# The Fountainhead, is it worth it. **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [April 9, 2003, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fountainhead-is-it-worth-it/167564 "2003-04-09T15:42:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![beajerry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@beajerry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beajerry)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fountainhead-is-it-worth-it/167564/41 "2003-04-10T23:08:19Z")
Books by Talbot Mundy are more adventurous, spiritual, and fun than Ayn’s over-written tomes. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fountainhead-is-it-worth-it/167564/42 "2003-04-10T23:17:34Z")
I didn’t read _Fountainhead_, other than skimming it. Yeah, I mean Eddie from _Atlas_. I liked him because he wasn’t a demi-god or a demon. He was just an everyday, average guy. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fountainhead-is-it-worth-it/167564/43 "2003-04-10T23:34:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Edward The Head \* > **Ok, like every other writer on the subject hasn’t defined reason and emotion. Aristotle, Kant and all the rest tried to define reason and emotion so I guess Rand is not allowed?** Two points. 1. We’re not discussing Aristotle, Kant, and all the rest. 2. IIRC, none of them said their entire epistemological views could be summed up in a single word. A word with a single, common, definition. > [@](#): > > \*\*I found the definition of emotion thus: > … > irrational is not a part of the definition so the first part of your agrument is flawed. \*\* Dictionary definitions are typically careful to use simple concepts when explaining what a word means. Using the word “irrational” in the definition of “emotion” may confuse people who don’t know what “irrational” means. Dictionary definitions are written for succinctness and clarity. Arguing that because a specific word wasn’t used in one particular dictionary’s listing therefore the word doesn’t mean that is pretty farfetched IMHO. If I felt it mattered I could point out that something which “arises spontaneously” would be pretty hard to fit into a rational/logical framework as well. A more comprehensive definition, perhaps one in a usage guide, may well include mention of the relationship between the concepts of emotion and rationality. I wouldn’t expect it in a basic dictionary. This doesn’t mean it is wrong to say emotions are, by definition, irrational. Are you arguing that emotions ARE rational? Cause if so I’m gonna ask you to prove it. If you just want to throw definitions at each other and pretend it proves something then I’ll return your volley with another cite from [dictionary.com](http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=emotional). The thesaurus entry for “emotional” > [@](#): > > Entry: emotional > Function: adjective > Definition: passionate > Synonyms: affecting, ardent, disturbed, ecstatic, emotive, enthusiastic, excitable, exciting, fall apart, fanatical, feeling, fervent, fervid, fickle, fiery, heart-warming, heated, histrionic, hot-blooded, hysterical, impassioned, impetuous, impulsive, **irrational** , moving, nervous, overwrought, pathetic, poignant, responsive, roused, sensitive, sentient, sentimental, spontaneous, stirred, stirring, susceptible, tear-jerking, temperamental, temperamental, tender, thrilling, touching, warm, zealous > Antonyms: unfeeling, impassive, cold, dispassionate, insensitive, emotionless, unemotional > Concept: mental sensing > Source: Roget’s Interactive Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.0) > Copyright © 2003 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved. Now can we stop this silliness? Emotions don’t play by the rules of Reason. You know it, I know it, pretty much everyone knows it. Rand said the way to understand our world and figure out what is what is by using logic and reason. How can we understand motives/actions which have their roots in emotion if the only tool we have to understand or world, Reason, is fundamentally incompatible with emotions? It is a hole in Rand’s philosophy. I consider it a serious one, you may not. To each their own. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fountainhead-is-it-worth-it/167564/44 "2003-04-11T00:44:35Z")
Metro: So, based on what you’ve read here, are you going to take the plunge? You gott tell us… ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fountainhead-is-it-worth-it/167564/45 "2003-04-11T08:09:05Z")
I’d like to thank **The Scrivener** and **Sam Stone** for some of the only accurate reporting on Rand’s work in this thread. Those of you who think Rand’s philosophy is “heartless” or “cold” seem to be quite lacking in any fundamental understanding of artistic inspiration. Rand extolls passionate pursuit of life. She also demands that such pursuits be based upon reason and not some vague notions or superstitious foundation. Her ability to take the somewhat arcane subject of architecture and convert it into a substantial life-lesson about the detriments of compromise and conformity is a commendable accomplishment. While I do not define myself as an Objectivist, there is much merit in maintaining an unblinking gaze upon the motivational structures of one’s own behavior and that of others. Feel free to belittle or ignore the her praise for those who are creative and make solid contributions