The Fountainhead discussion

Keryl wrote: "Masha wrote: "@Keryl- the reason The Fountainhead relationship is "tricky" is because Dominique is pretty screwed up when you meet her. She hates herself, hates the world, hates anything beautiful ..."

Roark likes challanging problems and Dominique is a challanging problemetic character, so he likes her :)
(A sort of joke but not entirely meaningless).

I don't remember Fountainhead well enough for the details of D and R. It's been at least fifteen years since I've read that one.

I do read AS every few years, so H and D stick out. My read on the love-at-first-sight thing is H is looking back at his relationship with D, and from the vantage point of years together, decides he loved her the first time he saw her. That strikes me as a much more real way of thinking about it than knowing she was his perfect mate at first sight.

Rand has a view that if something is true now, it has always been true (Which is something I don't buy, but that's a moot point.) so of course her characters must have always loved each other. I don't read it that way. A growing relationship between Dagny and all three of her guys is what I see. Instant attraction, instant interest, yes, but it's not love until time has passed.

I'll admit, I prefer Hank to Galt. Galt might be the ultimate philosophical construct, but Hank is real. Hank's sexual journey is one of my favorite bits of AS. (And here's how you can tell I'm not from the 50's) I'd loved to have seen him and Frisco end up together.

The romance is another reason why I like We the Living. It is a very dark novel, but Kira and her boys shows a very stark treatment of how love at first sight can bite you, and how external forces can destroy even the best of us.

Now I want to read all three again, in my copious spare time. ;)

Christine wrote: "I'm stuck. I admit that I only picked up this book because I got into a philosophy debate with a self-proclaimed objectivist who convinced me that this book was worth reading. I have to assume that..."

Don't read it for philosophy, read it as fiction...

Gary wrote: "Christine wrote: "I'm stuck. I admit that I only picked up this book because I got into a philosophy debate with a self-proclaimed objectivist who convinced me that this book was worth reading. I h..."

YES! I couldn't agree more.

Keep reading. Gail Wynand will make it all worth while...

Hilary wrote: "Keep reading. Gail Wynand will make it all worth while..."

Yep, probably the most complex character AR ever created.

The novel is a true test of readers'patience. I too felt like leaving it in between but then I wanted to know what happens to Howard Roark and I carried on. All the other characters are so detailed and lengthy that you are compelled to lose patience. I liked HR's individualism and therefore wanted to know about his life in detail but then so many other characters and their view points come in between that you want to jump to the end. I hated DF. I don't know but I couldn't sympathize with her because of her actions and reactions. She was nothing but spoiled.

The novel was also made into a movie and I saw that too but the movie twisted the tale. Like in the movie they don't show DF marrying PK...and a few other things. However, the overall subject and the underlying philosophy remains the same....

All, I can say is that the book very uniquely presents an important subject to the readers in the form of a story. It made me ponder and look at collectivism and selflessness from a different perspective that makes sense. Also, while people might think that HR was selfish but he was one with high self-esteem. He chose not to give up his principles for the sake of others like PK, ET, GW no matter how tiresome his journey becomes. That makes me respect his character but at the same time I confess that being HR in real life is not only difficult but unrealistic and impractical too.

@Christine: If you were disgusted with Roark and Dominique's relationship, I suggest you quit reading and pick this book up later from the beginning if you want to finish it. The book is not about the relationship of a man with others, it is about how a socialist society behaves when they find an individualist.

Rand's "philosophy" was not new. She had 'thought up' nothing original (Objectivism) that hadn't already been explored by Aristotle. She had merely romanticized it.

However, having said that, being the selfish prick who pursues the purest of his/her field does have its advantages for the Kind.

Then again, stating that this is the only way of life is a naive claim and a complete disregard for the concept of relative existence. Co-existence and governance are absolute necessities for the betterment of a Kind, and the exploration of knowledge.

Rand was a brilliant writer. I love her usage of metaphors in The Fountainhead. However, she was but a mere reactionary product of Soviet subjugation and was rather romantic about her reactionary theories. Taken as a novel that offers romantic lessons on the pursuit of the ultimate answers, it is brilliant. Taken as a Philosophy of life, governance, and coexistence it is naive, dangerous, and just plain silly.

Arth

Just got done watching The Fountainhead, which I thoroughly enjoyed, despite it being 67 years old. It's about an idealized version of Frank Lloyd Wright living in an idealized world where everyone is against his modern architectural ideas. I enjoyed the book and also enjoyed the movie. I especially liked the (few) special effects shots in the movie, which must have been so rare at the time (1949) but are so common today.

Considering the story is by Ayn Rand, I expected it to be about eating babies, but it was a really good book, and movie. The only bummer was, I imagined Lauren Bacall as Dominique Francone, and then I read on Wikipedia that she was actually cast in that role, but Patricia Neal got it instead for some reason. Having Lauren Bacall play this role would have been the best thing ever.

I also enjoyed Atlas Shrugged, though not as much. I am not a "Ayn Rand dittohead" at all, but read it for balance in my ideas. It was an amazing book, though deeply flawed.

May be people are not able to connect with people with characters in this book, I think the best age to read this book is from 21-24 and you have to be strong willed, this book is the best book I've read.