Talk:The Fountainhead

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

This article is supported by WikiProject Objectivism, which collaborates on articles related to this philosophy. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Toohey and Roark's Equivs.

"If Roark is Wright, then it is reasonable to propose that his nemesis Ellsworth Toohey is a composite of Henry-Russell Hitchcock and Philip Johnson. In an exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art in 1932, Hitchcock and Johnson first lauded Wright as a precursor to what they dubbed the International Style, of the generally politically left-leaning Bauhaus architects. A few years later, they revised their view of Wright, seeing him as a "Romantic individualist"."

I disagree with this - Toohey is pictured in the novel as pure evil, a man who admits (in private, to Keating) to be destroying human achievement and the human spirit by praising incompetence ("Build up Lois Cook and you've destroyed literature.") and attempting to destroy real creators like Roark or Cameron. I don't think there's a historical figure like that (I could be wrong, though). Dehumanizer 20:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I disagree as well. Although, you might say that some Soviet leaders did that to stay in power.D prime 04:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

HELLO! why do we so often believe that Rome was the greatest civilization of its time? why do we forget the eastern hemisphere? you dudes ever hear of a cat named mao? chinese cultural revolution ring a bell? his actions perfectly articulate what toohey tried to do merely through influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredpcantrell (talk • contribs) 19:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as Rand denied it, and I don't believe it my self, I change the claim that Roark was 'almost certainly' based on someone else to, 'likely'. Along with that, I acknowledged that Toohey was a lot more obvious and aware in his being 'evil', and didn't change much else in that part, because it simply says that it is 'reasonable to think so'.

To the entity residing at 69.160.25.136: Nice job on the plot summary; I think your changes helped, and as you noticed my memory concerning the order of certain events failed me. Thanks. Ataru 03:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I got rid of the "If Roark is Wright..." text since there was no citation given, and I've never read it. It seems to me like someone just making an unwarranted hypothesis. LaszloWalrus 08:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Philosophically...
Ellsworth Toohey = Immanuel Kant
Gail Wynand = Friedrich Nietzsche
Howard Roark = Ayn Rand HSchickel 21:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I ask all of you, is not a Wikipedia article antithetical to the fundamentals of objectivism?71.107.223.89 20:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. So what? Wikipedia is not bound by the tenets of Objectivism. (nor, obviously, could it ever even try to be). Would you argue that it would be better for the Wikipedia to be utterly silent about her and her works? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.201.182 (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
I disagree, and believe that anyone with more than a superficial understanding of Objectivism would see that Wikipedia and Objectivism do not at all contradict. Anyway, that is irrelavent. It is not Wikipedia's policy to ignore or give alternative consideration to subjects the philosophy of which may contradict the purposes of Wikipedia.D prime 02:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism

The entire text of "plot summary" has been taken directly off sparknotes.com. it needs to be written by somebody who can do more than cut and past off the internet. http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/fountainhead/summary.html

[edit] Poorly written sentence

"Dominique Francon is presented as the perfect mistress for Roark, but over the course of the novel has to learn not to fear society and to not let their flaws hinder one's integrity." I can only guess what this is trying to say (I assume it is Dominique who "has to learn", but even so the referent of "their" is unclear, and while I suspect that "one's" alludes back to Dominique again, that is a mere guess). Could someone please rewrite this, to whatever degree is necessary to make it coherent?

[edit] It wasn't primarily a 'test.'

Though even I wasn't sure of this situation the first time I read it, Dominique and Roark didn't refrain from being together because she was 'testing' him. The reason was that she believed that greatness, which she could acknowledge, was doomed to failure. That is why she told him to give up architecture and live with her and he denied the offer. Ayn Rand has referenced this in her book The Art of Fiction, and I believe that there are others. I'm going to correct this soon.

Yes, the above sentence, which I may have written and do understand, is faulty. I'll correct it.D prime 01:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pop culture references

It's also mentioned in the Warren Beatty "Heaven Can Wait." —This unsigned comment was added by 72.145.148.165 (talk • contribs) 11 March 2006.

