Howard Roark

[Norbert P]

. . . what I don't get is celebrating the reading mentality.

  I just reread Charles Portis' True Grit.  I want a trophy presentation!






(Great book, BTW)





 

[Mac Plumart]

What is the "reading mentality"?

[Steve Salmen]

Wish I could live by these words:

I swear by golf and my love of it, that I will never give strokes to another man nor ask another man for strokes either.

[Adam Clayman]

Steve, That's should be Ran's goal.

[Tom_Doak]

I still have not read the book and have no immediate plans to do so, so, a question:

Would Howard Roark be the kind of guy to read a book about a fictional artist who stood on his principles?  Or would he be too engrossed in his own work to care about a novel about an architect or artist?

[Adam Clayman]

Tom. Excellent point! However, her other book is well worth it. Especially nowadays. Where the issue of government taking over industrious peoples lifes hard work is forefront.

[John Kavanaugh]

So is she basically an intellectuals Jeane Dixon?

[Bill_McBride]

What is the "reading mentality"?

Hopefully describes those who are willing to seek information that may be outside their personal knowledge and comfort zone, in an open-minded way.

But somehow I doubt it.

[Tim Nugent]

I still have not read the book and have no immediate plans to do so, so, a question:

Would Howard Roark be the kind of guy to read a book about a fictional artist who stood on his principles?  Or would he be too engrossed in his own work to care about a novel about an architect or artist?

Probably the latter. But then others may see it differently.  I also don't think he would have much to say to those who "didn't get IT".

[John Kavanaugh]

Mark David Chapman was a reader, John Lennon was a writer.

[George Pazin]

Mark David Chapman was a reader, John Lennon was a writer.

On the other hand, John, you say you're not a reader and we've all read your writing...

The reality is the two are not mutually exclusive to most.

-----

Like most subjective things, people's views on Ayn and Howard and the rest of her characters probably say as much about them as it does about her. Actually, in this case, I'd say it says more, as people's views of Ayn are rarely based in actual analysis, but rather in how and what she has perceived to have written.

For the record, I seem to recall Howard catching up on some reading while he was lounging about Wynand's yacht.

[Mac Plumart]

Sounds like I need to read Founatainhead.  I read Atlas Shrugged and it is my favorite book.  But the mental energy it took to read that thing just about killed me.     I suppose what doesn't kill you makes you stronger...off to Barnes and Noble!!   

[John Kavanaugh]

Mark David Chapman was a reader, John Lennon was a writer.

On the other hand, John, you say you're not a reader and we've all read your writing...

The reality is the two are not mutually exclusive to most.

Damn, I thought I had finally crafted the perfect thread killer comment.  Those of us who read Wikipedia and write on Twitter are neither readers or writers.  The same goes for any social networking site including Golfclubatlas.

As far as the reading mentality that I find disturbing I "read" the following on Wikipedia concerning Mark David Chapman's motivation for killing John Lennon:

At some point, Chapman became obsessed with Catcher in the Rye after rereading it for the first time since high school. He was particularly influenced by protagonist Holden Caulfield's polemics against "phoniness" in society, and the need to protect people, especially children. He was holding a copy of the book when he murdered Lennon, in which he had written "This is my statement." After his arrest, he wrote a letter to the media urging everyone to read the "extraordinary book" that may "help many to understand what has happened."[44] When asked if he wanted to address the court at his sentencing, Chapman read a passage from Catcher in the Rye that describes Holden Caulfield's fantasy of being on the edge of a cliff and having to catch all children from falling. A psychiatrist at the sentencing, Daniel W. Schwartz, said that Chapman wanted to kill Lennon because he viewed him as a "phony." Chapman later said that he thought the murder would turn him into a Holden Caulfield, a "quasi-savior" and "guardian angel."

I see similarities between MDC's flawed logic and intellectuals who criticize a golf architects creation based on some idealized fiction they have created or believe they have read.  I think we have all met the guys who think they are a quasi-savior of golf architecture.  Of course the critics do not want to harm the architects they hate, they just want them to no longer be architects.  If MDC could have only be so civil.

[George Pazin]

Drawing a "reading mentality" inference from one example of a nutcase makes about as much sense as drawing a "movie mentality" inference from Hinckley or a "math mentality" inference from Kaczynski or any number of other silly examples - but hey, don't let that stop you, John.

Btw, all 3 of those apply to me, you might wanna watch your back.

Why do you think the writers left?

[JMEvensky]

For the record, I seem to recall Howard catching up on some reading while he was lounging about Wynand's yacht.

Maybe an early draft of Atlas Shrugged.

