Ar aš buvau paskutinis žmogus Žemėje dar neskaitęs Šaltinio?
Nesuprantu kaip Rand jį sugebėjo suraityti 1943-aisiais. Ar žmonės anuomet galėjo taip išmąstyti? O gal genijams laikas yra tik bereikšmė sąvoka? O gal vidutiniškumas yra amžinas?
Atsimenu kaip pusė lietuviško socialinio tinklo putojosi išvadinti vidutinybėmis, keikė genijais save laikančius, dar buvo dalis prisipažinusių, kad gerai jaučiasi vidutiniškame kailyje.
Rand tobulai viską sudėlioja į lentynas. Perskaitykit, jei taip purtotės to epiteto. Žinosit, ką daryt ir ko nedaryt.
O jei rimtai - didelė knyga. Ir tikrai ne dėl to, kad 800 puslapių.
Prilyginčiau Mažam gyvenimui.
Dabar sunku bus prie kitos pereit.

Brandon's Review:
Initially going into reading Fountainhead, I knew that it was a very important work in the framework of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, focusing on the strength of the individual, reason, and personal achievement. Despite knowing this, I was still somewhat taken aback by how ingrained and constant the implications and comparisons to Objectivism were. I was expecting a book with some philosophy, but got a work of philosophical fiction.

This is not entirely a bad attribute about the book. I found the process of seeing the philosophy and ideas grow over time interesting and enlightening. However, at many points in the book, it did feel as if Ayn Rand was attempting to smash her ideas repeatedly into my head with a large hammer. It is repetitive and constant, especially near the backend of the book. I most definitely do not agree with Rand's take on an ideal world, but it was nonetheless interesting to see a philosophical point of view that I was unfamiliar with.

At many points, I became frustrated with Fountainhead, as the actions of many characters are strange and complex, while at other times, the two main characters become semi-caricatures. Roark is the noble and steady hero of the book, representing man as Ayn Rand believes they could be. Peter Keating reflects the opposite, the worst aspects of mankind. Throughout the book, Ayn Rand uses dichotomies to compare and contrast what she believes is the superior way of doing things. Socialism vs. Capitalism, the masses vs. the individual, Roark vs. Keating. Generally speaking, the motives and plans of the character within this book can be traced back to a battle between these various dichotomies.

The book overall is based on two architects trying to make it in the world, but generally speaking, the architecture stands as a backdrop for Rand to supplant her philosophy. I will say that I enjoyed the architecture within the book, and the allusions drawn between real buildings and architects and their novel counterparts.

If I were grading this book on how much I agree with the ideas and philosophy, I would give it a one. Despite this, the complaints and annoyances I feel towards Fountainhead and Rand, the overall experience of the book is worth more. The characters are so deep, their motives are so complex, and the interplay between different actors was interesting to say the least. It is a definite slog to get through at points, but I can definitely see why Rand, Objectivism, and this book have stood the test of time and inspired so many.

Ayn Rand was one sick puppy.

A great PBS documentary on what happens when Any Rand takes over a real-world company.

pbs (dot) org/newshour/economy/column-this-is-what-happens-when-you-take-ayn-rand-seriously

This book is a big epiphany-getter in American high school and college students. It presents a theme of pure, fierce dedication to honing yourself into a hard blade of competence and accomplishment, brooking no compromise, ignoring and dismissing the weak, untalented rabble and naysayers as you charge forth to seize your destiny. You are an "Army of One". There is undeniable sophomoric allure to this pitch. It kind of reminds me of all those teenagers into ninja stuff and wu shu and other Oriental mystical crap (supported by a cottage industry of silly how-to magazines and catalogs for throwing stars and whatnot). "I will forge myself upon the white-hot anvil of hard experience into a mighty warrior..." or some such.

I read "The Fountainhead" in college, and so did a bunch of classmates. I found that the people who were *really* taken with it tended to be borderline-pompous cretins who had some moderate talent in something -- art or music, say -- and thought that Ayn Rand had just given them permission to uncork their amazing true spirits, that only an over-adherence to social convention was holding them back from greatness. Uh, no... that's not what's holding you back from greatness...