[edit] Neutral Point of View

I have disputed the neutrality of this article and will continue to do so until significant corrective measures are undertaken. The tenets Ayn Rand's philosophy rendered within The Fountainhead are well-explained in this article; at the same time, these tenets are extremely controversial and have not been endorsed by the vast majority of modern academic and philosophical thinkers. While popularity may have no bearing on the objective philosophical truth, this article fails to proportionately outline the controversy.

For example, the only criticism of Rand consists of one, single-sentenced statement which is then proceeded by a vigorous rebuttal which is clearly intended to reinforce the strength of Rand's ideas rather than establish the grounds upon which dissenting voices answer Rand's philosophy.

Therefore, the criticism of The Fountainhead and the Objectivist philosophy which undergirds it must be gathered and elucidated before this article conforms to the neutral point of view policy. Until then, this article remains biased.

I have restored the NPOV objection to this page as it was removed without discussion and without addressing the issues which currently necessitate its inclusion.--Tom Joudrey 11:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I've done this twice also, to this article and to Atlas Shrugged, though I don't personally think either article is especially biased. Opabinia regalis 04:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the NPOV tag - a critique of Objectivism is not appropriate on a page which discusses a fictional work. It would not be correct to include criticisms of Scientology in a NPOV article about Battlefield Earth (although this would be appropriate in an article about Scientology in general), nor would it be appropriate to discuss reactions to existentialism in an article about Sartre's "Nausea" (although this would be relevant in an article about "Being and Nothingness"). Similarly, an article about the Fountainhead should be an article about _The Fountainhead_, not about the Objectivist philosophy which Ayn Rand only formulated several years later. Discussing criticism of her ideas would be appropriate in an article about one of her technical books (eg "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology") or in an article about Objectivism itself, but not in one about a fictional work. Gordon Ross 28 May (UTC)

Yeah hi. I'm new to this whole wiki thing (extremely so), but I know that if you want the portion discussing the Library of Congress' confiscation of the first and last pages of the manuscript, you should link the LA Times article http://www.peikoff.com/essays/library_la.htm, not the whole site.

As a non-objectivist who finds Rand readable, amusing, and disturbed, I find no objection to the neutrality of this article. Please make sure that you critique her writing and not her ideas. (Sourced) criticism about her ideas can be placed on any of the Ayn Rand or Objectivism pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Duncan (talk • contribs) 23:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the neutrality of this article is of no real concern when it's the neutrality of the book of which you focus. The points of view presented within the work should not be a concern. The presentation of the points shall be of issue. In this case, I find no considerable error in the points presented in the book itself and recommend the removal of the neutral notation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalblister (talk • contribs) 02:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoilers

PLease add the "end of spoilers" tag to the appropriate area. As it is now the article only has a beginning of spoilers tag and that makes the rest of the article risky to read. Thanks.

[edit] Gail Wynand...

Does he really need his own article? I mean, the information that's there isn't even too much to be included in this article. It just seems strange that he is the only one with a separate article...Thoughts?67.142.130.36 05:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)JSto

Yes, he needs his own article. He is a many-faceted character. Ellsworth Toohey also needs his own article, and several of the other characters could also be written about. Let's all take this as an invitation to write these articles. Gator007 21:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question on Skousen Criticism

How could Rand have responded to Skousen's criticism, when he wrote his criticism in 2001 and she died in 1982?

[edit] Literary significance and criticism

I think it's a bit strange that there are so many quotes saying "The Fountainhead" is a book worth reading but only one that shows a weak point. Moreover the second quote disagrees with that statement and one could get the impression that the first opinion is totally wrong and must not be discussed. This article agruments in favour of this book (not Rand's philosophy). You can't find any negative quote about its literary significance. One could believe there are no negative responses. So it seems to me there is a POV. Remember: Audiatur et altera pars! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.53.48.13 (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

It's a very weak section. It should either be amplified - with one hopes a rounder selection of views on her work - or dropped entirely. Bacrito 19:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember originally there being both several positive reviews and several negative reviews, although that could have been for Anthem. All of the negative reviews seem to mysteriously disappeared. I would suspect that this page had recently been sugarcoated by a hardcore Objectivist. I'll try to find the other criticisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.29.111.62 (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That certainly seems to be the case. How else could this section, for a book that got mostly negative reviews, now contain quotes only from a pair of glowingly positive reviews? 71.203.209.0 (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Synopsis Incorrect In Major Ways

