5 ms·
Perhaps if you'd realized that The Fountainhead is based on the life of Frank Lloyd Wright or that by tirelessly adhering to existing architectural principles y
by rrival 19y ago
Perhaps if you'd realized that The Fountainhead is based on the life of Frank Lloyd Wright or that by tirelessly adhering to existing architectural principles you're continuing to develop derivative crap, you might see what he did as a bit more revolutionary and appreciate what her message was a bit more. I couldn't put it down, but then, I don't really watch South Park.
- gwenhwyfaer 19y ago> Perhaps if you'd realized that The Fountainhead is based on the life of Frank Lloyd Wright No it isn't. Both Frank Lloyd Wright and Ayn Rand explicitly refuted such a claim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lloyd_Wright#Cultural_References http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lloyd_Wright#Cultural_Ref... In any case, Lloyd Wright's buildings might well have pushed the envelope on art, but they've been criticised on technical grounds. And the idea that "if you don't do anything you're told not to you'll never do anything new" really doesn't need an 800-page exposition by someone who demonstrates a complete lack of empathy for humans, a penchant for rape, and no particular talent as a writer.
- deleted 19y ago[deleted]
- wyday 19y ago> 800-page exposition by someone who demonstrates ..., a penchant for rape, ... The relationships between her characters are usually sadomasochistic, not sexual abuse. But even when it does appear it takes up barely ten pages in her novels. > ... and no particular talent as a writer. Ironically contrary to her message, the popularity of her books suggests otherwise.
- gwenhwyfaer 19y agoYes, but Jeffrey Archer and Jackie Collins are popular.
- wyday 19y agoOK. And because of this Rand isn't?
- gwenhwyfaer 19y agoYou said "popularity => talent" (ie. !popularity \/ talent = T). You also said "Rand has popularity". I presented two cases where I assert popularity /\ !talent = T, ie. !popularity \/ talent = F, to show that !(popularity => talent). Your response: "so you claim that Rand does not have popularity". Er, wtf?
- wyday 19y agoI see. In all your arguments it is talent as judged by you. Therefore you are the arbiter of talent? Can we just end this thread here before we get to the inevitable anticlimactic conclusion that people differ in opinion?
- pg 19y agoI think you're misunderstanding him. He's simply pointing out that you said something false: that popularity is evidence that someone is a good writer.
- wyday 19y agoBut isn't it popularity among the elite (that is, critical popularity) that traditionally decides a writer's talent?
- pg 19y agoAfter a few hundred years.
- randallsquared 19y agoPopularity isn't proof that someone is a good writer, but it certainly is evidence of same.
- rrival 19y agoFrom your link: "The architect hero Howard Roark of Ayn Rand's Fountainhead is generally thought to be based on Wright, although both Rand and Wright denied this." Generally thought to be based on / possibly inspired by, not exactly 'explicitly refuted' - there's a bit of Wright in Roark, though it may have been misleading to not explicitly state that Roark's character was not wholly inspired by Wright. You sound like a BOFH - what is your basis for making such superficial, critical statements about highly creative people?
- rrival 19y agoIgnore the above. I have a better concept for your context. Thanks.
- gwenhwyfaer 19y agoI don't know; I was quite tickled to find myself described as a BOFH...
- rrival 19y agoTaken without consideration of the lengthy post you've made throughout the thread it did seem a bit ... arrogant? I'm not sure if that's the right term =)
- gwenhwyfaer 19y agoEr, what's arrogant or critical about correcting a misconception (that The Fountainhead was based on Lloyd Wright's life) with a reference? As to Lloyd Wright's skills as an architect (if that's what "superficial, critical statements about highly creative people" was referring to) - I do not dispute that he was highly creative, nor that he was the first great American architect. But his roofs habitually leaked, and there were other technical problems with his creations. Since buildings, whilst unquestionably being creative endeavours, are not purely expressive in purpose, technical failings are not trivialities; they'd have curtailed the career of a lesser architect. Oddly enough, the same is true in software; there's lots of uninspired but technically competent software, there's rather less beautiful but technically unsound software; and very little code which is both beautiful and sound - but competence can keep a coder in the game even if they have no artistic flair.