to the world we live in. As an inventor, I find her regard well placed and not far from the mark. I feel a consistent awe for the achievements our civilization is built upon. Having spent most of my life in an effort to appreciate scientific and artistic endeavor, there is much in her work that resonates with my own love of worthwhile innovation. Her hatred of collectivism is pretty well entirely justified. One look at the intense misery experienced in post-Soviet Russia speaks volumes about the after effects of such a thuggish kleptocracy. Be it Red China, North Korea or so many of the African nations, putative leaders who are willing to drink their people’s blood are apt and deserving targets of her wrath. To assume a somewhat Taoistic approach, you have to draw the line somewhere. There is an old quote that says, “To live is to take sides.” Dark must be separated from light, good from evil and life from death. Quite honorably, Rand made a demonstrable effort to side with reason and justice. A life devoid of any mental distinctions drawn is one lived without much light being shed by it or within it. The virulent contempt displayed in this thread for her philosophic approach would be intensely amusing if it weren’t so often unaccompanied by any constructive criticism. I have seen little methodical analysis or expository dissection of any inconsistencies or contradictions contained within her writings. Until such an effort is made, I am obliged to discount it as so much gnashing and wailing. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fountainhead-is-it-worth-it/167564/46 "2003-04-11T14:28:27Z")
I haven’t seen my take on “The Fountainhead” expressed yet, which means (I guess) I’m the only pro-capitalist, pro-free enterprise regular on the SDMB who found “The Fountainhead” laughably bad, in spite of the fact that I read it at 17, when I should have been most susceptible to its supposed charms. Look, I AGREED with the fundamental principles espoused in the book… and yet, I still found myself snickering at the overwrought language, the stale speechifying and the love scenes (which could have been lifted directly from a bad Harlequin romance). ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fountainhead-is-it-worth-it/167564/47 "2003-04-11T14:41:10Z")
Oh **Zenster** , your criticism would mean so much more had this been a serious discussion of Objectivism. We were simply throwing out a couple of blurbs which summarize some objections to the philosophy in a casual setting. Now you come in and call us sloppy debaters and that our opinions are “gnashing and wailing”(I also don’t have “virulent contempt” for Rand or her work, but I’m willing to chalk that up to a simple Randite single-mindedness to demand everything fit into their own “black and white” prejudices). I’ve acknowledged that there are both benefits and drawbacks(some of which I consider serious) to the philosophy, but I said the novels are pretty good reads as stories in and of themselves. You want to start a serious discussion about Objectivism? Fine, pop into Great Debates and start one(I’m not promising to participate BTW, I’ve done this so many times in so many different contexts that I’m kind of burned out on talking about Objectivism). You want to come into this thread and denounce our casual conversation as “virulent contempt” and demean us because of lack of “methodical analysis” and act like a snob? Piss off. The OP was about the Fountainhead, worth reading or not. From the posts so far it has been pretty clear that many people think the books are good reads but the philosophy is sketchy. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Wumpus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8c91f0/32.png) [@Wumpus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wumpus)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fountainhead-is-it-worth-it/167564/48 "2003-04-11T15:42:47Z")
The thing speaks for itself: "Howard Roark laughed. He stood naked at the edge of a cliff. The lake lay far below him. A frozen explosion of granite burst in flight to the sky over motionless water. The water seemed immovable, the stone flowing. The stone had the stillness of one brief moment in battle when thrust meets thrust and the currents are held in a pause more dynamic than motion. The stone glowed, wet with sunrays. …The wind waved his hair against the sky. His hair was neither blond nor red, but the exact color of ripe orange rind. …His face was like a law of nature - a thing one could not question, alter or implore. It had high cheekbones over gaunt, hollow cheeks; gray eyes, cold and steady; a contemptuous mouth, shut tight, the mouth of an executioner or a saint. He looked at the granite. To be cut, he thought, and made into walls. He looked at a tree. To be split and made into rafters. He looked at a streak of rust on the stone and thought of iron ore under the ground. To be melted and to emerge as girders against the sky." And that’s just the first page. For better or worse, there is much, much more. ---