It reminds me of how so many students "really relate" to Holden Caulfield, when the real Holden would think they were total phonies.

To be fair, Rand's ideas about the supremacy of self-reliance, the false comfort of altruism, the exaltation of a gritty and decidedly male competence, the sublimeness of pure laissez-faire capitalism... they are interesting to consider. Not making excuses, getting off your ass and working to become really good at something that's in line with your true nature, staying true to your personal ideals of what Quality is, not compromising those ideals for expediency, fear, or social pressure -- these are workable ideas in themselves. However, they are put on a ridiculously high and isolated pedestal in Rand's work.

If children did not exist in this world and life was entirely about your career, maybe I could agree a little more. But only a little. Her worldview is just too cold and transactional and rigid and productivity-oriented. She's a libertarian wet dream, I guess, and I feel the same way about them both -- some thought-provoking ideas there, but I don't see it working at all as a broad basis for any kind of world I'd want to live in.

Oh yeah, and to circle back for a bit to the actual novel -- the prose is wooden, and characters are flat, and it is twice as long as necessary. Maybe three times as long. It's basically a giant propaganda tract. But it has a surprisingly strong grip on a certain stratum of the American consciousness, so I think it's still an interesting read in that respect. In order to invest the time in it though, I think you have to be the literary equivalent of the film buff who eagerly takes in B-movies as well in order to savor their peculiar inverse contributions to the art form.

So there was this girl I loved, deeply loved, and our love was key to the end of my first marriage. We didn't cheat physically, although there was no avoiding or denying the intellectual and emotional cheating that just being in each others' presence elicited, but my partner/wife felt that something was wrong with our "friendship," and she was right.

C--- and I had been in love for a couple of months, and it was the night before I was leaving for my anniversary trip. I was meeting my partner/wife for a weekend of Shakespeare plays, good food and theoretical love making (which never happened), and I was having a final cast party at our home after the summer production of one of my plays. My partner/wife was already near Stratford, Ontario -- home of Canada’s Shakespeare Festival. She was at her family reunion, and at the time I had no idea she was with her lover (I later discovered that their affair had spanned countries and years); I felt paradoxical Catholic guilt for my pseudo-adultery and the liberation of being freshly in love as I sat at my backyard pool and let my feet brush C---'s in the cool water under the moonlight.

That night she told me of her love for Ayn Rand's Fountainhead, a book I'd long ignored, supposing it and its politics were not for me. She opined about Objectivism and selfishness, and I was intrigued as only one in love and full of their own selfishness could be. So when I reached my first airport bookstore in DC the next day, I sought a copy of Fountainhead and bought it during my layover. It became a constant companion during the rest of my trip.

The next day I began racking up the largest cell phone bill I've ever produced, talking to C--- at all hours of the day and wherever I happened to be: once I was on the edge of a field full of dairy cows, often I was at the local pub imbibing Black & Tans, and the rest of the time I was in my cousin's empty house (he was on a camping weekend, and I was staying there until I hooked up with my partner/wife) amidst his kitschy Elvis memorabilia. When I wasn't talking to C---, I wrote, I watched bad T.V., and I alternated between Rendezvous with Rama and Fountainhead. Somewhere in those three days I rented Boondock Saints (another favourite of C---'s), and then, as if fate were taking a hand, I turned on the CBC and caught the documentary Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life. Coincidence, but a fascinating one that made me enjoy and love the book more than it deserved.

And I did love the book. I’ve never read it again -- and I really disdain Objectivism -- but there was a clarity in Rand’s prose that was captivating. She goes on and on, but she does it beautifully, which makes me understand why her ideas are so beloved by those on the other side of the political membrane. She propagandizes like Goebbels. She makes you want to believe. Hell, she even makes rape seem acceptable (ish). And as long as you don’t pay too much attention to what she said and focus, instead, on how she said it, the Fountainhead is a masterpiece.

If it weren’t for C--- I don’t know that I’d have given this book another thought, but there was a C---, and this book means something more to me than it should. How bizarre is man?