[Peter Pallotta]

John - nice post. Yes, I think what you say is true: the written word (including the best of it, especially the best of it perhaps) has the power to tear down as much as to build up, to clutter as much as to clarify, to foster fear and hate as much as peace and charity, and to confuse as much as to educate.  We might laugh (and well we should) at the religious types who condemned the invention of the printing press (reasoning that the bible would soon become just one book amongst several thousands, and no longer THE book) but I think they recognized correctly that the technology of the written word was a powerful double edged sword  -- allowing for hitler to spew his insanity as much as it allowed helen keller to share her hope.  The challenge for people who want to write and who take such things seriously is to recognize that their words, even the best of them and most well intentioned, go out into the world and thus can become, in dialogue with the reader, something entirely different, something even dangerous and destructive. It makes a thoughtful person question whether it is a good thing to ever write anything at all; whether it isn't, in truth, much better to fall silent and so not add to the clutter and confusion of the world.  But then who'd be left doing the writing?

[Mac Plumart]

You guys are bonkers!!!  Seriously.  What are you talking about.

A nutcase reads a book, which I've read and enjoyed, and kills someone...and it is the books fault.  GMAFB!!!!  The guy is a whack job. 

The written word is the only thing that can influence people, at least that is what I take away from John and Peter's post.  Again, GMAFB!!!  I thought Judas Priest and their backwards messages in songs was the media element that led people to evil.  Or wait, maybe that was Ozzy.  And George mentioned some other great ones..."movie mentality", "math mentality".  Oh yeah, we could have religous mentality, cult mentality, etc, etc, etc.

The world is full of crazy people, who get lost, and do stupid things.  What got them to that place certainly isn't the reading of one book, or hearing one song, or wathcing one movie.  They are NUTS!!!  Plain and simple.

Like George touched on with his watch your back statement, I've read Catcher in the Rye, listened to Ozzy and Judas Priest, I've watched a Clockwork Orange, and I've even done some math problems.  But I haven't killed anyone who didn't deserve it!!     Heck, John even survived a golf trip with me and is still alive to talk about it.

How about talking some golf? 

Let's all chip in, build a course, blow it up, and then play it as it lies after the destruction.  I can use the skills I learned in the Marine Corps demoltions training to try to sculpt the land in certain ways with the charges and we can experiment with the types of hazards that C4 and dynamite make.  It will be cool...and instead of minamilism, we can call it destructionism.  BABY...THIS IS GONNA BE HUGE!!!!

[SL_Solow]

Reminds me of an article in an issue of the Lampoon before it went "national."  In a take off of Time Magazine, there was a satirical review of a new form of art known as "excressionism".  You can figure out the rest.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mac - bonkers I may be, but what better place to throw out half-baked ideas for discussion than a discussion board. (I made clear earlier on that I thought a discussion about the fictional Howard Roark could not be meaningfully tied into discussion about real world golf architects -- so this thread was way OT a long time ago, in my mind.)  With JK's posts, you either assume that he's joking or assume that he's being serious -- and I've found that, if i assume the latter and try to dig deeper, there is sometmes a fruitful method to his madness...or at least some fun and interesting thinking to be had.  And when I mucked around a bit I found myself thinking that JK hasn't been the first one to raise the potential dangers inherent in the written word. Anyway - on to golf (well, not actually, because it's snowing here).
P

[Mac Plumart]

Peter...

you are right; "what better place to throw out half-baked ideas for discussion than a discussion board"

I could have been more couth in my post and the GMAFB stuff didn't need to be there.  Sorry if I offended.  I do stand by what I said, I just should have said it better.  My apologies if I offended John or you, Peter.

[John Kavanaugh]

While I'm sure it has been said before, you'd have to ask a reader, the printing press made it possible to justify the destruction of civilizations where the internet will soon give just cause to the destruction of mankind.

We just need to take a hard look at freedom of speech in the modern world not so much for what is being said as much as what is being heard.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mac - no, no offence taken at all; and you were right to point out what you did.  I just wanted to explain a bit better what I was trying to say the first time. Btw: What I tend to do around here when I'm writing my posts is to discard the first or even second ideas that come to my mind -- those ideas tend to be either obviously rightl or obviously wrong; and then after that I just let my fingers type whatever they want in reaction to the posts that have come before.  Sometimes what comes out is dumb....

Peter

[John Kavanaugh]

Mac,

If you feel it is important to know I was not offended either.  I seriously doubt if I would know I was offended if I ever was or had been as I can not recall a moment of taken offense in my life.  Defense does win championships.

[Colin Macqueen]

Gentlemen,

One can easily tell that snow is starting to lie thick on the ground in the Northern hemisphere when GCA threads drift, for want of a better word, in the direction of this thread. I have never read any of Ayn Rand and given the divide I seem to have saved myself some reading time! Or is my education incomplete. If reading the damn book exhausted Mac "Energy" Plumart what hope do I have of completing it. I have found that my 'reading mentality" ensures that I devour the written word voraciously but, damn it, I have a hard time internalising and remembering what I read these days!  What I most enjoy is when argument and counter argument are tossed across the space so keep up the good work gentlemen. The Guardian Weekly used to do that very well.

Cheers Colin