Talk:The Fountainhead

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.120.86.154 (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2006

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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyth (talk • contribs) 15:10, 15 March 2007

The book follows his battle to practice what the public sees as modern architecture, which he believes to be superior, despite an establishment centered on tradition-worship

This sentence is irregular and confusing.

I propose:

"Roarke proposes his design is superior to tradition-worship practices." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.221.102 (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Jane Fields

Regarding some recent reversions, I would say that assuming there is a reliable source for it, the assessments of Jane Fields are as legitimate to include as those of others discussed in the article. However, we don't want to give undue weight to one person by quoting them at length when we can summarize their viewpoint more briefly. So that is what I've done. That said, online searching produced no information about this essay or the book that supposedly contains it. More information about the publication, such as date, publisher, and ISBN number, should be provided to assist in verification. If the existence of the published work can't be confirmed, then the entire passage should be deleted. --RL0919 (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I note that the IP who added this edited it again after I did, but did not add any of the verifying information I requested. I still haven't found any evidence for the existence of this essay or the book it is supposedly in. Therefore I've removed the passage. If this source is real, supply the details that would be needed to find it. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead with Plot section

Is there any particular reason the plot comes third? Most other works of fiction, movies, books, etc, the Plot is the leading section after the introduction. Recommend changing from current:

> Background, Publication_history, Plot Summary, Characters, etc

to having the plot and characters first:

> Plot Summary, Characters, Background, Publication_history, etc

Anyone want to second this and do a quick switch? thx.

58.38.211.135 (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The recommended layout from WikiProject Novels used to be different, and this article was organized based on that older layout. So I don't see a problem with updating it. --RL0919 (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)