I am about halfway through reading Ayn Rand’s tome, and I have some questions.
This is not an invite to get into a discussion about Rand’s philosophy or the merits of her work, as that is a can of worms with no bottom. I just have a few questions, that I hope can be answered, er, objectively.
Was modern architecture that controversial in the time frame of the novel, (20’s)?
I am having trouble visualizing Roark’s buildings. While Rand goes on and on describing people’s cheekbones, etc., she doesn’t really describe any of his buildings in detail. Would I. M. Pei be a good comparison?
It seems that a lot of successful modernist buildings DO incorporate classical elements, and I find the blend pleasing. From the pictures from the film, I didn’t imagine that the changes proposed on his first big commission to be as ludicrous as this:
WHY MAKE ROURKE A RAPIST?!? If he is to represent the idealized man, certainly this would be a major failing. Even worse, SHE LIKED IT! The whole passage leading up to that scene reads like something out of a torn-shirt romance novel. It is out of character for Rourke, who, if anything, comes off as asexual in the first part of the novel, driven only by his muse, and it is unneeded. The girl had obviously fallen for the guy already, at least from a sexual standpoint, and it would have been equally believable to write a scene where it was seduction at work. Plus, it is a cheap trope, unworthy of the rest of the novel.
I understand that Rand was a pretty screwed up person in her private life, but surely she realized that the scene would offend others, and give her critics grist for the mill…
I think the idea in the novel is that Dominique wanted Roarke to make love to her, but she’s grown so pessimistic and so contemptuous of humanity that, at that point, she couldn’t allow herself to love him because she figureed she would be doomed to disappointment. So, with the “rape” he shows her that he’s strong enough and committed enough to get what he wants, that he’s her equal, and she gives herself permission to love him.
I mean, look at the situation…she invites him to her room to fix a fireplace that isn’t broken.
Ayn Rand also once said when questioned about “the rape”, “If it was rape, it was rape by engraved invitation.”
I believe my source on that is Barbara Branden’s THE PASSION OF AYN RAND (the book, not the Showtime movie).
Re Ayn’s private life being screwed up- She was a dominant personality married to a man with a submissive personality, and yet wanted to be dominated sexually & projected that role onto Frank O’Connor, and then onto the more dominant & manipulative Nathaniel Branden (altho he also was dominated & manipulated by her). And of course, there is the fact that she & Nathaniel also sat down with Frank & Barbara to persuade them that the Ayn-Nate tryst was only right and rational.
Of course, if you are going to make a film version of the book, it is necessary that you agree with the aesthetic, and thus they have to make the opposing view ridiculous.
I liked the book. But still, the answer to this question is: Because the girl is a Mary Sue.
On a related note, although she wrote the screenplay (which is often screwed around with) did she have much input on the production? Was she pleased with the result? I have not seen the movie.
I have been previously unfamiliar with the term “Mary Sue”, but I don’t think that Dominique qualifies. She is a barking nutbag! To me she is just a contrarian bitch. I think that a major flaw, in Rand’s deeply flawed masterpiece, is that Roarke was not given a worthy lover. Again, I have not finished the book, but, well, I just don’t know what to say at this point in the book. “Fuck me good, and I will try to destroy you!” “Yes my darling, have I told you how lovely you are?” I mean, really. :rolleyes:
At the risk of opening the can of worms I mentioned in the OP, I am regarding her writing in the same way I view the writing of Issac Asimov. Interesting ideas on almost every page, but a flawed understanding of human nature. That they were both smuggled out of Russia may or may not be a mere coincidence.
I will state that digging around on the internet for Rand’s philosophy has given me, for the first time, an idea of why I love the person that I do. So there’s that.
Yes it was. The 1922 Chicago Tribune Tower competition is the best way to see this. An open competition for the best skyscraper in the world. Hundreds of entries. ~1/3 were neo-classical, 1/3 neo-Gothic, and 1/3 modern.
In other words there was a great cultural anxiety about which direction to go. In the later 20s, Art Deco emerged as a kind of middle path. (Chrysler Building)
Rand worked as a secretary for Ely Jacques Kahn to learn about architecture for the novel (but he was kind of ‘in-between’ a classicist and modernist).
Roark the character was clearly patterned after Frank Lloyd Wright (but he didn’t design any towers until later).
As an ex-Chicagoan, I must admit a fondness for the Tribune tower as it stands. I can’t imagine the rendering you linked being any better. It looks like a Kenner toy.
I have ambivalent feelings about **some **modern architecture. I never liked the World Trade Center, for example, although it grew on me over time, and am certainly sorry about it’s fate. It’s absence makes me realize how great it really was.
As a Chicago example, I hate the CNA tower. Stark and orange. Nothing to soften it, and IMHO, nothing creative about it. A bland box that calls attention to itself through mere color. I like the Smurfit-Stone building, (diamond head, as my sister calls it) however. The boldness of it’s precipice fits in with the skyline, and is perfectly situated between the Prudential building and the old library.
Speaking of Libraries, the new main branch of the Chicago Publilc Library is a monstrosity, IMHO. The worst of both worlds. Shame, shame, on whoever approved that one! Probably a committee.
Thanks for addressing some of my points that others did not respond to.
Oh, my god…that’s ugly as HELL! Monstrosity is exactly the right word. It’s completely disproportional and what the hell are those giant things on the roof?
I think I had her confused with the female character from Atlas Shrugged.
Anyway, even if this girl is flawed, it’s the same theme: A beautiful female character who is to be raped by the objectivist hero, for purposes of wish fulfillment by the author.
Gropius’ entry looks like a typical office building from 1965 . . . but this was 1922! Lots of people are said to be ahead of their times, but he really was.
No, Ayn was talking about the “rape” scene in The Fountainhead.
Re Dominique as a “Mary Sue”, Ayn herself also said that “Dominique is me in a bad mood.” Though she never said it, I think it’s fair to say that Dagny is her in a good mood.
Within the context of Objectivist ethics/psychology, Rand and Branden belonged together, and it wouldn’t have taken much for her to convince him of this . . . the age difference would have been merely a temporary obstacle. In fact, “logically,” neither of them was in the right marriage in the first place. O’Connor was a pleasant but rather unremarkable man who had the physical attributes Rand was attracted to, and Barbara was a typical “icy princess” with only a fraction of Branden’s potential, but who also looked the part (I always picture Dominique as looking like Barbara Branden in the '60s). But neither was a match for Rand or Branden. That’s how they got their spouses to go along with the affair; all four knew that, in the context of their philosophy, the affair was inevitable and desirable. It’s only when looking at it from a non-Objectivist point of view that the logic of it breaks down. And of course Rand literally “wrote the book(s)” on how infidelity can be noble.
