That scene did certainly take a weird turn. But the idea was that he knew her so well that he knew she wasn't actually saying no. In the real world, that's totally rape. In this fictional setting there was nigh supernatural subtext to the situation that made it otherwise. Like having a partner who screams "Oh no, oh stop (shortly to be followed by multiple yes's and then one shazaam)" when that's not really what they mean and you only know that because of your familiarity. Still an awkward and unnecessary situation. She did make the situation that on purpose, but he understood and that provides some relief from the gravity of the situation.IndieGinge said:Yeah, I'd say The Fountainhead was the last time Ayn Rand had any intellectually defensible ideas, before her ego consumed her entirely and all that. Except the fucking creepy self-inflicted-rape-seduction-romance between the the male and female leads. It's likely because her ideas look waaaay less awful when framed in terms of artistic idealism as opposed to economic and physical reality. She is a shit writer though, and the woman needed an editor who could actually take a machete to a piece of writing.
Did she write something before The Fountainhead that was equally intellectually defensible? Well, I don't know if intellectually defensible is the term. Her values and ethics, while starkly contrary to social norms, were intellectually pled. Perhaps morally defensable would be better suited to it?
I fully agree with you and find the books with a bunch of jerks in it to be a lot more entertaining. But tastes in literature are so subjective that I can't really blame people for disliking some works anymore than movies or TV shows. My disgust at Herman Meville's writing in Moby Dick were the chapters he went into intricate detail with full-blown chapters on topics that could not have interested me any less. Someone else may like the detail he went into. That's one of the same reasons I can't honestly put 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea at the top of my list despite really enjoying the story otherwise. It's well above Moby Dick though because Jules Verne was practically predicting electric submarines in the 1870's. But man if he didn't delve into biological matters in a similar manner to how a truly boring biologist would at finding a peculiar slug with a single red stripe. I get that it sets the tone, but in both Moby Dick and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea it was a boring tone it was setting unless you're fascinated by that subject in particular. And yet, I found the copious details in several other works to be fascinating. But that's just by topic, I suppose. A biologist or oceanographer (amature or otherwise) may have loved those sections in both.Also, while you're first point certainly is correct, looking at what a lot of people have to say about lots of the "literary" books on this thread, it seems like lots of escapists did in fact miss the point of their least favorite works. What worries me more is that people seem to automatically write off any story that has an abundance of characters who are "assholes". Which just looks close minded to me. We've all been assholes at times, and if people don't recognize that being a bit of a jerk can make the difference between a bland character and a bloody brilliant character, or make a banal story into one that has one hell of a lot to say under the surface
So, that's to say that subjectivity makes it difficult to judge one's evaluation of boredom unless their critic contains clear and objective innaccuracies. Like they got really bored during the Robinson Crusoe when Crusoe first opened up the casino and trained the native monkeys as butlers. Then you can really go, "What... no... that's wrong."