Quyển này đáng lẽ được 6 sao. Mà phải trừ bớt 1 sao vì cái kết nhảm xàm nhất trong những cái kết nhảm xàm. Kiểu như tác giả lên cơn: Trời ơi tui mệt quá rồi tui hành hạ bản thân cả nghìn trang rồi giờ tui chấm hết lẹ để tự giải thoát. Trong lúc phẫn uất cần xả hơi thì lỡ dại đọc ngôn tình, đầu óc lúc này đề kháng kém nên lỡ nhiễm, nhiễm rồi lại lỡ bê vô đứa con đang la ó đòi ra đường.
Mình đọc Suối nguồn lần đầu năm 17 tuổi, xong bỏ dở chương cuối vì lúc đó nặng đầu quá không tiếp tục được nữa. Năm ngoái mới đọc lại và đọc hết. Xong tự khen hồi xưa dốt dốt nhưng được cái may mắn, trời xui đất khiến không đọc hết, nhờ vậy mà giữ lại ấn tượng vô cùng tốt đẹp về Suối nguồn. Còn giờ, nó mãi mãi là một tiểu thuyết vĩ đại với một cái kết lười biếng.

The rape scene from the Fountainhead. Ugh!

https://www.aynrandisdead.org/the-fou...


Ayn Rand's sociopath role model....

https://hartmannreport.com/p/american...

======

more on Rand....

https://www.salon.com/2015/10/14/libe...

Είναι κακό απ' όλες τις απόψεις. Είναι κακογραμμένο, η πλοκή γεμάτη λογικά κενά και η φιλοσοφία που πρεσβεύει όχι μόνο επικίνδυνη και ηθικά χρεοκοπημένη, αλλά επίσης, έαν την κρίνει κανείς με την κοινή λογική, κατά βάση εντελώς ηλίθια.

Well I finished it. I want to write a review. In fact, I have been 'writing a review' of this book the entire time I've been reading it--in my head--I like this, I don't like that, etc. It's a deeply flawed book, there is no question, and yet, and yet, there is also no doubt that there are some profound nuggets of truth that she shines lights on which make us wince. Her depictions of the hypocrisy of/in so much of human social behavior was outstanding! Her acknowledgement of the way so many are afraid of other people's success ... as if it somehow negates their own is also very accurate and well-portrayed. There were many sections of the text which I highlighted because I liked them so much and yet long-winded soliloquies used as conversational speeches, I could have done without. They often broke up the flow of the story and usually didn't convince me of her argument.

Even so ... I still want to write a review and this isn't it.

But here it is:

As I am 212 pages into Ayn (pronounced Eye-n) Rand’s Magnus Opus, Atlas Shrugged, I expect this review might be somewhat colored by a growing understanding of her philosophy which – at least so far – is made more clear in AS than TF.

What I am coming to realize is that hers was a philosophy of pure business, i.e., business for business’ sake with very high ethical standards of its own. That her views do not represent any ‘side’ but point out truths which are uncomfortable for all sides is, in fact, what led to her own unpopularity and yet the enduring value of her work.

To her, GOOD = pure capitalism, ethical businessmen who want to produce quality goods/services, provide gainful employment for those who wish to work and show a profit because the work/business itself is what is right and good. Businesses do not exist for altruistic reasons; they exist for their own existence. And yet they do benefit society to the extent which they meet the three objectives stated above. This ‘GOOD’ presupposes its mutual understanding and support by all concerned parties on many levels and does not (so far as I can see) take into account such things as crony capitalism, human egos or vices/virtues and/or the fact that one person is never all one thing or another, not all good or all bad.

EVIL, by contrast—according to Rand—is anything/anyone who would hamper or collectivize individual initiative in the realization of the stated GOOD above, whether through weakness, ignorance, outright opposition or claims of ‘what’s owing’ the rest of society, in particular those less fortunate.

In her desire to clarify her philosophy in a work of fiction, Ms. Rand sacrifices the flow of story. Well, we have seen this in other books and it can be forgiven. Readers are always free to skim long soliloquies when editor/publishers are overruled by loquacious and enthusiastic authors.

