[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 21 KB, 211x320, TheFountainhead.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11318018 No.11318018 [Reply] [Original]

Never has a world made me rage more then this book. Im rereading it now that I'm not a high schooler and understand that there are things between the lines but I've had to set it down far too many times. I'm just at the beginning, right when the architecture book comes out but I've had to set it down a few dozen times. I have honestly never had anything else drive this much emotion out of me. It feels like what she's trying to make is a world when the current left took over and became the right wing keeping everything their way. I don't know if she modeled it after the 30s art scene that rejected her or what but holy shit.

>> No.11318031

>>11318018
What are you trying to say?

>> No.11318088

>>11318018
I think the book is quite muddled in its messaging.

It is mostly a book about how money corrupts art, yet Rand seems to think that this isn't actually her point so she ends up displaying that the dislikes socialism and trying somehow to implicate it as the reason why true artists like Roark struggle.

The problem of course is that Rand also has quite an anti-art streak as can be seen in her caricature of the "pretentious" book that "doesn't make any sense yet the elite loves it". Books like that do exist, but I think that more often than not when people dismiss critically lauded work as "pretentious" or "meaningless" it is actually because that person hasn't spent the time to attempt to meet the work on its own terms.

Its pretty clear to me that Finnegan's Wake is her model for this "pretentious" book judging by how she described it has having no rhyme or reason and being incomprehensible.

>> No.11318110

>>11318018
I feel like this is a good book about maintaining artistic integrity and following your own personal vision for whatever your work is

>> No.11318192

>>11318088
I don't think it has anything to do with money corrupting art.

Rand dislikes socialism --> Roark struggles = ???

She's criticizing how a group of individuals may read a work without understanding its deeper meaning and thinking it through, instead relying on the opinions of others and attempting to conform to society.

>> No.11318243

>>11318192
>I don't think it has anything to do with money corrupting art.
Literally Wynand's and Keating's entire arcs are about money corrupting what they are doing.

>> No.11318258

>>11318243
That's true. I was just thinking about what the money meant for them - which was fitting into society, self-sacrificing for respect.

>> No.11318268

Funnily enough, Gaddis's The Recognitions covers very similar themes but is a much better written and more thoughtful book.

>> No.11318534

OP here. What I'm getting out of it is an individualist fighting against that philosophy that you can't know what's right so you have to look at the collective for the answers. Some french faggot thought that up. Derrida or something. But the whole thing is you, Peter the coward, can't help but go with the grain even though you think its wrong and so you hate the man who can unapologetically fight for what he wants.

>> No.11319206

>>11318018
>I don't know if she modeled it after the 30s art scene
It's modeled after the real history of architecture at the time and the conflict between modernism and classicism, yes. Roark's style is based on Frank Lloyd Wright and there are fictional buildings based on the Chicago Tribune Tower, Empire State Building, and other famous buildings of the time.

>> No.11319652

>>11318018
>rereading something as boring as the Fountainhead
I'm sorry