[continued from previous message]   
      
   > represented a successful incarnation of that same ideal.  He was   
   > ultimately successful because he refused to compromise his ethics for   
   > success, wealth, and fame.   
      
   That's not Nietzschean at all, as I've read him. Nietzche championed the   
   man with no ethics, the man who lived for power over others. Wynand was   
   Rand's view of where that worldview ultimately led.   
      
   >>> Toohey, otoh, is a one-dimensional symbol of the Communist party   
   >>> leaders.  Toohey pretends to represent the people, but is using their   
   >>> collective support as a means to self-empowerment.   
   >>   
   >> No, that's wrong, too IMO. Toohey sincerely believed himself to be a   
   >> selfless servant of the people; his goal was not personal wealth or   
   >> power. Though, since you've been identified with Wynand, there is no   
   >> reason to discuss the other villains in the novel.   
      
   > 1) As noted above, Wynand is not a villain.  He is a tragic figure (a   
   > failed Ubermensch)   
      
   No, as the tycoon of incalculable wealth and power, Wynand was   
   Neitzche's Ubermensch come to life.   
      
   > , until the novel's end wherein he is redeemed.   
      
   > 2) I just googled Toohey, and here's what Sparknotes has to say: "His   
   > tactics frequently evoke those of Joseph Stalin, the former Russian   
   > revolutionary who emerged as Russia's dictator."   
      
   Exactly. Both Toohey and Stalin were selfless servants of the people -   
   they had no interests of their own, but dedicated their lives to the   
   people. All they wanted in return was total control - not for   
   themselves, but for the people.   
      
   Toohey was the completely selfless man - the man who wanted nothing for   
   himself, but only wanted the public good; and therefore wanted to break   
   everyone who maintained a private life, or a sense of self.   
      
   > You really don't get Ayn Rand, George.  I find this revelation most   
   > disheartening, as you claim to have read and studied all of her works.   
   > To have missed her messages on pretty much every level imaginable, is...   
   > well, it would be comparable to how I would feel if I found out that I'd   
   > spent the past 40-odd years having misunderstood everything written by   
   > Edgar Poe.   
      
   I understand her just fine. I'd say that you were the one who   
   misunderstands her, but (considering I'm not talking to a person but a   
   sock) one knows where that would lead: You'd put your hands over your   
   ears, stamp your little foot, and cry "IKYABWAI!" again.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)