The fountainhead

I read it and it's actually good. Why does everyone hate it so much?

Because the author is a cunt

you tell us first what you like about it. maybe then we'll consider this thread as something more serious than lazy bait.

>Enjoyable prose
>Interesting characters
>Particular points of view

>rambling storyline
>incoherent plot
>tissue-thin characters
>clunky, unrealistic dialog
>Author tracts as speeches
No, it isn't 'actually good' - it is a potboiler that aspires to be as good as a cheap pulp.

>aspires to be as good as a cheap pulp

it even fails to be pulp, it's pure shit, I can't believe I've read ~700 pages of that shit before putting it in the trash

>Enjoyable prose
wew lad

>Interesting characters
I'll give you that, although not Dagny. Hank Rearden in particular is interesting, and his dynamics with his family and his love for his business. A great deal of the characters are completely one dimensional though.

>Particular points of view
If you mean that her philosophy is valid, i recommend you take a hard look at human nature. If you find it interesting insofar as how it is presented in the novel, rambling speeches that are really just the author pontificating are hardly the best way to present it.

they're just piggy backing on the "Atlas Shrugged is shit" meme which is probably true. The fountainhead, if anything however, is worth a read.

I too loved the Fountainhead. It feels grand and Roark is badass, albeit "autistic".

The unrealism that people constantly complain about I don't mind, simply because it's a book - it's supposed to be idealistic as fuck

All of this criticism against the author, prose, plot, characters. Absolutely nothing against the philosophy. Considering this is philosophical fiction, why do we analyze the fountainhead as literature, But thus spoke zarathustra, or l'etranger, as philosophy? Rand is a cuck yes, but don't ignore the fact that this book is not intended to have well rounded characters, but rather each character represents a very particular philosophical perspective.

This novel is essentially existentialism wrapped in fiction and targeted squarely at the young american in their early 20s. If you havent read much philosophy you will likely find this book very appealing. However as you move through the philosophical canon, or rather, once you finish Plato, you find that much of her philosophy is bullshit.

However, the message regarding art, and individualism, i found very compelling. again, it is essentially existentialism, and compared to camus, sartre, nietzsche etc, this book is dogshite. but if you havent touched those writers and hit this first, as the vast majority of readers do (and never move beyond it which is another depressing reality), you will Identify.

>ayn rand
>existentialism

>All of this criticism against the author, prose, plot, characters.
> Veeky Forums - literature

>But thus spoke zarathustra, or l'etranger, as philosophy?
No one views l'Etranger as philosophy, you retard.

>Dagny. Hank Rearden
Wrong book

I do you cunt

Kill yourself, you dumb sack of shit.

>implying thus spoke zarathustra isn't beautifully written

People who only read English translations don't know that though. It doesn't translate well at all.

Don't let yourself get bullied OP, everyone likes Rand when they are in their late teens early 20s. You'll grow out of it.

It is completely untrue. Atlas Shrugged is an important work. I'm not a fan of aspects of her writing style - or rather, her writing has many weaknesses. She is also very polarizing because of her definitive, immobile perspectives, as everyone well knows. Still, she presents many ideas and concepts in Atlas Shrugged which are so important to society the work cannot be rationally ignored. I absolutely recommend it.

>once you finish Plato, you find that much of her philosophy is bullshit.

This is completely untrue. Much of her philosophy is an extension of Platonic philosophy - though she would be loathe to admit it.

OP, I haven't read it yet, but I intend to. Atlas Shrugged was incredible, despite its flaws, so I'm looking forward to The Fountainhead.

>it's supposed to be idealistic as fuck

yeah you're right. children's books and unrealistic generalizations about human nature are supposed to be idealistic as fuck.

>Doesn't know the difference between "valid" and "sound."
>Commenting on philosophy.

The only way one can speak of "human" nature IS in generalities. Think boy.

b-b-but I said *unrealistic generalizations.*

I just hate how you either fall in line with her self motivated ideal or you're a parasite. it's ridiculous.

and also group selection as an evolutionary proven thing in the animal kingdom (including man) pretty much negates the self-serving morality she preaches.

Because hating Rand is a meme.

>when being aware of reality becomes a meme

It is a meme but she actually sucks though.

Those edition covers of her novels are so cool that they make me wanna give her work another chance, but then I remember what a talentless bitch she was.

>Atlas Shrugged is an important work.
>she presents many ideas and concepts in Atlas Shrugged which are so important to society
Like what?
>Communism is bad
Well known at the time and much better explained in actual philosophy and well-writen literature
>Altruism is bad
She was wrong
>Only a handful of people keep the world running
Nope, she was wrong again
.
we could go on, but she was correct about 1 thing and thousands of others wrote about it coherently.

What bothered you the most in the ~700 pages?

> be americuck pleb
> can read only English
> Miss out on the greeks
> Miss out on German works

You know, I actually thought this was okay - I enjoyed Roark's interactions with his rival, I don't disagree with individualism and I can see how someone might see the world as Rand does - until I got to the court room scene. Not only does she have her main character spell out the entire point of the book, she then rewards her character for doing so. I found it unnecessary and almost underhanded, as if I would someone agree with Roark if the characters in her world did.

Garbage prose, mostly garbage characters, and a half baked ideology that could have been summed up in ten pages. Would not recommend reading.

I think you mean a self-described pseudo-philosopher cunt with an agenda the size of her ego. She named her philosophy "objectivism".

Do you two have actual objections against the book? Or do you two savants get your jollies off by juding a book by its author, but not actually having an actual opinon of the book because said savants have not actually read the book.

I read about half before literally throwing it in the bin. Poorly written and every point was completely transparent. She was obviously her own biggest fan

Poorly written in what aspect? I may agree with you here, depending on how you respond.

Holy shit die