Ah, but the film version of “The Fountainhead” is definitely worth the rental! Freudian subtexts bursting through practically every scene, simmering homo-erotic tensions between the two male leads, and just the notion that anyone could get anyone else to care so much about architecture or that there’s an international architectural conspiracy bent on siexing power from the masses! It’s in my Top Ten. Aynnie wrote the script. It made me want to read the book just to see if it could possibly be as swoony as the movie.
On another note, does anyone have that “Objectivism on one foot” thing that Rand came up with? She was challenged to give a definition of Objectivism while standing on one foot and did.
Oh yeah-well, that’s true. I thought you were referring to her and Hank.
“YOu want it?” “Rough!” Or something like that.
Yeah, the names border on the absurd. BALPH?? WHAT THE HELL???
The only character I liked was Eddie. Probably because he was such a minor character, he wasn’t a perfect ubermensch or a “looter” or whatever. He was just Eddie.
In regards to the OP, “Who is John Galt?” is a rhetorical question in the book. Sort of a long the lines of “Who the hell knows?”. If you want to know more finish the book yourself. (Quitting halfway through and then asking others to tell you what the point of the book is is simply lazy)
For the rest of the Ayn Rand haters, calm down. While I admit that she wasn’t the best writer ever their are people who are worse. Also, though you may hate it, Rand’s philosophy has been and still is a major influence in political thought. (Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman was a Rand devotee).
BTW, The Fountainhead was a thinly veiled Bio of Frank Lloyd Wright.
FWIW, I enjoy (and respect) Rush–and yes, I’m a musician, albeit a part-time one currently. I’ll also cop to having read Atlas Shrugged twice. The first time I was 19, and it impressed the hell out of me. The second time was a couple of years ago, mainly to see if it was as good as I remembered it being. It wasn’t. Can’t comment on The Fountainhead, as I’ve never gotten around to reading it.
Just to counterbalance the undoubtedly snotty subtext here: I’ve also read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, a book of essays she edited and contributed to. While there were (a number of) things in there with which I disagreed to a greater or lesser extent, most of said essays were at least thought-provoking enough that I’d recommend this book as an interesting read.
With respect to the finer points of Objectivist philosophy I really can’t make anything approaching an intelligent comment, since philosophy in general has always made my eyes glaze right over.
Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
and the fact that all the liberal, humanitarian villains in the story were described as having poor posture, weak chins, doughy features, etc…as if these are the true marks of Cain.
Ever been to Chapel Hill, NC? Not too far from the truth.
I was a Rand enthusiast as a teenager, and I’d like to say a few words on her behalf.
Rand’s appeal to teens has been well noted in this thread, and I think it is good. Any writer who can make teenagers care about Greek philosophers, economics, architecture and epistemology deserves a little credit. And the experience of discovering a philosophy, adopting it, and then reluctantly admitting that it seems to be lacking in some fundamental aspect is a good experience for a young adult. It was for me, anyway.
The Fountainhead’s secondary theme, that of the beauty of competence, has stayed with me. The scenes where Roark works as a lowly construction worker, and later as a short-order cook, and takes as much pride and satisfaction in these ‘menial’ tasks as he does in architecture . . . I think this is a great idea, and (although Rand will be spinning in her grave at this) it laid the groundwork for my later appreciation of Zen.
I think The Fountainhead is a much better read then Atlas Shrugged.
BTW, Rand’s characterization of Woodstock, alluded to elsewhere in this thread was (this is from memory but I think I’ve got it right) “a bunch of scummy savages wallowing in the mud”.
:rolleyes:
What the hell is this supposed to mean? Or can I make a willd guess that you haven’t actually read Rand’s work? Because if you had then you would know that she was totally against communism, fascism, and slavery. Perhaps had you, and it seems most people in this and every other thread, would have read anything you would know that the main point of Rand’s was that no one has any right to tell anyone else how to run their life.
Roark wasn’t a short order cook, that was one of the characters from AS, he did work in a quarry though. I do not see how Zen is a whole lot different in some aspects, at least in my very limited understanding of Zen.
Ah, so a philosophy that is based on individual freedom is equal to communism, fascism and slavery? Did I read that right JT? You really need to read Rand and understand what she wrote about. Rand hated and fought against communism, fascism and racial hatred. Apparently you do not know what the hell you are talking about.