I just finished this book today. The synopsis indicates that Dominique never married Keating (wrong) and there are other inaccuracies. I have no time to deal with this at this point, but the current synopsis is not to be trusted.--Fizbin 02:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wrong chronology

the chronology ist wrong. the relationship between gail wynand and dominique francon starts long after the "quarry" and long after the meeting between dominique and howard at this gala. 139.174.197.81 18:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Personal Comment

Someone has commented on Howard Roark as to being a "pretentious asshole with delusions of grandeur" under his description. This comment cannot be edited or deleted.

[edit] Plot Summary

The plot summary...as others have pointed out is still very inconsistent with the novel... in fact I would put this as completely altering the mood of the novel. Please, read this book for yourself do not trust this article in its current state.

Jonbyron 01:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Jonbyron

Is there an available Wiki tag that we can place on the article to let readers know that the plot summary is totally fraudulent, until such time that someone has the time to fix it?--Fizbin 15:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Here are a few problems with the synopsis off the top of my head:
1. Dominique is never engaged to Peter; she invites him to marry him and they marry that very day.
2. Wynand never unsuccessfully asks Dominique to marry him before the encounter with Roark. If I recall correctly, Wynand doesn't ask Dominique to marry him until the Stoneridge exchange, when she accepts his offer.
3. The workers don't strike because of the newspaper's position; they strike because Toohey and others are fired.
4. The thing about the engineer blowing up the building at the end is bunk, unless my version has an alternate ending...
Poor synopsis. 68.98.113.199 05:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, the "summer-long yacht trip" was actually December through April. 151.151.21.102 20:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we fix it ourselves, I am still in the middle of reading it so I can't help. I'll find a cleanup tag. Marlith T/C 04:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've already pretty much rewritten the plot summary a few days ago. I just got done reading the book, so it should be pretty close. ShatteredArm 06:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

k, so I'm looking to expand the fountainhead (film) since that's how I was first introduced to Ayn Rand's works... but I have to say the Plot summary, while complete is way to long. It would be much nicer if it could be segmented into parts. Either by chapters (chapters 1-15, chapters 16-30) or by common theme like location (him at school, Roark at first job, Roark at mine, etc). Right now it's hard to read.--Sparkygravity (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

I've reverted two edits by 66.245.132.153 (talk · contribs) that didn't seem justified. It was pointless copy-editing, i.e. hyphenating "word of mouth", removing relevant information, and bordering on a non-neutral POV at places. The current section on the Library of Congress could use sources and a neutrality check, though. Reinistalk 22:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverted an another one that was blatantly non-neutral this time.[1] Reinistalk 23:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the above edits Dominique meets Roark prior to marrying Peter. And a small comment on this edit. The workers strike because the men were fired, but as a condition of going back to work the asked that the paper change it's position on the Roark case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.201.31 (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Category:Philosophical novels

Ok , nice cat, but where is this explained in the article? Aleichem (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rand Shrugged

I happened upon this article "whilst roaming the back rooms." I readily admit that I am a fan of Ayn Rand's work. Ive read her books---more than once. I hope no one takes offense if I do a little chopping here and there. It's a bit wordy, don't "ya think? I did some rewording and rewriting on Roark and Toohey. I'll check back in a week or two to get feedback. If all the duplicated, peripheral, un-necessary "you-don't-even-have-to-read-the-book" stuff is removed, it can be a good article. In a funny way, its like one of Roarks archetectural drawings--someone adding a gargoyle here, a meander there, a stairway to nowhere over there.--Buster7 (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

...............Who is John Galt?...........--Buster7 (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Characters

I moved the characters around so that they would reflect the order as stated. They were out of sequence. Also, in some places the article reads like high school homework..."Write a 1,000 word essay on The Fountainhead." Well-intentioned but over stated and redundant. If someone minds...stop me before I edit again....--Buster7 (talk) 04:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In the section re--Gail Wynand. The mention of similarities to Randolph Hearst is out of place here...I'm not sure where they should go???--Buster7 (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)