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> <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 ==========