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.

I read it at the right time- that time when the body is young and capable of only genius and having unapologetic mind sex on philosophical rooftops with someone else as young and genius sounds like the highest good...or at least better than making out in a Sunday School room while your parents are at choir practice.

At 17 I thought this Earth-shaking and sexy. I thought it a moral imperative to try to get my little revolutionary hands on everything she ever wrote and by doing so stumbled right into the pit of Objectivism. I tried to wade through the muck and come out on the other side smarter, but I ended up climbing out of the hole, brushing my pants off and moving on to greener literary pastures.

I still like the book for its ability to garner fascinating discussions. But Objectivism's unforgiving nature (square pegs everywhere arise and prove your superiority to the round holes!)doesn't work so well now, at 30, with my own philosophy (sometimes you accidentally f*** up and it can't be helped and that's life and you apologize, go on, and try again).

The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand

Alice O'Connor, better known by her pen name Ayn Rand, was a Russian-American writer and philosopher.

The Fountainhead is a 1943 novel by Russian-American author Ayn Rand, her first major literary success.

In early 1922, Howard Roark is expelled from the architecture department of the Stanton Institute of Technology because he has not adhered to the school's preference for historical convention in building design.

Roark goes to New York City and gets a job with Henry Cameron.

Cameron was once a renowned architect, but now gets few commissions. In the meantime, Roark's popular, but vacuous, fellow student and housemate Peter Keating (whom Roark sometimes helped with projects) graduates with high honors.

He too moves to New York, where he has been offered a position with the prestigious architecture firm, Francon & Heyer.

Keating ingratiates himself with Guy Francon and works to remove rivals among his coworkers.

After Francon's partner, Lucius Heyer, suffers a fatal stroke brought on by Keating's antagonism, Francon chooses Keating to replace him.

Meanwhile, Roark and Cameron create inspired work, but struggle financially. ...

تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز دهم ماه آوریل سال 2001میلادی

عنوان: سرچشمه؛ نویسنده: آین راند؛ مترجم: مینا شریفی ثابت؛ تهران، نشر آبی، 1379؛ در 1063ص؛ داستانهای نویسندگان روسیه تبار ایالات متحده آمریکا - سده 20م

این کتاب برای نخستین بار در سال 1943میلادی به چاپ رسید؛ «سرچشمه»، داستان یک آرشیتکت نابغه، با دقت وسواسگونه است، که از عدم درک، و راحت طلبی دیگران، به تنگ آمده است؛ آرشیتکت «هوارد روارک»، در برابر دادگاه ظاهر میشود: او به منفجر کردن ساختمان بزرگ نوسازی متهم است؛ اتهام او نابود کردن اثری است، که خود طراحی کرده، چون اثر او را به رغم تضمین اکید، مبنی بر اینکه مطابق نقشه ی او ساخته خواهد شد، از محتوا خالی، و گویا بی پدرش کرده، و نمای ساختمان را با سلیقه ی مردم، منطبق کرده اند؛ خوانشگر در این فصل با یکی از صحنه های متداول دادگاه، در داستانهای «آمریکایی» روبرو میشود؛ «روارک» به تنهایی از خود دفاع میکند

ایشان دفاعیه ی خود را چنین آغاز میکنند: (چند هزار سال پیش، مردی برای نخستین بار آتش روشن کرد؛ به احتمال زیاد خودش روی انبوه چوبهایی که آتش گرفته بود، زنده زنده سوخت؛ او را بزهکاری انگاشتند، که از یکی از شیاطین، رازی را که از بشر پنهان شده بود، دزدیده، و برملا ساخته است، اما این کار او باعث شد، که انسانها خود را گرم کنند، خوردنیها را بپزند، و غارهاشان را روشن سازند(...)؛ «پرومته» به این دلیل که آتش را از خدایان ربود، به صخره ای زنجیر شد، و لاشخورها بدنش را تکه تکه کردند؛ آدم به دلیل خوردن میوه ی درخت شناخت، محکوم به تحمل رنجها شد (...)؛ افراد دارای «خلاقیتهای بزرگ»؛ «متفکران»، «هنرمندان»، «دانشمندان» و «مخترعان»، همواره یک تنه در مقابل دیگر انسانهای دوران خود ایستاده اند.»؛ ...؛ پایان نقل؛

روارک، این «پرومته» ی نوین، ارزشهای فردی را ستایش میکنند

تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 02/08/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 01/07/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی

Skaičiau metus. Buvo labai verta.

Egads, I hate this book. I first read it 6 years ago when I was 16, and I thought to myself, this book is an enormous pile of compressed dog feces. However, because I'm aware of the fact that our judgement at the age of 16 is not necessarily quite so excellent as most of us liked to think it was, I decided recently to reread it, and see if I understood what other people saw in this book.

I still have absolutely no clue. After slogging through it for a second time, I still think that it's 700+ pages of Ayn Rand's litany of "for the kingdom, the power, and the glory are mine, fapfapfap." Its plot is nonexistent, its characters are two-dimensional, and its philosophy has more holes than Swiss cheese.

A wonderful book. Having read a lot of negative reviews, I was apprehensive about what this book might be like. But it has a very simple message to give - Set yourself free.

At the beginning, I found Roark and Dominique incomprehensible, somewhat unrealistic and improbable as characters. Someone we do not usually meet even once in the course of our entire lives. Towards the end of the novel, I realised, THAT IS THE POINT.

To be free, one must pay the steep price our culture, our world demands of us. And many are yearning to be free, but either do not realize it, or or not willing to pay the price.

