Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: will.dockery@gmail.com (W.Dockery)
Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments,rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: The Psycho-epistemolgy of MMP
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2025 16:03:07 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <5d3aa6752926160497430db98bccace0@www.novabbs.com>
References: <3410e67b167ee373e49c66f99f295981@www.novabbs.com> <d5fffe0b8562f2f7f4c8e0b985d90146@www.novabbs.com> <bb5fd0750e61f0a707c85743147ce6f2@www.novabbs.com> <1177479458636a309cde2ff0e472d0b3@www.novabbs.com> <64c658dc4e9f4988e0880f08531ca469@www.novabbs.com> <36b34349a69606654d72105fa45eb298@www.novabbs.com> <206a8107437a8172ef57087379468e76@www.novabbs.com> <5d72a5e79a1671c8d398f294fea2d120@www.novabbs.com> <7ae73bad2b51a0612b41babe37e25038@www.novabbs.com> <7d49b53d6ad9d75059e5ee7d393c5c73@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2668265"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="Vf9CM7g99yqfGvzEHTw0bhrjcIfvzYBBhUuRma0rLuQ";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$2Pqhd6pr1UhUOYiW26y4Ee4i/MwMW/IYEmYXBkjcNaXDYPVcRxMga
X-Rslight-Posting-User: acd0b3e3614eaa6f47211734e4cbca3bfd42bebc

On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 15:29:48 +0000, HarryLime wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 11:47:59 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 20:25:03 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 19:31:19 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 1:56:45 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
>>>> "HarryLime" wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 23:24:09 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 5:20:24 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 23:38:44 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 4:07:04 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
>>>>>>>> For now I think of him as the Toohey type, but that could just be my
>>>>>>>> personal bias. The difference being that: Wynand was a Nietzschean; he
>>>>>>>> just wanted the power to control reality for itself, without any regard
>>>>>>>> for how it was used; while Toohey did have an agenda, a malevolent one
>>>>>>>> of stamping out and destroying all independent thought and creativity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmm... as a publisher, I foster creativity -- providing other poets with
>>>>>>> a forum in which to showcase their works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn't help; I'm sure that both Wynand and Toohey would have said they
>>>>>> were "fostering creativity." As a publisher, Wynand employed several
>>>>>> columnists who could write what they wanted -- unless they wrote
>>>>>> something he didn't like, in which case he'd "ban" (fire) them. That
>>>>>> last sounds like you. While Toohey's war on independent thought and
>>>>>> creativity was to assemble a collective of mediocre talents and promote
>>>>>> the hell out of them. That also sounds like you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm afraid the question is still unresolved, and you haven't done a
>>>>>> thing to help resolve it.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are devaluing Wynand.  Wynand's motivations were originally noble
>>>>> (in Ayn Rand's view), but he became corrupted (or, rather, compromised)
>>>>> over time.  Once having established a position of wealth and power, he
>>>>> wanted to hold onto it, and was willing to compromise his ethics in
>>>>> order to do so.
>>>>
>>>> Wyand's motivations were never "noble". He was a Nietzschean, whose only
>>>> motivation was power; he wanted to "run things." Not power to do
>>>> anything, but simply power in itself; while his newspaper ran periodic
>>>> "crusades" (like the one to destroy Roark), Wynand himself didn't care
>>>> about them. While he did have some things he valued in his private life,
>>>> he kept that strictly hidden away. they did not motivate his public
>>>> life; and there is no indication in the book that he had any ethics at
>>>> all.
>>>
>>> Hmm...
>>>
>>> I just rewatched the movie a year or so ago, and so am more familiar
>>> with that version of Wynand.
>>>
>>> I just googled "gail wynand character overview" to see if you the book
>>> version was different, and here's the first result that came up:
>>>
>>> "Like Roark, Wynand has extraordinary capabilities and energy, but
>>> unlike Roark he lets the world corrupt him. When we first meet Wynand,
>>> he is entirely a man of the outside world, exclusively involved with
>>> society and its interests. His youthful idealism has been crushed by the
>>> world's cynicism."
>>>
>>> That's pretty close to my description of him above.
>>
>> I'm glad you're googling.
>
> Of course I am.
>
> If I'm presented with information that conflicts with my current
> understanding of a given topic, I fact check/research to determine
> whether the new information  or my current understanding is incorrect.
>
>> The only thing the descriptions have in common
>> is that they're sympathetic to Wynand (which makes sense, since Rand
>> made him a sympathetic character. The difference is that the analysis
>> pointe out that Wynand is thoroughly corrupt, while you insist on seeing
>> him as "noble" and having "principles" and "ethics" though there's no
>> evidence of that. Like Toohey (and you) Wynand presents as exclusively a
>> "creature of the outside world," without any visible self.
>
> I suggest that you reread the analysis.  It says that "His youthful
> idealism has been crushed by the world's cynicism."  Generally, one's
> youthful idealism is a pure representation of their basic values -- it's
> who they see themselves as (often in an overly idealized or romanticized
> form).  This is the nobility at the heart of Gail Wynand -- much as Sir
> Galahad represents the youthful, untainted nobility of Dorian Gray.
>
> When examining The Fountainhead, one should also bear in mind that the
> protagonist of the book is Dominique Francon (a literary stand-in for
> Rand), and that Francon/Rand would not be married to a man who had no
> redeeming characteristics.
>
>
>> (Later we learn that he does have a self - symbolized by his private art
>> gallery - but the world is never allowed to see it. Once he finally does
>> come public with him, he
>
> You've broken off in mid-sentence again, George.  I'm therefore unable
> to determine what point you were attempting to make.
>
> Wynand was inspired by William Randolph Hearst, who was also the
> inspiration for Citizen Kane -- and the similarities between Wynand and
> Kane are so strong that they might as well be the same character (which
> they, in fact are; both having been based on the same real life person.)
>  Kane's youthful idealism (which is also corrupted over the course of
> his life) was expressed in his newspaper's manifesto, which promised to
> provide the public with an honest daily newspaper,
> to use the press to expose corruption in government, business, and
> politics;
> to be a champion for the rights of citizens and human beings; and to
> campaign for the poor and underprivileged.
>
> Wynand/Hearst/Kane all share the same noble principles, and all equally
> fall victim to corruption -- with Wynand alone finding redemption.
>
>
>>> Perhaps you're due for a "refresher" read of Rand's book.
>>
>> Or perhaps I should watch the movie, or, even better, google. :)
>
> Don't snigger too much about the movie, George.  The screenplay was
> written by Ayn Rand, who also oversaw the film's production, and whose
> contract stipulated that not one word of her screenplay could be altered
> or removed.  IOW: The film version is just as much Ayn Rand's vision as
> is the book upon which it was based.  Arguably, it is even moreso, as
> any differences from the book would represent changes in Rand's
> perceptions/beliefs.
>
>
>>>>> 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.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========