[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>> This is opposed to Roark, who is willing to risk   
   >>>>>> everything he owns, and all of the progress he has made in the hierarchy   
   >>>>>> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)