{"id":204472,"date":"2017-07-08T21:38:19","date_gmt":"2017-07-09T01:38:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/the-fountainhead-serpents-tooth-patheos-blog\/"},"modified":"2017-07-08T21:38:19","modified_gmt":"2017-07-09T01:38:19","slug":"the-fountainhead-serpents-tooth-patheos-blog","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/atlas-shrugged\/the-fountainhead-serpents-tooth-patheos-blog\/","title":{"rendered":"The Fountainhead: Serpent&#8217;s Tooth &#8211; Patheos (blog)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>    The Fountainhead, part 1, chapter 10  <\/p>\n<p>    Peter Keating is attending a party thrown by another architect,    a pompous old windbag named Ralston Holcombe who designs state    capitols and other monumental buildings. He secretly despises    Holcombe and is only there for appearances sake. Hes glancing    at his wristwatch, calculating the time when it would be    permissible to leave, when he notices another guest across the    room. Its Dominique Francon:  <\/p>\n<p>      She stood leaning against a column, a cocktail glass in her      hand. She wore a suit of black velvet; the heavy cloth, which      transmitted no light rays, held her anchored to reality by      stopping the light that flowed too freely through the flesh      of her hands, her neck, her face.    <\/p>\n<p>    So her skin is transparent? I cant picture this scene in my    head without imagining her as a glass frog, which you have to admit changes the    tone somewhat.  <\/p>\n<p>    Peter goes to find Guy Francon, asking him to make    introductions. He does, but then excuses himself as soon as    possible, as if he cant stand to be around his own daughter.    Dominique seems to be amused:  <\/p>\n<p>      I have waited to meet you for such a long time, Miss      Francon.    <\/p>\n<p>      This will be interesting, said Dominique. You will want to      be nice to me, of course, and yet that wont be diplomatic.    <\/p>\n<p>      What do you mean, Miss Francon?    <\/p>\n<p>      Father would prefer you to be horrible with me. Father and I      dont get along at all.    <\/p>\n<p>    Peter tries to brush this off, insisting that he can make up    his own mind about her regardless of what her father thinks.    Dominique is unimpressed:  <\/p>\n<p>      Dont say that Im beautiful and exquisite and like no one      youve ever met before and that youre very much afraid that      youre going to fall in love with me. Youll say it      eventually, but lets postpone it. Apart from that, I think      well get along very nicely.    <\/p>\n<p>      But youre trying to make it very difficult for me, arent      you?    <\/p>\n<p>      Yes. Father should have warned you.    <\/p>\n<p>      He did.    <\/p>\n<p>      You should have listened.    <\/p>\n<p>    See, that was funny! Even though Rand     hardly ever writes satire, lines like this almost make me    convinced that she had a hidden talent for it.  <\/p>\n<p>    Its a common problem in fiction to make the heroes into    humorless do-gooders, and this was especially pronounced in    Rands case. The seriousness of their mission rules out all    fun. Often, its only the bad guys who get to be clever and witty and complex,    because theyre not bound by moral standards and can say    whatever theyre thinking. That certainly seems to be the case    here. By the time Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged, she was no    longer willing to give herself that license, and we got    villains who were as bland as the heroes.  <\/p>\n<p>    Trying for a compliment, Peter tells Dominique hes been    reading her column. He remembers too late that     one of her latest entries was an attack on his work. Shes    undaunted, apparently taking it for sarcasm:  <\/p>\n<p>      Oh, yes, she said. The Ainsworth house. You designed it.      Im sorry. You just happened to be the victim of one of my      rare attacks of honesty. I dont have them often. As you      know, if youre read my stuff yesterday.    <\/p>\n<p>      Ive read it. And  well, Ill follow your example and Ill      be perfectly frank. Dont take it as a complaint  one must      never complain against ones critics. But really that capitol      of Holcombes is much worse in all those very things that you      blasted us for. Why did you give him such a glowing tribute      yesterday? Or did you have to?    <\/p>\n<p>      Dont flatter me. Of course I didnt have to. Do you think      anyone on the paper pays enough attention to a column on home      decoration to care what I say in it? Besides, Im not even      supposed to write about capitols. Only Im getting tired of      home decorations.    <\/p>\n<p>      Then why did you praise Holcombe?    <\/p>\n<p>      Because that capitol of his is so awful that to pan it would      have been an anticlimax. So I thought it would be amusing to      praise it to the sky. It was.    <\/p>\n<p>    I admit Im having trouble picturing the typical reader of    Dominiques column. She could be the architectural version of a    catty gossip columnist or a ferocious movie critic, affording    her readers the entertainment of seeing which withering    insults shell unleash on the latest crime against good taste.  <\/p>\n<p>    But apparently, thats not her idiom. More often, she praises    places she hates, just for the sake of her own private    amusement. So does her column appeal to bored housewives and    dilettantes who dont know any better? Or is it for jaded    cynics who enjoy seeing garish buildings trashed in print? It    seems anything that would appeal to one of those demographics    would turn off the other.  <\/p>\n<p>    Peter asks her if she knows Ellsworth Toohey. She replies in    the affirmative, and even says she admires him, despite the    fact that he has principles and she has none. She calls him    sheer perfection in his own way:  <\/p>\n<p>      Sometimes, when I feel bitter against the world, I find      consolation in thinking that its all right, that Ill be      avenged, that the world will get whats coming to it       because theres Ellsworth Toohey.    <\/p>\n<p>      What do you want to be avenged for? She looked at him, her      eyelids lifted for a moment, so that her eyes did not seem      rectangular, but soft and clear.    <\/p>\n<p>      That was very clever of you, she said. That was the first      clever thing youve said.    <\/p>\n<p>      Why?    <\/p>\n<p>      Because you knew what to pick out of all the rubbish I      uttered. So Ill have to answer you. Id like to be avenged      for the fact that I have nothing to be avenged for.    <\/p>\n<p>    Peter tries to continue the conversation, but she abruptly    seems to lose interest and drifts away to talk to someone else.    Later that night, he meets Guy again, who offers to drive him    home while making excuses for Dominiques behavior and    lamenting his failures as a father:  <\/p>\n<p>      I never know how to speak to her. He sighed. Ive never      learned to. I cant understand what in blazes is the matter      with her, but something is. She just wont behave like a      human being. You know, shes been expelled from two finishing      schools. How she ever got through college I cant imagine,      but I can tell you that I dreaded to open my mail for four      solid years, waiting for word of the inevitable. Then I      thought, well, once shes on her own Im through and I dont      have to worry about it, but shes worse than ever.    <\/p>\n<p>    This is a small thing, but its so telling: Dominique has no    backstory, no explanation for how she came to be this way. A    good author, when introducing a character, will     explain or at least hint at the life experiences that shaped    them into who they are now, so that we the readers can    understand them and sympathize with their choices. We have    nothing like that in her case.  <\/p>\n<p>    Granted, characters with no origin and no backstory are a    common trope in Ayn Rands novels. Witness Howard Roark in this    one, or John Galt in Atlas Shrugged. But at least Rand    writes her solitary heroes to have no families or close    friends, so it makes sense that no one has insight into them.  <\/p>\n<p>    For her part, Dominique has a father. But even he has no idea    why she is the way she is. The text mentions vaguely that her    mother died at a young age, which could provide an    interesting and plausible explanation of how her faith in    humanity was shattered. (Imagine a scene where Dominiques    mother promises to always love and care for her only to break    that promise by dying, which leads Dominique to decide shell    never trust anyone ever again.)  <\/p>\n<p>    But as far as Im aware, the text never suggests this or any    other explanation. It doesnt even seem interested in posing    the question. Dominiques perverse nihilism is a given. Even    the characters who want to cure her of it have no interest in    finding out why she holds those views to begin with. This fits    with Rands general style, where the characters arent really    characters, but philosophical principles disguised as human    beings.  <\/p>\n<p>    Image credit: Orest via Wikimedia Commons, released under    CC BY-SA 2.0 license  <\/p>\n<p>    Other posts in this series:  <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>Read more here: <\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"http:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/daylightatheism\/2017\/07\/fountainhead-serpents-tooth\/\" title=\"The Fountainhead: Serpent's Tooth - Patheos (blog)\">The Fountainhead: Serpent's Tooth - Patheos (blog)<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> The Fountainhead, part 1, chapter 10 Peter Keating is attending a party thrown by another architect, a pompous old windbag named Ralston Holcombe who designs state capitols and other monumental buildings.  <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/atlas-shrugged\/the-fountainhead-serpents-tooth-patheos-blog\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[187827],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-204472","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-atlas-shrugged"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204472"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=204472"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204472\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=204472"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=204472"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=204472"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}