The Fountainhead & Atlas shrugged

[Cockney Sparrow]

Sorry to add my two penn’orth but I also find long paragraphs an impediment.

Sometimes I cut and paste posts with long paragraphs and insert breaks as I read; other times I skip it telling myself I'll come back later "............when I have more time".

[Leinster Lass]

Sorry to add my two penn’orth but I also find long paragraphs an impediment.

Sometimes I cut and paste posts with long paragraphs and insert breaks as I read; other times I skip it telling myself I'll come back later "............when I have more time".

Dear Sir - thank you for these two admirably short paragraphs. I'm all in favour of them.
(End of paragraph).

[Frances_iom]

Personally I'm in awe of someone who can string such long sentences together with words often requiring a dictionary lookup. Then I realise these paragraphs are the equivalent of the computer to a theoretical cosmologist who has the freedom to invent universes beyond the constraints of the physical laws that appear to run the one we exist in.

[Leinster Lass]

Personally I'm in awe of someone who can string such long sentences together with words often requiring a dictionary lookup. Then I realise these paragraphs are the equivalent of the computer to a theoretical cosmologist who has the freedom to invent universes beyond the constraints of the physical laws that appear to run the one we exist in.

Ain't that the truth?

[french frank]

Sorry to add my two penn’orth but I also find long paragraphs an impediment.

Sometimes I cut and paste posts with long paragraphs and insert breaks as I read; other times I skip it telling myself I'll come back later "............when I have more time".

As the discussion seems to have moved on: when subbing narrow newspaper columns, we were given certain rules to make the copy more 'readable' and prevent readers simply giving up on a story: sentences to have no more than about 14 words and paragraphs not more than two or three sentences. If it was a long story, there would be bold crossheads at intervals. A crosshead was where the sub chose a striking word from a following paragraph, spaced, centred and set in bold to attract interest. Choosing an appropriate word could be quite amusing. My favourites were: Trousers and Toenails. Though 'Verdict' or 'Medical' were the kind of thing favoured by chief subs.

For general reading, there is also a maximum line length for comfortable reading, though on many websites you can simply narrow your window to shorten the lines.

Another thing which has been complained of here is quoting the whole of a very long post and then commenting on a short point in it. It helps to edit the original quote down. But there are no forum rules about this

[Ein Heldenleben]

As the discussion seems to have moved on: when subbing narrow newspaper columns, we were given certain rules to make the copy more 'readable' and prevent readers simply giving up on a story: sentences to have no more than about 14 words and paragraphs not more than two or three sentences. If it was a long story, there would be bold crossheads at intervals. A crosshead was where the sub chose a striking word from a following paragraph, spaced, centred and set in bold to attract interest. Choosing an appropriate word could be quite amusing. My favourites were: Trousers and Toenails. Though 'Verdict' or 'Medical' were the kind of thing favoured by chief subs.

For general reading, there is also a maximum line length for comfortable reading, though on many websites you can simply narrow your window to shorten the lines.

Another thing which has been complained of here is quoting the whole of a very long post and then commenting on a short point in it. It helps to edit the original quote down. But there are no forum rules about this

Apologies - I don’t know how to edit the original quote down and to be honest the edit tools are so clunky and tiny it’s quite hard to work out how from trial and error.

Useful antidotes to Rand with a more nuanced view of the delights of unregulated capitalism - the works of Sinclair Lewis and Upton Sinclair - in particular The Jungle and Oil!

[Mario]

Useful antidotes to Rand with a more nuanced view of the delights of unregulated capitalism - the works of Sinclair Lewis and Upton Sinclair - in particular The Jungle and Oil!

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

Nice to bring the discussion back to Ayn Rand, rather than SA’s extremely erudite posts.

I have now purchased The Fountainhead, and am reading about Howard Roark, a mild-mannered young architect, who it seems, all he wants to do in life, WITHOUT COMPROMISE, is design buildings to his level of ability, honesty, morality and vision.

