[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> doing things; Wynand valued having power, "running things" and the   
   >>> people who did them.   
   >   
   >> Again, that was not my reading (which the internet interpretation   
   >> confirms).   
   >   
   > No, the quote you googled does not confirm that. According to your   
   > googled quote, Wynand was already thoroughly corrupted "by the time we   
   > met him" in the novel.   
      
   LOL!  Is that what you're harping on?   
      
   His past is part of his character.  You can't dismiss a character's   
   backstory just because it happens outside of the narrative's timeframe.   
      
   As you're a writer, I can't believe that I'm having to explain this to   
   you.   
      
      
   >> You don't seem to be getting the full picture of Wynand's character --   
   >> but then you *always* recast everything in the simplest of   
   >> black-and-white terms.   
   >   
   > I am getting that you identify with Wynand.   
      
   And, once again, you're mistaken.   
      
   You should really stop trying to read things into my statements.  I   
   choose my words carefully, and say exactly what I mean.   
      
   I do not identify with Wynand in the least.  Wynand is everything that I   
   am not: rich, self-made, successful, powerful, dependent upon public   
   acceptance, and willing to compromise his ideals.   
      
   I do, however, *understand* the fictional character better than you, as   
   your understanding of both Rand and Nietzsche is faulty, and you seem   
   incapable of grasping any concept in its full complexity, having to   
   pigeonhole it into simplistic, black and white components that often   
   undermine its original intent.   
      
      
   > So it's fair for us to   
   > identify you with him; the thoroughly corrupted power seeker - not   
   > beyond redemption (since there probably is a real person under all those   
   > socks, and it may show itself one day) - but not redeemed at present.   
      
   Wrong again.   
      
   1) Whether I'm corrupted is a moot point as my basic ideals (youthful   
   and present day) stem from a Luciferic belief system (similar to those   
   of both Nietzsche and Rand).  Since, in such a system, "Good" and "Evil"   
   are seen as relative to the individual, words like "corrupted" become   
   meaningless.  Unless you want to argue that one could become "corrupted"   
   into accepting the standards of conventional morality.   
      
   2) I am not a power seeker, insofar as I do not actively seek to become   
   empowered.  I believe that I would make the ideal Philosopher Prince (as   
   per Machiavelli) or Philosopher King (as per Plato), and believe that   
   the world would only benefit from my leadership... but that is purely a   
   matter of speculative masturbation.  I am content to remain a working   
   class peon in society, and to devote my writing to exploring the eternal   
   truths of one's inner soul.   
      
   3) Since there is no difference between any of my so-called "socks"   
   (apart from their names), the "real person" is not hidden underneath   
   them in any way.   
      
   In Marginalia  194:1,2, Poe wrote that:   
      
   "If any ambitious man have a fancy to revolutionize, at one effort, the   
   universal world of human thought, human opinion, and human sentiment,   
   the opportunity is his own — the road to immortal renown lies straight,   
   open, and unencumbered before him. All that he has to do is to write and   
   publish a very little book. Its title should be simple — a few plain   
   words — “My Heart Laid Bare.” But — this little book must be true to   
   its   
   title.   
      
   "Now, is it not very singular that, with the rabid thirst for notoriety   
   which distinguishes so many of mankind — so many, too, who care not a   
   fig what is thought of them after death, there should not be found one   
   man having sufficient hardihood to write this little book? To write, I   
   say. There are ten thousand men who, if the book were once written,   
   would laugh at the notion of being disturbed by its publication during   
   their life, and who could not even conceive why they should object to   
   its being published after their death. But to write it — there is the   
   rub. No man dare write it. No man ever will dare write it. No man could   
   write it, even if he dared. The paper would shrivel and blaze at every   
   touch of the fiery pen."   
      
   I chose, while still in my idealistic youth, to become the man who would   
   dare to write that book.  But it isn't limited to a single publication.   
   It runs through my collected works of poetry, fiction, drama, and   
   philosophy.  But it doesn't stop there.  It is present in all of my   
   ephemeral social media posts, personal letters, and everyday   
   conversations.  In short: to write the book, one must *become* the book.   
    My heart must be worn upon my sleeve for all the world to see -- i.e.,   
   it must be perpetually "laid bare."   
      
   You, however, will never see the "real person" for want of the imaginary   
   socks.  A real person is too complex, multi-layered, and even   
   self-contradictory a concept for your black & white mind to comprehend.   
   Even your Donkey has demonstrated a better understanding of the   
   complexity of human life than you.   
      
      
   >>>> Wynand redeems himself later in the novel, and is last seen having   
   >>>> returned to his original, Ubermenschian self.   
   >>>   
   >>> Yes, that part of the story has a happy ending; Wynand "redeems" himself   
   >>> by shutting down the Banner, giving up his quest for power over others.   
   >>> As you know, Rand began writing /The Fountainhead/ as a Nietzchean, and   
   >>> finished it as an Objectivist; and the story of Wynand symbolizes that   
   >>> transition.   
   >>>   
   >>> Except for that happy ending, Wynand is the character that fits you   
   >>> best. You're still stuck in that quest for power for its own sake.   
   >>   
   >> Just because Rand modified her ideology a bit, doesn't mean that she   
   >> recast Wynand as a one-dimensional representation of something bad.   
   >   
   > I never said she had. Her only one-dimensional character is Toohey.   
      
   Roark is one-dimensional as well; and none of her characters ever reach   
   beyond two dimensions.  They are, after all, merely devices for   
   expressing her philosophical ideas.  The closest she comes to a   
   three-dimensional character is with Dagny Taggart in Atlas Shrugged.   
      
      
   >> Roark has always struck me (and pretty much everyone else who's ever   
   >> read the book) as being the poster boy for the Nietzschean Ubermensch.   
   >   
   > Not at all; Roark valued his own independence from others, and their own   
   > independence from him. Not only did he not try to control them; he   
   > wouldn't even give them advice beyond "don't take advice, from me or   
   > anyone" (paraphrased).   
      
   You are a victim of the popular misconception that Nietzsche was about   
   power and dominance -- which shows me that you've never read any of his   
   works.  Nietzsche's one fictional character was Zarathustra -- a hermit   
   (inspired by the ancient Persian founder of Zoroastrianism) who lived in   
   the wilderness on top of a mountain.  Zarathustra serves as a mouthpiece   
   for Nietzsche's philosophy, and can be seen in that regard as a   
   representation of himself.  A hermit is hardly an image for one seeking   
   power and domination to adopt.   
      
   The confusion rises from Nietzsche's association with Nazi Germany (or,   
   rather, Nazi Germany's predilection for using Nietzsche's quotes out of   
   context to serve their on nefarious ends), and his use of words like   
   "Overman" and "Will to Power." We can dismiss the Nazi associations, as   
   Nietzsche would have detested the Nazis and was outspoken against   
   anti-Semitism in general.  "Overman" referred to a higher form of   
   existence (a new evolutionary step in the progression of humankind), not   
   some sort of overlord; and "Will to Power" referred to Schopenhauer's   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)