However, the real question of The Fountainhead is, are man and society as Rand portrays them? Is her story realistic and does it have merit on that basis? First, what about society? Well of course, she simplified things for the sake of a novel. The reality is so much more complex I wonder it could ever be portrayed in fiction that was entertaining. And yet for a book written in 1943 which supposedly reflects American social and commercial values from an even earlier era, I found the book as relevant, honest and accurate a description as anything I’ve read today. Her characters, however, seem polar representations: either ‘all good’ or ‘all bad’, with fools falling into the latter category.

However, as this was meant to be didactic book, a ‘rub the puppy’s nose’ in his mistake lesson, she knows what she did and why she did it. The character’s opportunities to choose one way or another kept coming throughout the story and each time you knew it and hoped he/she would choose the higher path. That was the intention of her book. Our question is can we forgive her?

A central tenant of the book was how many of us are afraid of other people's successes ... as if another person’s accomplishments in some way demean our own. Do we celebrate or begrudge them? I am thinking of Jesus here and when He told the Parable of the Talents. We are not given equal talents but we are all encouraged by our Maker to use and not bury them. I will save the rest of what I want to say about her atheism for my review of Atlas Shrugged.

Ms. Rand was Howard Roark. She lived his life. No, she didn’t build pieces of avant-garde architecture; she wrote books people hated, vilified and misunderstood. And yet she knew what she believed and she stood by it regardless of what others thought of her. She had a rare and total integrity to her principles.

I admire her very much. A classic work—certainly flawed and a bit campy for my tastes, but hugely entertaining. I will return to it again! Now on to finish AS.

Hated her philosophy. Loved her ability to write a great story.

- Ти какво искаш? Съвършенство, или какво?
- Или нищо. Както виждаш, избирам нищото.
- Това е нелепо.
- Избирам единственото, което човек наистина може да си позволи. Свобода, Алва, свобода.
- Това ли е за теб свободата?
- Да не искам нищо. Да не очаквам нищо. Да не завися от нищо.

Из „Изворът“ – Айн Ранд
Превод: Божидар Маринов

this review is bizarrely getting votes from people i don't know, so let me just reiterate that the text of the prediction is from mcsweenys, in case it's not clear that all i did was a little cutting and pasting.

instead of reading this book, just read ayn rand's superbowl prediction in mcsweeney's and you'll get the idea:

When he saw Bill Belichick in the hallway before the press conference, Tom Coughlin's face contorted into a whine. "It isn't fair!" he shrieked. "You have all the best players!" he whimpered. "What happened to helping your fellow man?!" he mewled. "You ... all you care about is winning!" he sniveled.

The muscular coach set his prominent jaw, and his hard, handsome eyes glistened. "Why, Tom," he asked with a smile, "isn't winning what the NFL is all about?"

Coughlin's face turned bright red as he flapped his effeminate hands in hysterical gestures. By this time, a large crowd of reporters had gathered. "But, but ... your players are the best in the league! Your offense is unstoppable! How am I supposed to go on the field with my weak players or my simple, predictable playcalling?? We'll be destroyed! I tell you it isn't fair! We deserve to be helped! This is social treason!"

Belichick squared his broad shoulders as he stared Coughlin in the eye. The smaller man cowed and threw his hands to his face in a pathetic flail. "Tom," said Belichick, "I bet nobody has been honest with you in your entire life, so let me be the first. I was taught in the ways of strength. Yes, my men will win today. But it's because we've had the courage to act on our judgment, and the fortitude to trust our decisions. Long ago, we were faced with a choice—the same choice you faced. We chose conviction. You chose impotence. And now, today, you ask me not only to cut my wrists and bleed on your behalf ... oh no. You would also have me fund, design, and build the knife. You accuse me of social treason, and yet you beg me to betray myself." The beautiful man laughed a throaty, attractive laugh. "You are a coward, Tom, and a coward in this world deserves nothing."

With a great cheer, the reporters stood in unison and applauded.

Prediction: Patriots 326, Giants –27