Unless it gets worse, much worse, no sign of any evil, “let’s trod on the downtrodden” yet – but I’m willing to be proved wrong.

Mario

[Ein Heldenleben]

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

Nice to bring the discussion back to Ayn Rand, rather than SA’s extremely erudite posts.

I have now purchased The Fountainhead, and am reading about Howard Roark, a mild-mannered young architect, who it seems, all he wants to do in life, WITHOUT COMPROMISE, is design buildings to his level of ability, honesty, morality and vision.

Unless it gets worse, much worse, no sign of any evil, “let’s trod on the downtrodden” yet – but I’m willing to be proved wrong.

Mario

There’s plenty more fiction on the downside of untrammelled capitalism - The Grapes Of Wrath , Union Atlantic , and on the transition from industry to fin-tech The Corrections . On the downside of untrammelled Marxist / Leninism / Maoism there’s Dr Zhivago, Man’s Fate , The Gulag Archipelago, and more recently The Betrayal by Helen Dunmore . I think I prefer (regulated ) capitalism to be honest.

[Mario]

I really am sorry if I’m coming across as being particularly dense here, but Howard Roark refuses to compromise on his ideals, yet the few individual clients he does
attract, become life-long supporters in following his services whenever they need a new house. Stand for something or fall for anything?

I lived in England through the whole phase of “the ugly face of capitalism”, so I think I understand this argument.

Clearly, I am not as well versed or as well read as most here, but is this “untrammelled capitalism”? If Howard Roark gives people what they want - no scratch that, if he gives them what he knows they want even before they realise it, and becomes successful at it in attracting further business, why is this evil?

Why are the rich so hated? Seriously, why are the rich so hated? Always assuming they made their wealth honestly, why are the rich so hated?

Mario

[Leinster Lass]

I really am sorry if I’m coming across as being particularly dense here, but Howard Roark refuses to compromise on his ideals, yet the few individual clients he does
attract, become life-long supporters in following his services whenever they need a new house. Stand for something or fall for anything?

I lived in England through the whole phase of “the ugly face of capitalism”, so I think I understand this argument.

Clearly, I am not as well versed or as well read as most here, but is this “untrammelled capitalism”? If Howard Roark gives people what they want - no scratch that, if he gives them what he knows they want even before they realise it, and becomes successful at it in attracting further business, why is this evil?

Why are the rich so hated? Seriously, why are the rich so hated? Always assuming they made their wealth honestly, why are the rich so hated?

Mario

Well, the human race seems to need something or somebody to hate, so why not the rich? (Didn't Monty Python have it in for the Belgians for some reason?)

[Ein Heldenleben]

I really am sorry if I’m coming across as being particularly dense here, but Howard Roark refuses to compromise on his ideals, yet the few individual clients he does
attract, become life-long supporters in following his services whenever they need a new house. Stand for something or fall for anything?

I lived in England through the whole phase of “the ugly face of capitalism”, so I think I understand this argument.

Clearly, I am not as well versed or as well read as most here, but is this “untrammelled capitalism”? If Howard Roark gives people what they want - no scratch that, if he gives them what he knows they want even before they realise it, and becomes successful at it in attracting further business, why is this evil?

Why are the rich so hated? Seriously, why are the rich so hated? Always assuming they made their wealth honestly, why are the rich so hated?

Mario

I haven’t read the book . But one of the problems with “untrammelled capitalism” is its tendency toward monopoly. There are so many ways in which a dominant company can rig the market to the detriment of consumers. That’s why anti-trust legislation was used in the States to break up the power of Rockefeller in oil and Carnegie in steel. There’s a similar debate going on with Google and Facebook’s huge hold over the digital ad market with its consequences for things like local journalism, the extraordinary cut businesses now have to give to search companies like booking.com etc...
PS I don’t hate the rich as I realise that, despite a not particularly well-paid career in public service , I am vastly richer than most people on this planet ...I do think the Zuckerbergs and Bezos’s should pay more tax though...