**Author:** ![Wumpus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8c91f0/32.png) [@Wumpus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wumpus)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fountainhead-is-it-worth-it/167564/49 "2003-04-11T16:10:42Z")
The thing speaks for itself: "Howard Roark laughed. He stood naked at the edge of a cliff. The lake lay far below him. A frozen explosion of granite burst in flight to the sky over motionless water. The water seemed immovable, the stone flowing. The stone had the stillness of one brief moment in battle when thrust meets thrust and the currents are held in a pause more dynamic than motion. The stone glowed, wet with sunrays. …The wind waved his hair against the sky. His hair was neither blond nor red, but the exact color of ripe orange rind. …His face was like a law of nature - a thing one could not question, alter or implore. It had high cheekbones over gaunt, hollow cheeks; gray eyes, cold and steady; a contemptuous mouth, shut tight, the mouth of an executioner or a saint. He looked at the granite. To be cut, he thought, and made into walls. He looked at a tree. To be split and made into rafters. He looked at a streak of rust on the stone and thought of iron ore under the ground. To be melted and to emerge as girders against the sky." And that’s just the first page. For better or worse, there is much, much more. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Scrivener](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@The\_Scrivener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Scrivener)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fountainhead-is-it-worth-it/167564/50 "2003-04-11T18:37:35Z")
Well, you know, some architecture students are rather eccentric… Anyway, didn’t that scene set the stage for a flashback to the immediate past, when Howard Roark drops out of architecture school? Dropouts have been known to act even stranger still. Also, I don’t think that scene made it into the film, and more’s the pity. 😃 FWIW, I _love_ the first page of the novel. It managed to introduce the singular interiority of Howard Roark (how he views the world, from that architecture/developer viewpoint); it also introduced him as a physical presence in a strikingly original way and established his character and personality as enigmatic, ambiguous, and inscrutable. Not a bad start for any novel, if you ask me. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fountainhead-is-it-worth-it/167564/51 "2003-04-11T22:19:03Z")
**Mtgman** , while this may be a book thread and not a Great Debate concerning Objectivism, I’d like to point out that people here are providing _critiques_ that are often devoid of _critical thought_. Even an ordinary book review usually has more content than most of the vitriolic punditry in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fountainhead-is-it-worth-it/167564/52 "2003-04-12T00:08:31Z")
**Zenster** , the OP set the tone of the thread. If the guy hasn’t tackled the novel because he’s intimidated by its thickness then why in hell would someone think he would be interested in a detailed, in-depth review of the book replete with superb critical analysis? A two-line OP tends to engender short replies. He got those replies, many with a minimum of explanation of why the answer was as it was. That seems to be fine with him, but not you. Well, last time I checked, it was his thread. If you want to hijack it into a Great Debate on Objectivism(or a Pit thread which is just another chapter in the war between Randites and non-Randites), that’s your perogative, but don’t lambast those who had participated so far because the discussion wasn’t up to your standards. Your standards weren’t in force for this thread. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fountainhead-is-it-worth-it/167564/53 "2003-04-12T00:51:22Z")
Let me see if I understand-if we dislike and criticize The Ayn, we have no concept of what true art is? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fountainhead-is-it-worth-it/167564/54 "2003-04-12T03:34:51Z")
Guin: Who said that? I happen to like Rand’s work. She tells a great story, creates interesting characters, and poses challenging moral questions. Art is such a subjective thing. If you find her work too unrealistic, that’s you’re perogative. Rand would be the first one to tell you, though, that realism is the farthest thing from her mind when writing fiction. ---
**Author:** ![NinetyWt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/cc9497/32.png) [@NinetyWt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NinetyWt)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fountainhead-is-it-worth-it/167564/55 "2003-04-12T17:43:40Z")
Feh. I enjoyed both _The Fountainhead_ and _Atlas Shrugged_. My recommendation to the OP: try a few chapters and see how it goes. IIRC the first time I read _The Fountainhead_ it took me about six months; read for a while, put it down for a while. I don’t get all the flap about Ayn Rand. How come a person can’t just read the book and enjoy it for what it is? You don’t have to agree with her philosophy to enjoy a good story. Her stuff kind of reminds me of old Art Deco buildings ~ sometime’s they’re so _exquisitely_ ugly ~ such eye-candy ! ---
**Author:** ![raisinbread](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8491ac/32.png) [@raisinbread](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raisinbread)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fountainhead-is-it-worth-it/167564/56 "2003-04-12T17:46:37Z")
> **[an open letter to ayn rand](https://www.bonequest.com/546)** > > BoneQuest No. 546 for March 25th 2000 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fountainhead-is-it-worth-it/167564.md?page=2)