[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)