Architects design the world we live in. They are world creators.

Perfect

A quick SF Chronicle article on, perhaps, the perfect profession for Roark.

Aaaaaaand... Theoretical architecture:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/30/DDPP1CM0CS.DTL

287

“’Look at it. A sublime achievement, isn’t it? A heroic achievement. Think of the thousands who worked to create this and of the millions who profit by it. And it is said that but for the spirit of a dozen men, here and there down the ages, but for a dozen men – less perhaps – none of this would have been possible. And that might be true. If so, there are – again – two possible attitudes to take. We can say that these twelve were great benefactors, that we are all fed by the overflow of the magnificent wealth of their spirit, and that we are glad to accept it in gratitude and brotherhood. Or, we can say that by the splendor of their achievement which we can neither equal nor keep, these twelve have shown us what we are, that we do not want the free gifts of their grandeur, that a cave by an oozing swamp and a fire of sticks rubbed together are preferable to skyscrapers and neon lights – if the cave and the sticks are the limit of our own creative capacities. Of the two attitudes, Dominique, which would you call the truly humanitarian one? Because, you see, I’m a humanitarian.’”

Next question:

We've got to change the name of this blog.

It's all been done... so just give up. Wait no don't that's not what life is about, wait no it is... wait...

Here is an interesting LA Times article on a website that chronicles the unoriginality of anything having to to with and having been done in fiction writing (TV, movies, comic books, novels, etc.). It profiles the website tvtropes.org which lists common cliches that are over used in fiction such as "the unappreciated artist genius knowing the secret to life and being an outcast because of it," "the red headed hero" and the always understood and always popular "ubermensch."

Tropes are, according to tvtropes.org "devices and conventions that a writer can reasonably rely on as being present in the audience members' minds and expectations." So basically if it's on the list you are unoriginal and a pawn of society. JK. I haven't looked too deeply into the website but it seemed cool if you want to talk about originality in writing as well as art.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/28/entertainment/la-ca-tropes28-2010feb28

Post up any interesting and relevant tropes you find!

8yrs. after Fountainhead

This book still stands out as one of the top three best I have ever read. At first I read it for a "good read", but then I realized this was not your ordinary, read it at the beach, laid back, pleasure-reading, entertaining novel. It still sticks in my mind as a maddening, confusing, eye-opener. I was so frustrated and angry with the main character. I felt like I wanted to yell at him to just give in, stop being such a stoic. Fall in line, Roark. His character is bigger than real life.
It does not take long for one to realize, that this book should be read over and over, and each time you could enjoy it, pull your hair out over its twists and turns, or just let it change your way of thinking. I don't wish to analyze this book. I just want to enjoy it and let it move me, move on and move out.

Why Are These People Smiling?

400 Pages and Gagging

I only wish Ms Rand had made her point as succintly as Ms Halla. After reading 427 pages of The Fountainhead, I feel as if I've been bludgeoned by a dull intstrument, perhaps a Steven Mallory statue. I get it. I got it. I had it in the first 100 pages, maybe the first 10 pages. "One must remain true to one's self, uphold individuality, and act independently from society." How could I miss it? The author makes the point often and obviously. Spare me any more pain. I think my happiness lies in not reading anything else by Ayn Rand.

A number things annoy me about this book. The first, of course, is the heavy handed moralizing of the author. The Fountainhead is a philosophy lecture disquised as a novel populated by philosophic points of view disquised as characters. They're not people. They're simply abstractions, representations of principles, caricatures. Like characters in a SuperHero comic book, they are good or they are evil with nothing in between. The second thing that annoys me is the content of the lecture and it's advocacy of egoTism as a basis for human action. There's no point in trying to take the edge off the term by refering to it as Egoism. That's simply an attempt to make the term "socially" acceptable which is, of course, unacceptable. The third thing that annoys me is that, despite it's uncompromising advocacy of individuality and originality, there's nothing here that's individual or original.

When speaking of Howard Roarks sketches, Rand writes, "They were sketches of builidngs such as had never stood on the face of the earth. They were as the first houses built by the first man born who had never heard of others building before him." If such originality was ever possible, it eluded Ms Rand. Unlike the fictional work of her SuperHero, Howard Roark, Ms Rand has clearly built her edifice on the foundations of philosophic and literary figures who proceeded her and the traditions they created. Apparently, the author did not aspire to the same greatness as her main character. Her philosophy is taken from Friedrich Nietsche, her art from Charles Dickens.

You Kant manipulate me!

So we all know that Ayn Rand's principle of Objectivism is basically just a different way of referring to Egoism--it's the promotion of rational self-interest. Egoism denounces the pursuit of the interests of others (altruism) to the exclusion of one's self and stands on the basic question of, "What's in it for me?" The argument behind this ethical principle contains three premises: 1. Everyone deserves happiness, 2. Each of us is uniquely positioned to know what will make us happy, 3. Altruism is not universalizable; therefore, one ought to pursue one's own interests exclusively.

In the novel The Fountainhead, the primary theme is the primacy of the individual. One must remain true to one's self, uphold individuality, and act independently from society. "Society has herd mentality and individuals must act selfishly in order to be free." Society is seen as that which goes against the moral good because it extinguishes individuality and talent. Ultimately, the novel comes down to the struggle for individuality, and if one does not uphold individuality and assert one's self, they are seen as weak.

Aspects of Rand's philosophy not only touch upon Egoism, but also can be traced back to philosophers such as Aristotle, Kant, and Nietzsche to name a few. The importance of reason is reflected in The Fountainhead, and is viewed as the virtue that, "...sets man free." This promotion of reason was a primary virtue held by Aristotle who believed in, "Reason, excellently applied." In Rand's novel reason and logic engages the mind and if dissected, relationships, buildings, personalities can be traced back to such values. Kant also upheld the conclusion that reason must be the foundation of morality. He believed sentiments and passions to be subjective and therefore subject to corruption. He was also against manipulations--that which encapsulates Ellsworth Toohey. Nietzsche is evidently present in The Fountainhead as Rand fiercely opposes herd mentality and promotes individuality. Nietzsche claimed there are two kinds of people, the slave and the superior person. Slave morality are those of patience, forgiveness, tolerance, charity, etc. The superior person or elitest individually defines his morality based on that which motivates him. However, unlike Rand, Nietzsche believes morality to be the function of emotion. Rand claims that emotion and sentiment, "Confuses the mind and compromises idividualism." Yet, the two philosophers basically promote the pursuit of individuality.

As for Ayn Rand being labeled a source of recent economic recession, one can easily create a proof concluding Rand's responsibility. However, one can equally create such a proof concluding her innocence. Executives of firms such as Goldman Sachs can be viewed more as Ellsworth Toohey figures rather than egoistic Howard Roark figures. True, such firms thrive on egoism and personal gain; however, methods of obtaining such gain relies on the manipulation of others, and the herd mentality of the masses. They fight for control over the weak and gain from the losses of their followers. Although they may try to promote the ideals of Rand, and claim to be upholding her philosophy, in actuality they are banking on the hopes of society remaining in their slave mentality.