Comments on: The Fountainhead http://therandomizer.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/the-fountainhead/ pieces of my mind splattered over the internet Thu, 29 Oct 2009 03:45:47 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Anonymous http://therandomizer.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/the-fountainhead/#comment-674 Anonymous Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:51:52 +0000 http://therandomizer.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/the-fountainhead/#comment-674 contd... and I loved every single written word in Fountainhead, in fact there just weren't enough things said, thus I don't see any time there to drag. contd… and I loved every single written word in Fountainhead, in fact there just weren’t enough things said, thus I don’t see any time there to drag.

]]> By: Anonymous http://therandomizer.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/the-fountainhead/#comment-673 Anonymous Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:47:12 +0000 http://therandomizer.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/the-fountainhead/#comment-673 I'm in a kind of hurry, but would like to leave a comment on the fact, that the story isn't about the best architect in town and his individualistic character, but rather the fact that DUE to his individualism, he turned into the best there ever was. I’m in a kind of hurry, but would like to leave a comment on the fact, that the story isn’t about the best architect in town and his individualistic character, but rather the fact that DUE to his individualism, he turned into the best there ever was.

]]> By: Meenakshi Pavithra http://therandomizer.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/the-fountainhead/#comment-507 Meenakshi Pavithra Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:37:25 +0000 http://therandomizer.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/the-fountainhead/#comment-507 Yeah, I do agree with your analogy and the fact that Roark's expertise was very important for his success. Only that I wanted to reiterate that he couldn't have been what he was with his expertise alone, if he had given up his individuality. I guess we both agree that expertise and individuality were important for Roark's success, but happen(ed?) to attribute it more to a different reason out of the two :) Yeah, I do agree with your analogy and the fact that Roark’s expertise was very important for his success. Only that I wanted to reiterate that he couldn’t have been what he was with his expertise alone, if he had given up his individuality. I guess we both agree that expertise and individuality were important for Roark’s success, but happen(ed?) to attribute it more to a different reason out of the two :)

]]> By: Randomizer http://therandomizer.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/the-fountainhead/#comment-504 Randomizer Thu, 27 Dec 2007 01:59:53 +0000 http://therandomizer.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/the-fountainhead/#comment-504 @Meenakshi - Thanks for your comment ! :) I feel that Roark's expertise over the other architects is evident in the Cosmo-Slotnick competition. He designs the building for Peter, Peter makes a few trivial changes here and there, and he wins the commission. This shows that Roark was always an exceptional architect - the only reason he wasn't successful was because of all the bad press he was receiving from Elsworth Toohey and Dominique Francon, who were both out to destroy him, for their own personal reasons. It is true that Roark does not copy. But inventing something on your own requires tremendous skill and expertise, right? As an analogy, in the software world, there are paradigms that programmers follow in building good software. Now, there might be an individualistic programmer who believes the years of paradigms are useless and he creates his own design for a system, much to the shock of his peers and employers. What will make this programmer successful? Is it (a) the fact that he stands against decades of accepted protocol ( Individualism ) or (b) how efficient / usable his design really is ? ( Expertise ) I think we will both agree that the programmer will be considered successful only if, as in case (b), the system really is more efficient and productive. Now, you might say that he went ahead to design his own system *because* he was individualistic - and I will agree with you - but a major portion of his success still lies in the skill/expertise with which he designed this new system. The book doesn't separate the two - his individualism and his skill - and so, I remain a little unconvinced about the reason for his success... it seems to me like both had an equally important role to play. @Meenakshi – Thanks for your comment ! :)

I feel that Roark’s expertise over the other architects is evident in the Cosmo-Slotnick competition. He designs the building for Peter, Peter makes a few trivial changes here and there, and he wins the commission. This shows that Roark was always an exceptional architect – the only reason he wasn’t successful was because of all the bad press he was receiving from Elsworth Toohey and Dominique Francon, who were both out to destroy him, for their own personal reasons.

It is true that Roark does not copy. But inventing something on your own requires tremendous skill and expertise, right? As an analogy, in the software world, there are paradigms that programmers follow in building good software. Now, there might be an individualistic programmer who believes the years of paradigms are useless and he creates his own design for a system, much to the shock of his peers and employers. What will make this programmer successful? Is it

(a) the fact that he stands against decades of accepted protocol ( Individualism ) or
(b) how efficient / usable his design really is ? ( Expertise )

I think we will both agree that the programmer will be considered successful only if, as in case (b), the system really is more efficient and productive. Now, you might say that he went ahead to design his own system *because* he was individualistic – and I will agree with you – but a major portion of his success still lies in the skill/expertise with which he designed this new system.

The book doesn’t separate the two – his individualism and his skill – and so, I remain a little unconvinced about the reason for his success… it seems to me like both had an equally important role to play.

]]> By: Meenakshi Pavithra http://therandomizer.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/the-fountainhead/#comment-494 Meenakshi Pavithra Mon, 24 Dec 2007 14:25:14 +0000 http://therandomizer.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/the-fountainhead/#comment-494 Hey! That was an interesting read! However, I have opinions that differ from what you have to say, about Roark esp and the reason for his success. If I remember right, Roark was never called the 'best architect' anywhere in the book. He was the best architect of his time and had no equal, only because of his individualism. He was a brilliant architect, technically strong, which 'at least' few other contemporaries of his could have been, though they are not mentioned in the book. His greatness as an architect was only because of the fact that, while all other architects of his time chose to copy old styles, cater to popular taste, build buildings without the purpose in mind and add unnecessary structures to it, solely to please public opinion, Roark stood by his desire to construct a building solely with its purpose in mind and to let the building serve its users best. Roark was not born genius, though he might have been born a brilliant architect. This is even more evident when Henry Cameron notices Roark's brilliant designs, but makes numerous corrections to his designs. Even at the time of Roark, there was one architect, Henry Cameron, who was a much better architect than Roark, also because he stood by his reason and logic. Indviduality and the ability to use logic and stand by one's, when not expressed as should be over a long period of time, become lost in an indvidual. Those ar ethings that Roark never suppressed. That is why Roark triumphs as an architect and not really because of his expertise. Hey! That was an interesting read! However, I have opinions that differ from what you have to say, about Roark esp and the reason for his success. If I remember right, Roark was never called the ‘best architect’ anywhere in the book. He was the best architect of his time and had no equal, only because of his individualism. He was a brilliant architect, technically strong, which ‘at least’ few other contemporaries of his could have been, though they are not mentioned in the book. His greatness as an architect was only because of the fact that, while all other architects of his time chose to copy old styles, cater to popular taste, build buildings without the purpose in mind and add unnecessary structures to it, solely to please public opinion, Roark stood by his desire to construct a building solely with its purpose in mind and to let the building serve its users best. Roark was not born genius, though he might have been born a brilliant architect. This is even more evident when Henry Cameron notices Roark’s brilliant designs, but makes numerous corrections to his designs. Even at the time of Roark, there was one architect, Henry Cameron, who was a much better architect than Roark, also because he stood by his reason and logic. Indviduality and the ability to use logic and stand by one’s, when not expressed as should be over a long period of time, become lost in an indvidual. Those ar ethings that Roark never suppressed. That is why Roark triumphs as an architect and not really because of his expertise.

]]> By: Sharath Rao http://therandomizer.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/the-fountainhead/#comment-465 Sharath Rao Tue, 11 Dec 2007 02:50:36 +0000 http://therandomizer.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/the-fountainhead/#comment-465 "Man’s ego is the fountainhead of all progress" - Enlightenment philosophers from 18th century had said it ( and I am sure some obscure lines from a more obscure Upanishad too ;-) ) . “Man’s ego is the fountainhead of all progress” – Enlightenment philosophers from 18th century had said it ( and I am sure some obscure lines from a more obscure Upanishad too ;-) ) .

]]> By: Randomizer http://therandomizer.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/the-fountainhead/#comment-464 Randomizer Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:25:17 +0000 http://therandomizer.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/the-fountainhead/#comment-464 @Joy - You know what, I completely missed that line when I read the book. I was going through the 'memorable quotes' from another site, and I read that sentence and went 'Huh?' :-P Anyways, I'm done with philosophy for a while... I'll probably read some fiction or sci-fi next, and get to Atlas Shrugged late next year or so... (That is, *if* my reading habits continue this way .. I have not counted the coming of the Xbox some time soon in any of my calculations :) ) @Joy – You know what, I completely missed that line when I read the book. I was going through the ‘memorable quotes’ from another site, and I read that sentence and went ‘Huh?’ :-P Anyways, I’m done with philosophy for a while… I’ll probably read some fiction or sci-fi next, and get to Atlas Shrugged late next year or so… (That is, *if* my reading habits continue this way .. I have not counted the coming of the Xbox some time soon in any of my calculations :) )

]]> By: Joy http://therandomizer.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/the-fountainhead/#comment-457 Joy Mon, 10 Dec 2007 06:44:46 +0000 http://therandomizer.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/the-fountainhead/#comment-457 The only line that stood out for me in the entire book is 'Man's ego is the fountainhead of all progress.' Is Atlas Shrugged next on the list then? :) The only line that stood out for me in the entire book is ‘Man’s ego is the fountainhead of all progress.’

Is Atlas Shrugged next on the list then? :)

]]> By: Just links « Epistles http://therandomizer.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/the-fountainhead/#comment-456 Just links « Epistles Mon, 10 Dec 2007 05:54:45 +0000 http://therandomizer.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/the-fountainhead/#comment-456 [...] therandomizer’s thoughts on “The fountainhead”; remarkable how if I had written mine, they would have been so similar [...] [...] therandomizer’s thoughts on “The fountainhead”; remarkable how if I had written mine, they would have been so similar [...]

]]>