[unalone]

Legally, no. Morally, yes.

Samuel Beckett, possibly the best writer since Joyce, insists that if you perform his play, you do it precisely according to his directions: you use his setting, you follow his directions, you don't edit a line. It is his idea. In Beckett's case, thanks to copyrights it was both legally and morally his right to demand that.

In Roark's case, he did not submit the plan under his own name. Therefore, he couldn't have a legal right to it (Peter's confession is legally shady ground). However, it was his idea and therefore his right to demand that it be created without compromise. I think the ending of that book is a fantasy that would never actually happen, but if I were on that jury, I'd vote to acquit.

[hugh]

I can see how Roark has every right to be pissed off, but I still can't see how that translates to the right to blow it up with dynamite.

Followup question: What if Roark were a lousy architect? (But still thought he was brilliant?) Of course we know he wasn't because the book never gets tired of telling us how brilliant he is, but what if his original plans actually did kinda suck and the alterations were actually improvements? (cf. the Sydney Opera House).

[unalone]

Well, if he isn't then the argument is moot. But we have to trust Rand, and trust context: a famous, controversial architect takes him under his wing and loves his stuff, and the right sorts of people like his stuff. I've found that similar situations occur in real life, where there are particular movements of people with similar beliefs.

If the original plans sucked... well, I think that morally he still has the right. But the point of the novel is that if they sucked he wouldn't BE in that situation. He submits plans because he wants to help the middle class, which will get hurt vastly by this plan. And his plans are good enough that his absolute worst enemy agrees with how practical they are.

Dynamite is the only way to remove architecture, especially if the rights to building it are removed from you. A playwright can choose to remove his play from circulation. An artist can rip apart a painting. Roark can't do that so easily. And I think he has the right to remove his idea even if it's brilliant. In particular, he and Peter signed a contract that Keating would get it built exactly to standards, and Keating broke that. So there's some moral precedent: signs of his anticipating this happening. It's not a random act. Similarly, playwrights can choose to retroactively deny you performing rights if you go to far. It's happened before. There was controversy over Pinter performing a Beckett play a year or two ago, where Pinter changed one of the core parts of the play. It was resolved in Pinter's favor only because Pinter was Beckett's good friend, and understands his work thoroughly.

What's this about the Sydney Opera House? I don't know this story.

And, because I've seen your name pop up before, I feel like I ought to tell you that even though we disagree a lot, I've liked every debate we've gotten into. Thanks. :-)

[KimStarr]

Rand thought that she was a great philospher when in reality she was a mediocrity.

Her heroes likewise see themselves as ubermensch when they are in reality nothing more than pompous assholes.

[unalone]

I disagree with "pompous" very much. Rand is many things, but she's very rarely pompous. She's quite down-to-earth.

She's great in that she's concise and accessible. She writes an incredible "gee-whiz" action story.

And, pardon me if this is off the mark, but I've noticed 4 accounts being made in the last hour, all of whom have the same attitude to this conversation, all of whom comment twice. Are these all throwaway accounts? I've never seen something like this happen on Hacker News before.