Hacker News Reader

Comment by gwenhwyfaer | Hacker News Reader

> 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_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.

View on HN

> 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.

Yes, but Jeffrey Archer and Jackie Collins are popular.

OK. And because of this Rand isn't?

You 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?

I 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?

I 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.

Popularity isn't proof that someone is a good writer, but it certainly is evidence of same.

I don't know how far you'd want to rely on that evidence.

Only a small percentage of people buy books regularly. So to make a big bestseller you have to write a book that gets bought by that huge majority of people who don't read much. And usually their decisions are dominated by random extraneous factors: i.e. it's a biography of someone they admire, or is related to some doctrine they subscribe to, or contains facts they need or gossip they want to know about.

Think of the books you find in the houses of people who have hardly any books: the Bible, the Guinness Book of World Records, a Chilton car repair manual, a racy biography of Princess Di, a book of popular mysticism, a book about how to make money or lose weight. Those are the really big sellers.

If it's not general popularity, and it's only critical popularity after a few hundred years, then can a writer's talent even be judged in the short term?

(This question sounds smarmy, but I ask it earnestly.)

No, there's currently no neutral way.

Good judges can tell who the good writers are, but there's no currently no independent way of telling who the good judges are.

Empirically the oscillations of opinion seem to settle down after a few hundred years. Even then there are probably errors. E.g. tragedies will tend to be more highly regarded than comedies, because they seem more serious.

Probably not, no, since one of the tests of quality is timelessness.

Kudos for adding in the Chilton manual. I don't know how you do it, but the detail you add makes these types of observations hilarious because I have seen this set of books in so many houses.

Dan Brown.

But isn't it popularity among the elite (that is, critical popularity) that traditionally decides a writer's talent?

After a few hundred years.

That, and that when it was pointed out, his response was a non sequitur in the purest sense. Anyone who claims the mantle of rationality ought to have a better grasp of basic logic than that.

When I wrote: "OK. And because of this Rand isn't?"

I meant to write: "OK. And because of this Rand isn't a good writer?".

It's not a non sequitur, just a typo.

Yes, it is a non sequitur, in that it doesn't follow from the given premises. All that does follow is that one can't determine whether she's a good writer just because she's popular.

The statement (or at least the fixed one) does follow from the given premise. Just because you disagree with the premise (that popularity might be evidence of quality) doesn't make it non sequitur.

To save myself from repeating the same argument as the few threads above this, I'll just link to it:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=54920

Right. You know, finally I did what one of us should have done some 8 or 9 messages back - I went and checked what you actually wrote:

> the popularity of her books suggests otherwise [my emphasis]

In other words, you weren't actually making the claim I thought you were - that popularity implies quality. So I'm sorry for missing your point originally.

I do disagree that popularity is evidence of quality; popularity is only evidence of broad appeal, and you'd still need to demonstrate a correlation between broad appeal and quality - I contend that no correlation exists. But that's a reasonable debate, not a logical fallacy.

But I have to ask - why didn't you tell me that I was refuting an argument you hadn't made...?

From 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?

Ignore the above. I have a better concept for your context. Thanks.

I don't know; I was quite tickled to find myself described as a BOFH...

Taken 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 =)

Er, 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com