Talk:The Fountainhead

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)

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?

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

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?

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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).