[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>> of his chosen field, to be true to his personal values.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The difference between them is not whether they were true to their   
   >>>> values, but what values they were true to. Roark valued creativity,   
   >>>> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)