Has anyone read 'The Fountainhead'?

ryanciara

Hi,

Has anyone read 'The Fountainhead'? I have never read it and I wanted to know what you thought of it.

Swiper the fox

ryanciara wrote: »

Hi,

Has anyone read 'The Fountainhead'? I have never read it and I wanted to know what you thought of it.

According to Wikipedia over 6.5m people have bought it, I assume a few of them have read it!!;)



Sorry I can't be any more help. Why don't you read it if you have it or else get it from the library, I find it to be the best way to make a judgement.

Yeah it's not bad but I much preferred atlas shrugged

ush

Wouldn't use it as toilet paper. She was a speed junkie. Those poor things lose empathy with fellow human beings. Its shines through in her "work". And to think some people base a philosophy on her manic scribblings....

Sulla Felix

ush wrote: »

Wouldn't use it as toilet paper. She was a speed junkie. Those poor things lose empathy with fellow human beings. Its shines through in her "work". And to think some people base a philosophy on her manic scribblings....

So is that a yes, you've read it, or did you read about it on the internet?

Anyway OP, it's worth a read. Shorter than Atlas Shrugged and the characterization is better but really, if you're reading philosophical novels you're reading it for the ideas and the prose. Whether you agree with the ideas espoused, Rand is a powerful writer. That said if you're specifically looking for novels with a philosophical bent I'd recommend Hesse or Camus (or hell, Philip K Dick, just don't be put off by the sci fi)

Oh no no, the characterisation isn't better at ALL, imo. The female chars in F are useless altogether compared to Dagny
The main fellow Roark is just a pure caricature of himself with poor writing (imo) compared with Rearden who you can certainly understand a lot better

ush

Sulla Felix wrote: »

So is that a yes, you've read it, or did you read about it on the internet?

I've had her fans try and shove it down my throat enough. Her whole philosophy is garbage.

drumswan

It is, along with the even more dire 'Atlas Shrugged' - poorly written, childish nonsense which attracts the right wing equivalent of the spotty Socialist-Worker newspaper seller. Give it a read, if only to understand why sneering at internet libertarians has become as popular as some international sports.

Sulla Felix

ush wrote: »

I've had her fans try and shove it down my throat enough. Her whole philosophy is garbage.

What would that be?

Ardeehey

I've read...purely out of curiosity, enjoyed it as a story but some of the deep running philosphy is insane. Really enjoyed We The Living...read it after The Fountainhead as I a little more curious...but I don't believe in the underpinning ideas

Sulla Felix

Sulla Felix wrote: »

What would that be?

"you're not entitled to other people's stuff/labour just because you want it" - terrible nonsense

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i read in the huffington post that ayn rand once chopped the legs of a baby and threw it into a squash court full of starving single mothers.

that's just the kind of person she was.

drumswan

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

i read in the huffington post that ayn rand once chopped the legs of a baby and threw it into a squash court full of starving single mothers.

Heard she was spotted there a couple of weeks later looking for a bite herself

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

drumswan wrote: »

Heard she was spotted there a couple of weeks later looking for a bite herself

well her money was used to build the court and paint the walls, she was certainly entitled.

drumswan

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

well her money was used to build the court and paint the walls, she was certainly entitled.

Yeah shes all for such a system as soon as it suits her. Of course anyone else who supports such a system is evil. Like I said, childish, simplistic nonsense.

If my money was taken from me I'd want it back too. Absolutely childish indeed

In other news, I met a mean person once who said the sky was blue so clearly it can't be because they were mean

drumswan

bluewolf wrote: »

If my money was taken from me I'd want it back too. Absolutely childish indeed

Brilliant, another supporter of a centralised bureaucracy to collect taxation and administer such things as a social safety net, aul Ayn is in great company

ush

Sulla Felix wrote: »

What would that be?

She called it objectivism, if memory serves me correctly.

ush

ryanciara wrote: »

Hi,

Has anyone read 'The Fountainhead'? I have never read it and I wanted to know what you thought of it.

To answer the original question, watch the film. I think she wrote the manuscript for that. She had worked in Hollywood before.

The book is around the 800 page mark (amphetamine- once you pop you can't stop) and badly written. There's so much wrong with the message and how its hammered out, that I don't care to start.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ush

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Actually, its not. Why read 800 pages of poorly disguised polemic when you know the premise is false, the author was unstable and the work is used to spread an unsustainable economic philosophy. Free-market think tanks promote Rand. If it weren't for that, she'd have been forgotten long ago.

Akrasia

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There's nothing wrong with reading something that you don't agree with. Everyone should read the prince by Machiavelli and the Communist manifesto. These books have the merits of being concise and very well written and powerfully argued. The fountainhead on the other hand is painful to read, it's far too long, the characters are poorly imagined and poorly written and the arguments are deeply deeply flawed.

It has had cultural significance amongst a fringe element in society, (and if you want to understand this fringe element, read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged in the same way that one might read Mein Kampf to understand Nazi culture) but to get a better understanding of libertarianism, it might be better to go to Hayek or Von Mises or Milton Friedman to see what the actual economic and political arguments are.

Valmont

ush wrote: »

Actually, its not. Why read 800 pages of poorly disguised polemic when you know the premise is false, the author was unstable and the work is used to spread an unsustainable economic philosophy. Free-market think tanks promote Rand. If it weren't for that, she'd have been forgotten long ago.

800 Pages you clearly haven't read or even skimmed. The Fountainhead has nothing to do with economics or the free-market. It is about individualism, aesthetics, integrity, love, and 'selling-out'. It is a novel about culture and art; Rand didn't commit herself to an exposition on economics and free-market philosophy until Atlas Shrugged was published almost a decade later.

You have just given the game away completely; you say the writing is terrible, the message is badly construed and then in the next breath tell us all you have no idea of what The Fountainhead is actually about. It's as stupid me telling people not to read Great Expectations because it's about anti-semitism. :rolleyes:

Valmont

Akrasia wrote: »

The fountainhead on the other hand is painful to read, it's far too long, the characters are poorly imagined and poorly written and the arguments are deeply deeply flawed.

It has had cultural significance amongst a fringe element in society, (and if you want to understand this fringe element, read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged in the same way that one might read Mein Kampf to understand Nazi culture) but to get a better understanding of libertarianism, it might be better to go to Hayek or Von Mises or Milton Friedman to see what the actual economic and political arguments are.

By referring to the non-existent political and economic arguments inThe Fountainhead and to libertarianism (which Rand despised) you are simply revealing a profound ignorance about a book your only connection to is that you hate the author for other reasons. And considering you clearly haven't even tried to read the book (instead thinking Rand=Right Wingers and leaving it at that), I don't take your literary criticism seriously. The characters are rich, complex, and allegorical and their interactions thrilling and pacy. I'm glad to debate this with you if you even read the back of the sleeve before posting again.

I wouldn't warn people off reading the communist manifesto because Karl Marx wrote dreadful poetry to Satan (he did) and therefore the communist manifesto must be a poorly written Satanic text (this would be nonsensical, no?).

The ignorance on display in this thread is frightening. Can we please just discuss the book and not drag politics into it. Start an Atlas Shrugged thread if you don't like Rand's politics or economics. The Fountainhead is an entirely different novel.

ush

Valmont wrote: »

The Fountainhead has nothing to do with economics or the free-market.

Yes and Animal Farm is about farming practices.

The Fountainhead preaches the message that an egoist can do as they want. That has political and economic aspects. Free market think tanks push the book for those reasons.

ush

ush wrote: »

The Fountainhead preaches the message that an egoist can do as they want. That has political and economic aspects.

Eh... you really mustn't have read it, so

ush

bluewolf wrote: »

Eh... you really mustn't have read it, so

Is there only one "correct" way to interpret a novel?

Akrasia

Valmont wrote: »

By referring to the non-existent political and economic arguments inThe Fountainhead and to libertarianism (which Rand despised) you are simply revealing a profound ignorance about a book your only connection to is that you hate the author for other reasons. And considering you clearly haven't even tried to read the book (instead thinking Rand=Right Wingers and leaving it at that), I don't take your literary criticism seriously. The characters are rich, complex, and allegorical and their interactions thrilling and pacy. I'm glad to debate this with you if you even read the back of the sleeve before posting again.

I wouldn't warn people off reading the communist manifesto because Karl Marx wrote dreadful poetry to Satan (he did) and therefore the communist manifesto must be a poorly written Satanic text (this would be nonsensical, no?).

The ignorance on display in this thread is frightening. Can we please just discuss the book and not drag politics into it. Start an Atlas Shrugged thread if you don't like Rand's politics or economics. The Fountainhead is an entirely different novel.

I read the book in college, well I read some of it, I couldn't finish it, the characters just pissed me off. The book was preachy. Howard Roark was portrayed as a ridiculously virtuous. I always considered Howard Roark to be an Aslan esq character. CS Lewis wrote Aslan as an allegory to represent christ because CS lewis was evangalising for christianity. Rand wrote Howard Roark as an allegory for her views on individualism or 'objectivism'.

I think I gave up reading when even Roark's antagonists started giving soliloquies about how honorable and virtuous he was. 'I hate that guy, he's just so perfect'.. It reminded me of the villians in a kids cartoon who are only there to allow the super hero to show off their super powers.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ush

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Same here.

But her praise of egoism, her disgust for weakness and the rest of her autistic world view was a result of her amphetamine abuse. Or maybe she was cracked to start with. Either way, the "reality" described in her novels and the sect that has grown around them, are based on a very sad view of humanity.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Same thing. It all amounts to "Screw you Jack, I'm ok".

ush

Akrasia wrote: »

I think I gave up reading when even Roark's antagonists started giving soliloquies about how honorable and virtuous he was. 'I hate that guy, he's just so perfect'.. It reminded me of the villians in a kids cartoon who are only there to allow the super hero to show off their super powers.

Oh the ranting soliloquies. Its like her characters are on speed too.