I think the point is that just because Rand allegedly had a big influence (and that is EXTREMELY debatable!), that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good thing.
I agree, Guin, though JThunder could have made his/her point a bit more accurately.
I think that Rand does have influence among many high school students who have high ideals for their future possibilities. When you’re (or at least, when I was) young and naive, Rand’s ideas sound like grand expressions of individual potential and freedom. However, when looked at from a more mature, less selfish perspective of adulthood, Rand’s vision becomes a little more frightening, a little less fair, and much less desirable.
I saw someone reading The Fountainhead on the ferry this morning. Thinking of what this thread had to say about it made me smile.
No, you did not. In fact, I respectfully challenge you to show where I suggested any such thing.
Sigh. Okay, let’s go over this once more. Step. By. Step.
The claim was made that Ayn Rand deserves credit because her philosophy “has been and still is a major influence in political thought.” (For the sake of argument, let us assume this claim to be true.)
Communism, fascism and slavery have also been major influences in political thought, yet they are rightfully despised by civilized people everyone.
Ergo, having had major influence in political thought is not something which automatically deserves merit.
Note that this is NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, the same as saying that Rand was a communist, a fascist or a racist. The error lies with those who choose to read this bizarre interpretation into my remark.
Please see my remarks to sleestak on this very same matter. The point is merely that having had strong influence (or in Rand’s case, allegedly strong influence) is not necessarily a positive thing. That much should be obvious to anyone.
Or, as Guin so eloquently stated, “D’uh.”
Besides, if Rand truly claimed that “no one has any right to tell anyone else how to run their life,” then such a statement is immediately self-refuting. Do we truly have no right to tell anyone how to run their lives? If so, then Rand has no right to tell anyone else that they shouldn’t tell anyone how to run their lives!
No offense, but can you point out precisely where the error was? Was there any factual error in the statement, “Big deal. So were communism, fascism and organized slavery. That doesn’t make these philosophies any more palatable”? Guin caught this immediately, and I daresay that its meaning should be fairly obvious.
Granted, some people ascribed unto this the bizarre interpretation that “Rand’s philosophy = communism, fascism and racism” – but that error lies with the readers in question, not in the text itself.
The error was one of omission… you ommitted a statement saying that you were not making an association between to ideologies you mentioned and Rand’s philosophy. By mentioning those ideologies in the same breath, an association is implied. I “got” what you were saying at face value pretty much right off the bat, but I can see why the others made the interpretation they did.
In another thread, I recently had to admit that a statement I made had valid interpretations other than what I had intended. Because of a lack of clarity on my part, another poster made an interpretation of my words that was valid, even though it was not what I had intended. I think that’s the problem here, as well.
In short, just because your intent was clear to you, that doesn’t mean your words conveyed that clarity. Isn’t it possible that the error lies with both the readers and the text itself?
No offense, but I hardly think that constitutes an “error.” Do we REALLY have to anticipate every single wierdo interpretation that people might throw our way? Do we REALLY have to assume that SDMBers lack basic critical thinking skills?
Faceit; the intepretation ascribed by sleestak and Edward the Head came from out of left field, and rightfully deserved Guinastasia’s “D’uh!” reaction. It might be prudent to anticipate some errors, but we cannot anticipate every single one – and ESPECIALLY not the gonzo ones which bear no resemblance to earthly logic.
FTR, I do understand why people might make the association in question. It’s the sort of interpretation that occurs when people read with the intent of disagreeing, rather than with the intent of understanding. While we can expect some people to respond that way, I think it’s quite unfair to blame the writer for not anticipating such off-the-wall readings.
Sometimes, yes… but with all due respect, I do not believe that applies in this case. I won’t claim to be infallible, but if there was an error in anything I said, nobody has yet to identify the error in question.
Ok, you say so were much like talking about baseball as a sport then saying so are football, soccer and ping pong. You are grouping them together.
But not by me, I said nothing about poltics.
I think the biggest problem is that people see the word selfisness and get all bent out of shape. In no place did Rand ever say do what ever the hell you want, yet people seem to think she did.
HE KNOWS he was grouping them together. How can anyone have a problem with that? Both Objectivism and Marxism are schools of thought that deal with (among other things) the philosophical bases of how people and societies should function. JThunder is inviting the reader to COMPARE them in the sense of whether either is inherently any more valid than the other in that role, and you can’t do that without drawing a category that includes both ideas.