[Cockney Sparrow]

As the discussion seems to have moved on:............

Another thing which has been complained of here is quoting the whole of a very long post and then commenting on a short point in it. It helps to edit the original quote down. But there are no forum rules about this

Strange that has been mentioned - I agree it helps - and edit down quoted posts myself.

Forum rules? Surely going off topic is a firm tradition here, I've no objection myself. I haven't myself noticed a lot of edited threads (but then there are a fair few I never visit).

Not looking to make friends here, but I've removed 24 (definitely a record) off-topic posts. Please try to keep on topic, without diverging into general politics, numbers of marriages, etc.

If OT posts are going to be removed, editing threads will absorb a fair amount of time??

[Mario]

I haven’t read the book . But one of the problems with “untrammelled capitalism” is its tendency toward monopoly. There are so many ways in which a dominant company can rig the market to the detriment of consumers. That’s why anti-trust legislation was used in the States to break up the power of Rockefeller in oil and Carnegie in steel. There’s a similar debate going on with Google and Facebook’s huge hold over the digital ad market with its consequences for things like local journalism, the extraordinary cut businesses now have to give to search companies like booking.com etc...
PS I don’t hate the rich as I realise that despite a not particularly well-paid career in public service I realise I am vastly richer than most people on this planet ...I do think the Zuckerbergs and Bezos’s should pay more tax though...

Honestly Heldenleben, I think you raise some crucially fundamental points here.

1) Thank you for keeping the discussion serious,

2) Yes of course, monopolies are highly undesirable and extremely dangerous,

3) I have never used, do not now and will never use comparison sites, and if people are too dumb (yes I use that word deliberately) to understand that it is they who are paying the business’s cost in advertising on such sites, then they are beyond help,

4) I love, absolutely love, your last line. I wonder what mathematical, ideological, ethical, moral, Christian, financial, social, democratic or political formula is used by who, where or when, and why, that someone on say £150k or more, should pay more tax? I guess the reply that he/she IS ALREADY paying more tax is considered facile? So we reach the immoral stage (again, I use that word deliberately), that the harder you work and the more successful you become, and the more satisfied customers reward you with their business, then the more you should be penalised, but the more indolent, lazy, non-productive parasite you become, the more you should be rewarded? We are not here talking about the elderly, the sick, the unemployed or the poor agreed?

And as for the quote given in message 5 by FF, well then, in Hal Crowther’s eyes, I’m now, all of a sudden, “a poor reader, a poor thinker and an unpleasant person”.

And there was I thinking I was such a nice guy. I should be burnt at the stake, just because I've decided to read a book I didn't know the existence of less than two weeks ago.

Mario

[Joseph K]

Why are the rich so hated? Seriously, why are the rich so hated? Always assuming they made their wealth honestly, why are the rich so hated?

Because it's never made honestly. Look at the history of capitalism. The wealth was (still is) stolen in the first place, then that wealth is increased and perpetuated through exploitation of workers.

[french frank]

And as for the quote given in message 5 by FF, well then, in Hal Crowther’s eyes, I’m now, all of a sudden, “a poor reader, a poor thinker and an unpleasant person”.

And there was I thinking I was such a nice guy.

I think a key word omitted is 'well-thumbed' - which doesn't suggest someone who has read the work once, but one who has it virtually by their bedside and treats it as their Bible for life. Only by reading it can you be sure that her critics see things through your prism. Otherwise one judges by the criticisms of people who will most often think like you do because those are the critics you trust. On those grounds I do feel she would be 'worth reading' but she must take her place below a hundred others who interest me even more

Why do people hate the rich? On a purely theoretical ground, because in a universe where equality is recognised as an ideal, they have more than their fair share, indulge themselves too selfishly and have seldom worked harder for their wealth that people who have far less. If the rich were forced to engage in philanthropy proportionate to their wealth, who knows? They might even become loved in another sort of society than the one we live in now.