Jawgap

Read it in college (it's possible I was trying to impress a girl) - and thought it was pretty interesting and appealing. However, once you get a bit of life experience you realise it's a pretty forgettable piece of work.

Now, the band The Fountainhead.......wtf happened to them, they were brilliant!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ush

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So you don't think the symptoms of sustained amphetamine abuse, which include paranoia, aggression, hostility, unrealistic ideas of personal ability and power, could ever influence a writer's work.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ush

Her writing is so bad, and her philosophy so revolting, that you don't need to bring any biographical details to discredit it.

In fairness, I suspect she was autistic to begin with and couldn't relate to other humans. Her whole philosophy denies how we are reliant upon each other. You can't write credible fiction if you don't understand how people interact.

MagicMarker

I haven't read any Rand, not because of her particular philosophical brand but because I've heard her writing is quite poor. This thread is actually making me want to read it though, but it's not available on the kindle, oh the horror!

Valmont

Nothing like some controversy to garner interest in a book. Too bad I fell for it with 50 Shades of Grey!

Valmont

ush wrote: »

Her writing is so bad, and her philosophy so revolting, that you don't need to bring any biographical details to discredit it.

Yet that's exactly what you've been spouting in this thread.

Do you not realise the craziness of telling people what to think about a book they have read and which you have not? Considering you have telepathic and magical perceptual abilities perhaps you could criticise Bret Easton Ellis' current work in progress? Or perhaps you could render me an opinion on Kazuo Ishiguru's body of work to be published from 2020 onwards? Considering all you seem to need is a half a wikipedia page this request shouldn't bother you too much.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ush

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

:rolleyes:

ush

Valmont wrote: »

Yet that's exactly what you've been spouting in this thread.

Do you not realise the craziness of telling people what to think about a book they have read and which you have not?

Thank you for telling me what I have and haven't read.

Couldn't finish the book. I really did think it was that bad.

Even if you haven't read Rand, just look at the kind of people who praise her. Free-market think tanks and their ilk. You don't need to read Rand to get an accurate and negative opinion of her.

Valmont wrote: »

Considering you have telepathic and magical perceptual abilities perhaps you could criticise Bret Easton Ellis' current work in progress?

Actually I'd argue it doesn't really work that way. A specific work thats not been published, you'd need to read that. But you can have a valid opinion on an author, or political philosopher and their work, by knowing their place in the literary canon or the history of ideas. Familiarity with some of their other output helps.

Therefore if you're familiar with Rand's philosophy and aware of her terrible prose, then you can pretty much call it rubbish.

Valmont wrote: »

Or perhaps you could render me an opinion on Kazuo Ishiguru's body of work to be published from 2020 onwards? Considering all you seem to need is a half a wikipedia page this request shouldn't bother you too much.

Grand. But first tell me what is Pynchon is gonna do next? And has Roth really retired? Will Delillo write anything half decent again?

As for your wikipedia thing, Rand is put about a bit. I don't think she belongs to a list of lesser known forgotten authors. I wouldn't have a problem with a person having a reasoned opinion of say Marx or Smith or Hobbes or Rousseau, without them necessarily having read said philosophers. Its not like they lack secondary reading.

Valmont

• Ush tries to critcise a book he hasn't read by referring to content it doesn't contain.
  
• Ush says that he would not criticise an unpublished work as he should read it first.
  
• Ush says that if he knows about Rand's philosophy from 'secondary sources' (George Monbiot I'm guessing) he can therefore cast a definitive judgment on a work he has not read.
  
• His logic dictates, then, that he should be able to decisively criticise Pynchon's next unwritten book by referring solely to his previous works and his wikipedia page.

Are you going to continue this farcical critique, ush? Of a book you haven't read? And because it's by an author whose politics you dislike? Are you that blinded by ideology as to sidestep the actual arguments or to even engage the material? Or to conjure up any semblance of a logical argument? Perhaps I should start a thread about the communist manifesto being a long letter to Satan because Marx did that previously? If I use your standards, that is a perfectly reasonable stance to take about a book I might not have read.

Why stop there? Perhaps you could give us opinion on a novel Rand never even wrote? Evil Capitalist Story of Evil - you wouldn't have read it anyway and you feel qualified to judge things you nothing about so why not just take off further into a world of fantasy?

ush

George Monbiot? Now thats logical guessing. Could just as well pick any random lefty. Logical!

I don't really care what stance you take about any writer. I don't feel the need to get defensive about it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ush

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Asking children to share toys is a conspiracy?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

ush wrote: »

George Monbiot? Now thats logical guessing. Could just as well pick any random lefty. Logical!

George Monbiot wrote a lengthy opinion piece on Ayn Rand's work and made several references to the nonexistent novel Atlas Shrugs throughout (it has now been edited). So I suppose I should give you some credit for at least knowing the name of the book you haven't read that you don't like. If you're still offering your reviewing services I would love to hear your opinion on the denouement of Das Schloß.

ush

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There are ideological dimensions to everything.

ush

Valmont wrote: »

George Monbiot...

You lost me at Monbiot.

Bafucin

Weirdest books reviews ever ....although considering the subject matter it's not surprising.