I thought it was in the Fountain Head, but I'm so far removed from AP English at this point I am likely mistaken. All that means is that I found The Fountainhead to be completely unrelatable and boring to the point that I don't remember a damn thing about it. Kind of like Anna Karenina.
Nothing like early Russian politics and the rise of socialism to pique a high schoolers interest. I was more interested in when the next Dragonlance novel was due out.

I hate hearing people try to sell me on the speech at the end of the Fountainhead.

It doesn't matter how you dress it up, we call people who blow up buildings terrorists.

Rand was certainly not a great writer (as is often the case with those who write novels in a language that isn't native to them). As such, there's no comparison between Rand's use of English and say, Dickens' (but you could probably say that about Dickens and almost anyone else, John Oliver included. And Harry Potter isn't much better than The Fountainhead! Or most popular fiction for that matter.)
I doubt most of Oliver's audience have read Crime and Punishment, or The Brothers Karamzov, or The Sound and the Fury. I doubt Oliver's fans are any more "intellectual" or well-read than Rand's, quite honestly.

But Rand didn't even believe in small government. Just limited government. She was certainly no anarchist. John Galt was, perhaps, but not Rand. (The character is not the author.) Both Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand learned from Ludwig Von Mises, and they took what they learned in very different directions.

Yet, most of Oliver's audience probably haven't even read Rand and she's hardly that much of a contemporary topic worth talking about.. So why would Oliver (HBO) want to spend valuable broadcast time talking about her? She wouldn't be a "thing" if they chose to ignore it, and yet they aren't. Why? Might this bit be (the $beneficiary of those who are) uneasy with a potential Rand Paul presidential run, thus needing a straw man with which to link him with "libertarians" and Ayn Rand?

All this "OMG Rand!" going around, and yet her work continues to stick around long after she's gone.. And will likely remain so, given ^programs^ (and commenters) like this and their unwillingness to let it go.

I've swam through a few of her books,the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged,and I think her philosophy of Capitalism is Holy could work except for one basic problem:human nature. And her supporters in the GOP really don't get where she was coming from either. The protagonists of these books are people who run large companies struggling to provide their excellent products and services in spite of heavy regulations at the hands of the small minded government. They are personally involved with their companies,willing to go the extra mile and get their hands dirty in the persuit of delivering the goods and providing livings for their extended families of employees they feel responsible for. Yet the government in pettiness and jelousy scheme to thwart them in this:making the Creative Movers of Industry gasp under the strain of mad laws written by parasites to sap the energy of the Doers to feed the gluttony of the lazy masses. More or less this. Unfortunatelythis fairy story is a bit backwards nowadays...
Instead of clever creators marketing their dreams,we have souless corporations dissecting the labours of the many to feed the obscenely rich the lions share of profits,and existing only to figure out new ways of paying themselves incentive bonuses while the companies they run heave and expire beneathe them from the sheer weight of their greed. Emploees are not families to these executives,all cooporating with the mutual goal of seeing the company succeed,but disposable pawns easily replaced and forgotten,not worth providing benefits for and certainly not worth considering when cheap if not competant labour is available elsewhere.And regulations ? Taxes? Blasphemies!

Some of Rand's opinions I find valid:armies of the unambitious would swollow every dime you earn with demands for welfare and other government mandated largesses. For every brave sould with a creative spark there are a dozen happy to make them fall for the perverse pleasure of simply watching a great idea fail. These exist:but a socialism is not on the genda in this future of ours...it seems to be evolving into a new sort of feudalism where the Rich rule and the serfs provide the neccessaries. And I suppose there are entrepreneurs out there fighting the good fight,and fighting it with style and dignity for themselves and their employees.

They just don't make the headlines.

Why don't you upvote it then? Also, since you downvoted my * lies invocation, I can assume you believe this to be true? Care to explain how Babylon is "the source and fountainhead of evil", for example?

>> ^marinara:

good stuff. this would get sifted easily if there were more christians on here. but i don't expect people to be christian.

Atlas Shrugged is a thoroughly enjoyable novel as long as you understand that it is a trashy romance novel for the extreme libertarian.

When you read it from that perspective it is a very interesting book. It also explains why some people are so frightened of socialism and communism (which they can't seem to distinguish). Perhaps those views aren't justified, but they're understandable to me because I read that book.

Just skip the huge speech, and try to forget the fact that the heroes are all strong beautiful geniuses. There is some inspiring stuff in there amidst the bullshit politi-fantasy.

The same thing goes for The Fountainhead. If I had read that in high school, I'd probably be an architect today.

I was just as arrogant and intolerant as you when I went through my Ayn Rand phase, but I eventually outgrew it. >> ^peretz:

Atlas Shrugged would make a great movie... Ayn Rand is my favorite philosophical writer. It's pretty much a hard and fast rule that if one doesn't like Ayn Rand that they just aren't smart enough to understand objectivism and they are one of the parasites discussed in Roark's speech.

Seems like an important distinction to me. I would not be shocked if there were some SERIOUS tea party money behind this propaganda vehicle.

>> ^PHJF:

Well, this isn't Hollywood. It's a small-budget movie made by a "studio" formed FOR the movie.
And I don't see why Atlas Shrugged gets so much attention. Fountainhead is thematically very similar but a far better read (mostly because of the length).

Agreed. I read the Fountainhead in my impressionable college years and thought it was the best thing ever. I read it twice and bought extra copies to give to people. Then I read Anthem and realized 2 things: 1) These books are shallow political manifestos (duh!) and 2) Ayn Rand is horrible at sci-fi. Then I started Atlas Shrugged, and it was the exact same book as the Fountainhead and Anthem, just with different characters.... then I got to the John Galt Speech, which is a needless reiteration of the politics of the Fountainhead, Anthem and all of the narrative in Atlas Shrugged leading up to the speech. It's also some of the most dead boring text ever committed to print. I think I got about 20 pages into the 60+ page speech when I decided: fuck this book and fuck Ayn Rand.

Set aside the goofball politics and Fountainhead is a decent trashy romance novel. Sadly, the greatest lesson I took from the Fountainhead is that indifference can be a powerful tool for manipulating people. Evil, but true. Yes, I was an asshole in my Ayn Rand phase, even more of an asshole than I am now.

Why do liberals hate Ayn Rand so much? I can't speak for all liberals, but for me, the fact that I was sucked into it - and felt actual euphoria as Ayn Rand's selfish darkness pulsed through my veins - gave me firsthand knowledge of how evil people are able to glorify themselves and justify their actions.

>> ^PHJF:

Well, this isn't Hollywood. It's a small-budget movie made by a "studio" formed FOR the movie.
And I don't see why Atlas Shrugged gets so much attention. Fountainhead is thematically very similar but a far better read (mostly because of the length).

Well, this isn't Hollywood. It's a small-budget movie made by a "studio" formed FOR the movie.

And I don't see why Atlas Shrugged gets so much attention. Fountainhead is thematically very similar but a far better read (mostly because of the length).

You haven't lived until you've read The Fountainhead while driving your Lexus to the building you plan to dynamite.

"Don't get too excited when you read The Fountainhead."

Bahahahahaha!

Point of order: Roark and Keating were characters in The Fountainhead, not Atlas Shrugged.

Also, I want to add that Atlas shrugged, despite its faults, was a delight to read. It's like a holiday from stupid.

The problem with Ayn is that her novels are nothing more than thin, redundant vessels for her own pseudo philosophical propaganda. They are all glorified romance novels, centered around brilliant, rich and successful people being held down by the ignorant and unwashed masses. If you've read one, you've read them all.

I remember loving The Fountainhead when I was in college and eagerly picking up Anthem and Atlas Shrugged.

Anthem is easily one of the worst sci-fi novels I've ever read. It's a shallow, ham-fisted, derivative mess, which brings nothing of value to the genre. It also fails as propaganda, because it doesn't employ any of the skillful storytelling elements of The Fountainhead.

Then I moved on to Atlas Shrugged, which is basically a formulaic retelling of The Fountainhead with different characters. I made it as far as the famously bad 'John Galt speech' in which Ayn drones on for 60-plus pages, reiterating her worldview without the gentle touch of any kind of narrative.

Ah, the lengths some will go to justify their own selfishness and vanity.