Talk:The Fountainhead

PLOT, novel plot or film plot?

I haven't read this book but this part of the plot sounds very strange to me, I don't know.

"After Roark leaves the office with his copy of the contract the camera shows Wynand opening..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.228.225 (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

This was added just a couple of days ago and you are correct that it does not belong here. I've removed it. --RL0919 (talk) 13:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional critical source

I am wondering if there is a use for this series on the Patheos site of critical articles on the book. There are a lot of them but think a few can be placed in the criticisms section. Links included: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/series/the-fountainhead/ - MarvelAge91 (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

My reply here would be similar to the one I just left at Talk:Atlas Shrugged: blog posts are not typically reliable sources. Additionally, this is a featured article, which is expected to use high-quality reliable sources (see WP:FACR#1C). Even if the blog was determined to be a reliable source, it's not likely to be considered high quality for the subject when there are academic books and respected journalism sources available. --RL0919 (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Feminist criticisms

There has been a surge of editing around feminist criticisms of the novel, initiated by User:Rawbot69, who objects to mentioning the claim by some critics that a particular scene shows a positive view of rape. Specifically the concern articulated in this user's edit summaries is that criticism is "politically motivated", "potentially defamatory", and "might turn some people off". They first attempted (twice) to cut any mention of it from the lead. When I restored it, with a supporting citation (even though these are not usually required in the lead), they added a very blatantly non-neutral description of the criticisms as "vicious defamatory statements" (as the article's own commentary, not a summary of a viewpoint from reliable sources), bolstered with an interpretation of the critics' supposed motives. When another editor (User:ScientificWaffle) removed this commentary, Rawbot69 again removed all mention of the criticism from the lead, this time moving it to the body with the edit summary claim that there is no reason for it to be in "the novels' introduction" (presumably meaning the lead section of this article). As far as I can tell, all of these edits go directly against applicable Wikipedia guidelines: first by ignoring WP:NPOV when attempting to exile criticism from the article or rebut with explicit editorial commentary, then by ignoring the WP:LEAD requirement that the lead section summarize the major points covered in the main body of the article. Rawbot69's only other contribution was to add a verbatim copy of text from a study guide (much of which is a quotation from a different source, but the edit includes the exact introduction of the quotation from the study guide, proving that it was copied from there). Therefore, I have just reverted all of these changes back to the previous state of the article. In a good faith attempt to avoid an edit war, I am posting this explanation and would greatly appreciate input from other editors. --RL0919 (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Judging by the edits of article, it has been misrepresented and caricatured by many users with strong feminist opinions. Many including User:RL0919 are inserting political bias and misrepresent the novel within its introduction. For example, the book is a story of Roark and Dominique's explosive love affair, which ends up in marriage. This isn't mentioned in the introduction, instead their interaction is directly called rape, which is an opinion, skewing someone else's when they read the introduction. Instead of deleting his edits, I moved the political bias into an appropriate section bellow ("Reception and legacy") where it belongs. User:RL0919 continued undoing my changes, in fact he removed all of them, while promoting his, asking his friends to undo them as well, see history. Later I inserted the need for citation which was removed by this individual, once again displaying political bias, and removing all of my edits. In regards to the need for citation, a lot of high school students read the novel and they aren't "American conservatives" and "right-libertarians". This insert seems like a personal "Point of View" without any reference. I did my research and found absolutely nothing to back up the fact. I will continue looking for evidence until I either point to it, or remove the copy.

--Rawbot69 (talk) Tue Feb 23 10:23:26 2021 UTC — Preceding undated comment added 10:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Since the things you are requesting citation for are explained and cited in the body text, you must not have searched very hard. I've added one citation specifically related to the two specific points you mention about conservatives and libertarians. Normally the lead section of an article has minimal citations because it recaps what is already discussed and cited in the rest of the article. This is also why the feminist criticisms should be mentioned in the lead, because they are prominently discussed in the main body. The text you want to purge does not "directly" call anything rape, but rather says that some critics are "accusing Rand of endorsing rape". If you want to suggest some neutral improvement to the wording of the text, that's one thing, but mention of a criticism cannot be exiled from the lead just because you disagree with it. Also, one of your other edits inserted plagiarism into the article by word-for-word copying material from A Study Guide for Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. I have removed that blatant policy violation again, and if reinserted I will request action by an uninvolved administrator. In the meantime, I have left the summary of the feminist criticisms down in the body where you moved it, in the hope that you will engage in rational discussion of the issue instead of edit warring. --RL0919 (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Philosophy

Individuaism is driven as the motive force behind the novel and the main agent is the main character in the novel. 117.102.41.215 (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

On character descriptions and missing plot summary

The character descriptions for Gail Wynand should be reviewed, particularly the second paragraph of the introduction.

• I don't think it accurate to say Wynand betrays Roark: "betray" to me implies that Wynand intended to do it, and conveys that Roark didn't foresee it.

• On "seek to shape popular opinion", Wynand, for most of his career, seeks to feed/profit by reporting what is popular, not to shape it. When he tries to shape public opinion (in favor of Roark), it fails.

• Regarding Wynand's newspapers, the Banner is neither the only newspaper in New York City, nor is it the only newspaper Wynand owns.

• On Wynand "losing" newspaper/wife/Roark, its more a concession on both the Banner and his friendship with Roark: Wynand gives them up, they aren't misplaced/lost (given the book's underlying theme of the individual choosing what they do or society/second-handers choosing it for them, this distinction is important).

• "Wynand gives in and publishes a denunciation of Roark": Wynand does give in, but so much that he doesn't write the denunciation nor believe it. The paper (second-handers...?) write the denunciation and the paper publishes it.

Dominique's (Francon/Keating/Wynand's) description should be reviewed too. I don't see her as "working to undermine Roark" so much, but rather testing him. Also, saying that Dominique is doing things to avoid harm is contradictory to her choosing things to harm herself.

I'm also not sure that the second paragraph of the introduction should give character summaries in lieu of summarizing the plot. (And mentioning "second-handers", and not connecting to "fountainhead"?) The book is a life-story of an architect trying to develop a career in New York City. The book deals with themes of like individualism and architecture, but also provides a critique of media/reporting. - Hooperswim (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you have reliable secondary sources to support any of the above, or are these just your own interpretations of the novel? The article should be grounded in the interpretations made by sources. More specific comments in reply to your bullets above:

• "betray" to me implies that Wynand intended to do it, and conveys that Roark didn't foresee it – The common meaning of the word does not carry either implication. Also, Rand used the word in her own journals to describe what Wynand does.
• Wynand, for most of his career, seeks to feed/profit by reporting what is popular, not to shape it – Multiple secondary sources interpret Wynand as attempting to manipulate public opinion. The character also seems to believe so in the novel: "Public opinion is what I make it." "We've always made public opinion."
• the Banner is neither the only newspaper in New York City, nor is it the only newspaper Wynand owns – Where do you see either of these being claimed in the article?
• they aren't misplaced/lost – The primary meaning of 'lose' is to cease to have something. Misplacing is just one way to lose.
• he doesn't write the denunciation nor believe it – The article doesn't say that he did.

Maybe there is a more nuanced wording possible in some of these cases, but a lot of your comments seem to be interpreting the article text as saying things it literally does not say. --RL0919 (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)