Howard's final speech sums it all up. People could not stand him because he reminded them of their inability to free themselves. Because he mocked them with his very presence. Because only his degradation into extreme poverty and obscurity could free the rest from the unacknowledged guilt within they were unprepared to face. People cannot stand an independent mind.

An unfettered mind is a dangerous entity. It not only treads unconcerned on its chosen path, it threatens to upset the facade of respectability and civilization that the world has conjured up so painstakingly, at the cost of their own SELF.

Catherine/Katie still feels a bit unreal, and Guy Francon's sudden agreement with his daughter towards the end is left unexplained.

Howard and Dominique make greater sense towards the end, and do not seem incomprehensible in retrospect. Keatings, alas, pop up everywhere around us, Tooheys thrive everywhere we can see. Wynand, surprisingly, was very well-drawn as a character. The beautiful writing skills of Rand lent him an air of reality, and did not make it seem an inexplicable jolt in the storyline simply because the writer was stuck somewhere and needed to make a change.

Roark and Dominique can be governed, but not ruled. And that is how all humans should be. It is perhaps too much to ask of anyone to aspire to become complete Roarks or Dominiques, the price is unbelievably steep, but one can at least try.

Roark's final speech should be taught in all schools and, and this novel must be a part of the syllabus for every kid who goes to college.

Louis Althusser states the same things in his unparalleled essay, "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatus", only that there is no story in it, and the language is technical, rather than emotional. But for those interested in Rand, the essay is just as important, as a life-changer for some.

A word of caution though. It is a very alluring principle - Objectivism. But Roark exemplifies the maximum limit of it, the unreachable goal. One must aspire to be free, but it is to be realised that one cannot be absolutely free. To survive, one has to compromise. Like in every other thing we firmly believe in. A blind conformation to Objectivism can be just as dangerous as blind conformation to tradition.

It's difficult to find a book as disturbing and unappealing in its content, prose, intent, or sheer mass. Those who admire Rand actually frighten me.

I suppose it could be more offensive if it were published as a water-proof beach or bath book in non-recyclable plastic. I await that edition with bated breath.

This book is the equivalent of a drunk, eloquent asshole talking to you all night at a bar. You know you should just leave and you could never explain later why you didn't, but you just sit there listening to the guy ramble on. It's all bullshit, and his arguments defending, say, his low-key but all-consuming misogyny aren't that good and don't even really make sense, but just for a second you find yourself thinking, "Huh, the man might have a point..." before you catch yourself and realize that no, he is just an asshole. You feel dirty and bad afterwards, realizing how close you came to the abyss, but there was that one second where, for some reason, his selfish, arrogant stances, which have hardened into granite truth for him, bluntly force you into a momentary empathy with his ideas--ironically, the one thing he will never, no matter how many shots of Jameson you buy him, give you. The only real difference between the drunk at the bar and The Fountainhead is that the drunk probably wouldn't go so far as claiming, when relating an account of rape, that the woman wanted it, even craved it. Ayn Rand goes there while remaining perfectly true to her Objectivism bullshit. At least the drunk might buy you a drink. Ayn Rand would probably object to it on philosophical grounds.

There's a certain kind of gentleman who comes to my reviews and says:

"WRONG!"

which is seriously what some dude led with just today, and I play a game with people like this; the game is, go to their profiles and find the five-star review of Ayn Rand. It's always there!* Ayn Rand is the patron saint of mansplainers.

Other things mansplainers are super into reading
- Tropic of Cancer
- Alan Moore

* To be honest today's dude didn't have her**, but he did have an "essential reading" shelf with The Bell Curve on it, which is literally the same thing.
** Haha never mind, I just checked again because I didn't believe myself and yep, there's Anthem.

Anyway. John Oliver on "How is Ayn Rand still a thing?: "Ayn Rand has always been popular with teenagers. But she's something you're supposed to grow out of, like ska music or handjobs."

It's pronounced Ine and this is her least awful book, which is not saying much at all: it is still really terrible, as philosophy and as literature. If you want to read some Rand, start with Anthem, which is awful but short so you'll get the idea. If you still want more, go ahead and read Fountainhead but we can't be friends anymore. No one should read Atlas Shrugged and in fact no one ever has.

Listen, Ayn Rand's entire philosophy comes down to "I'm an asshole." If you disagree with that assessment, well, you know that old saying - "If you can't spot the sucker at the poker table, it's you"? You appear to be having difficulty spotting the asshole, friend.

If I were to suspect the artist of having written out of passion and in passion, my confidence would immediately vanish, for it would serve no purpose to have supported the order of causes by the order of ends.

~ Sartre


It is not literature. It is not philosophy. It lacks any understanding of how an economy functions. A childish affirmation of pure entitlement.

It is just a rant told through a really bad piece of fiction.

Ayn Rant.


+++

(the 4 stars rating was given at a very early and impressionable age)

Yes: this is just as wretchedly unreadable as you've always imagined.

"Изворът" на Ранд е книга за личността, за човека който следва смело своя път , за архитекта Хауърд Роурк, за Камерън , за всички новатори които са сътворили този свят .Това е книга за силата на духа и за правото да отстояваш своята воля , а не желанието на масите . Една от особеностите на обществото е да си препише колективни заслуги за сметка на нечий труд , за сметка на нечий талант или още по-лошото захвърлянето на този талант в изгнание.
Идеите на Ранд са живи и днес и смятам , че хората винаги ще има своите пионери като Роурк , които карат човешкия извор никога да не пресъхва .