my favorite activity. Would love to discuss that with you in an appropriate forum (i.e., not hijacking a thread). I'll even hide under the desk with you.

Jason

Post 68

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 6:45am

Save some room under there Barbara and Jason.

Post 69

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 7:14am

Jason, normally, being a Midwesterner, I would tell him to come in the kitchen, but he's been telling me to git and I suspect that is Southern hospitality and he talks soooo cute. Or maybe he is trying to bring me to my knees. (er...did I say that outloud?)

Post 70

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 7:55am

Jason and John, it's a big desk, and you're both welcome. The only one under there with me now is my cat.

I guess I will write something on writing. Thanks for suggesting it, Jason.

Barbara

Post 71

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 12:03pm

Barbara, I think you hit it on the head:
"If Roark were a character in, say, feudal times, a noble crusader for the right and the good, able to accomplish great deeds and to conquer armies with his magical sword, instead of a modern day architect in a suit and tie -- we would accept him as that kind of character and find nothing strange or contradictory about him. And if the beautiful woman who loved him begged him to give up his dangerous way of life, terrified that he will die for the sake of men who are unworthy of him, we would not find this strange. And if he refused to abandon the dangers he faced, and she then swore to harm him physically so that he no longer would physically be able to engage the enemy with his sword, but he would live..."

There is a book called THE MYTH OF THE AMERICAN SUPERHERO that contrasts the classic hero myths that Joseph Campbell popularized with the American version, which has a slightly different take. One of the main hallmarks of the American hero myths is that the hero is confronted with a choice of violent redemption or a more passive stance. Usually a female will attempt to persuade the hero to give up the gun, or run away, etc. The hero is tempted, but ultimately opts for the violent solution. John Wayne movies were a classic example, THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALENCE being a template for the theme.
I think that Ayn Rand absorbed a lot of the American Monomyth through her experience in Hollywood and from her preference of American stories over European ones. Of course, she puts her own inversions into the hero myth, but she does embrace the hallmark of an outsider coming into a community and drastically altering the system through anti-democratic methods. When Roark resists Dominiques's pleas to run away and not fight, Rand is following a tradition in American storytelling that goes back to THE BIRTH OF A NATION.

Post 72

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 12:23pm

Joe,

Ayn Rand's favorite film, High Noon, is an instance of that same mythos. It also figures in the KOR-Solidarity propaganda posters used in the campaign that brought down the Communist Empire, which was radical in its replacement of the European "Hero as Leader" mythos (best seen in the films of Leni Riefenstahl) with the American "Hero as Outsider".

Post 73

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 - 6:05pm

I didn't know Ayn Rand's favorite movie was "High Noon." I wonder where you got that from?

Anyway, "High Noon" is sort of like "The Fountainhead" redone as a western. I got a kick from Lloyd Bridges playing the Peter Keating role.

In real life the townsfolk would have had the bad guys for breakfast and gunmen with pistols have little chance against someone with a repeating carbine.

That the residents of a western 19th century town would cower in church while the badies looted the town is hilarious. The town would have been full of Civil War vets. John Wayne was so pissed off at the idea of the marshall not getting any help he made a western in which the marshall got too much help. He was also pissed off at Gary Cooper throwing his badge in the dirt before he left town.

Jesse James's gang was shot to pieces in Northfield, Minnesota by the not-in-church townsfolk.

The greatest western ever made, IMHO, was "Shane." When Alan Ladd went into town for the last time it was like watching an inexorable force of nature pounding its way to the lair of Darth Vader (Jack Palance) with the incredible Grand Tetons decorating the background. That music!

I'd bet "High Noon" wasn't Ayn Rand's favorite movie. I think it was "Seigfreid."

--Brant

Post 74

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 - 6:14pm

Brant, you may be interested to know that the scene you describe with the townspeople hiding is a hallmark of American storytelling in hero tales. In THE MYTH OF THE AMERICAN SUPERHERO, the authors claim that in westerns, actions flicks, superhero comis, and even Disney films, the hero come from outside the community to aid the townspeople, who are incapable of saving themselves. The town is described as idyllic, a secular Eden, that is invaded by your all evil serpent. The townspeople are weak or helpless, and the law is corrupt or inept. John Wayne movies carry this hallmark, most notably THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALENCE.

And that's one to grow on :)

Post 75

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 - 6:20pm

Joe, you would very much enjoy The Writer's Journey by Hollywood "script doctor" Christopher Vogler -- his application of Joseph Campbell's mythic archetypes to the writing of fiction. It's brilliant, and extremely enlightening -- not just about fiction writing, but about our culture.

Without ever having read a word of Campbell, Rand had clearly absorbed the heroic "monomyth" and adapted it to her stories of Galt and Roark.

Post 76

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 - 6:30pm

Thanks, Robert, will check that out, sounds really good. Her time in Hollywood and love of Gary Cooper movies probably played an important part in that absorption.
And my apologies; I hadn't realized that I posted a similiar message before Adams, it's been a while...!!!

Post 77

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 4:36pm

I justify Dagny's action based upon her own rationality. John Galt was imperative to Dagny's happiness and the guard, by refusing to act, was sanctioning the injustice being done to Galt. Since the guard was threatening Dagny's happiness, even though it is done indirectly and ignorantly, it Dagny's duty to remedy the situation. This is my own take on this particular situation, I have only been aware of Rand's works and philosophy for about a year now.

Post 78

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 11:31pm

Hi, Bill. I first read Atlas Shrugged in 1963. I suspect you are a couple of generations younger than I am. Don't eat Objectivism too fast. Take care of yourself. By that I mean, no matter how much you are impressed with Ayn Rand's genius, you are the center of your universe. She damn well was the center of hers. Unfortunately, too many people got swept up into her world forgetting about their own.

--Brant

Post 79

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 5:44pm