conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Give me a description for a story titled The Fountainhead about York, Times with the genre: Literature & Fiction, Genre Fiction.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: A writer of great power. She has a subtle and ingenious mind and the capacity of writing brilliantly, beautifully, bitterly. ("The New York Times")
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Give me the first five paragraphs for this story.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: The Fountainhead
  After a chapter-by-chapter analysis in this way of the whole of Part One, Miss Rand sums up for herself certain key points:
  Do not dialogue thoughts. Control adjectives—cut the weakening ones. Do not use adjectives unless they are different and illuminating. Don't go into over-detailed analyses of psychotogy—unless it's something new and illuminating to say. Don't give any details whatever—in sentences or thoughts—unless you have something new to say.
  Incidental question: a librarian writing about library building, insists that libraries must be made to look as accessible to the public as possibte—to "bring the library nearer to the people." "Spacious and inviting entrances are places at grade level, close to the public thoroughfare, with as few steps as possible between the pedestrian and the building." This may be quite sound in relation to library architecture, but the question it raises, in a more general sense, is this: is it advisable to spread out all the conveniences of culture before people to whom a few steps up a stair to a library is a sufficient deterrent from reading?
  Raymond Hook, architect of the "Daily News Building" in New York (ugliest building in the city! AR) is "an architect of the modern type who preaches and practices cooperation. He has no use for the architect who 'shuts himself up in his office to make a design and then sends it out to a contractor to build or to an engineer to fit up the plumbing, heating and steel as best as he can.' Nor has he any use for the architect who 'goes up to a Communion on Mount Sinai and hands the results to the owner, the engineers and the public: In his view, as in my own, the best designs, at any rate for the building of skyscrapers, come from 'a group of minds in which the architect is one link in the chain.' "
  This type of architect works "by conference" in which all parties concerned take part, discuss his drawings, make suggestions, etc. (A Hollywood story conference) The result is what the result of collective creation always is—"an average on an average."
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Give me another paragraph.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: This type of architect works "by conference" in which all parties concerned take part, discuss his drawings, make suggestions, etc. (A Hollywood story conference) The result is what the result of collective creation always is—"an average on an average."
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Give me the last five paragraphs.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: This type of architect works "by conference" in which all parties concerned take part, discuss his drawings, make suggestions, etc. (A Hollywood story conference) The result is what the result of collective creation always is—"an average on an average."
  Let us decide once and for all what is a unit and what is to be only a part of the unit, subordinated to it. A building is a unit—all else in it, such as sculpture, murals, ornaments, are parts of the unit and to be subordinated to the will of the architect, as creator of the unit. No talk of "the freedom of craftsmen" for sculptors and the like here.
  Also—man is a unit, not Society. So that man cannot be considered as only a subordinate part to be ruled by and to fit into the ensemble of society.
  Much of the confusion in "collectivism" and "individualism" could be cleared up if men were clear on what constitutes a unit, what is to be regarded as such.
  This may sound naive. But—is our life ever to have any reality? Are we ever going to live on the level or is life always to be something else, something different from what it should be? A real life, simple and sincere, and even naive, is the only life where all the potential grandeur and beauty of human existence can really be found. Are there real reasons for accepting the alternative, that which we have today? No one has really shown [today's] life, as it really is, with its real meaning and its reasons. I'm going to show it. If it's not a pretty picture—what is the substitute: