"I haven't read The Fountainhead but I'll consider it on your recommendation. -Are there any pictures?"

Just do like the rest of us and watch the Gary Cooper movie, and you'll do fine.

And now the other side weighs in...

In the wake of Salinger's passing, it was widely remarked that his classic post-war angst novel of post-modern urban horror Catcher in the Rye was aimed at, and could only be enjoyed by 12 - 15 year old (male) readers. 

I think it's an inncorrect assumption; that the reader can only identify with the protagonist.  That it only makes sense if you see the world as Holden Caufield does.  That since most 15 year old (boys) think they know everything and are just realizing what a load of horseshit authority is, and so on, then only they will identify with Caulfield's novel-length nervous breakdown on the streets of New York. 

To wit: Nonsense - anyone can enjoy the novel, and see it for what it is based on your life-experiences.  It happens that 15 year old (boys) tend to identify with the character more than other readers, but all should be able to enjoy it.

Which leads to Rand and her Fountainhead.  It's a popular book amongst college Freshman and Sophs for the very reasons Catcher is with young boys; when read at that age, the reader might not have the life experiences yet, or have been beaten down enough by life, to see the book for what it is.  At that age, the readers all also feel like they are oppressed by the common man and that they too can become captians of industry or whatever.

Older, wiser readers can read Rand's work the same way they might read, to bring it around and relevent to the forum, Steve Ditko's work.  The stories tell of an interesting philosophical view, based in an extreme reaction to oppressive regimes, and find it interesting for what it is, but not applicable to anything in American society, nor really a reasonalbe or realistic way to live life.

But still.  Enjoy it for what it is!

Re: Patrick on the pradigm shift in comicbook villainy...

   It seems that the change started happening around 1987.  We had a generation of writers and editors who made no bones about their political leanings.  I recall John Romita Jr commenting on his Daredevil stint with Anne Nocenti in which he referred to her as a "Limbaugh Liberal", meaning that she would've been called a raving loon by the political commentator.  Around this time, the general consensus amongst comicbook writers seemed to be that only white male businessmen should be villains and that non-whites were actually anti-heroes who were victimized by the real villains in their world.  At least it seemed that way to me.

   Frankly, I no longer read Marvel comics on a regular basis, though I'm quite often scanning through them to see what's going on.  I may not have seen signs of this in recent comics, but my POV was that the current generation is on the Left, almost with no exceptions.

   I'm well aware that the "evil business tycoon" character had actually be around prior to the developments of the late 1980s, though.  You had Mercedes Midas and Obadiah Stane in the pages of Iron Man, the Brand Corporation in the Beast's early solo adventures and Roxxon in the midst of the "Serpent Crown Affair" story arc which ran through the pages of Marvel Two-In-One during the late 1970s.  We even had Norman Osborn as the original crooked businessman (unethical, actually, but not openly villainous until his Green Goblin persona manifested itself).

" If a man is dissatisfied with his earning power, he's free to attempt to improve the product he sells; he possesses no assurances that he will succeed in his endeavor, however, as success is intimately attached to ability, but he possesses the freedom to try. "

Nice try. Never the case. You're supposing an ideal form of capitalism that has never existed rather than seeing the (admittedly coercive) power of unions and collective bargaining as a reaction to the actual forms capitalism took that were coercive, deceptive and dishonest in their efforts to limit the freedom of movement of workers and their ability to benefit fully from specialized skills of great value.

It is a type of blind faith, where you focus so much on the idealized forms of a purely theoretical form of pure, rational, ethical capitalism that does not exist, never has existed and is incapable of existing that you blithely ignore the fact that such things as strong unions, government mandated minimum wages and negotiated wage levels protected either by the physical  force of union members or government are a vital necessity to counteract and balance out the coercive tactics and powers of employers.

A lot of modern employers, to the extent they act ethically, responsibly, with concern for their workers, do so because they are compelled to.  They pay fair (or fairer) wages because they have to.  And a lot of employers still don't. They treat their employees as interchangeable and easily replacable pieces of meat and will not introduce better safety standards that are guaranteed to prevent needless loss of lives unless they are compelled to do so by law (and some not even then).

This does not mean that there are not ethical and decent employers out there. But laws and agreements, with power and authority behind them, that demand  ethical behaviour from employers in ensuring safety and paying a decent wage do not negatively (but rather positively) affect the employers who already behave decently and ethically.  Only the unethical bastards "suffer" under it.

As much as socialists see capitalists' "celebration" of the "freedom of each worker to individually negotiate his deserved reward" as the divide and conquer tactics of a bunch of  evil and oppressive parasites, Capitalists see socialist demands for "collective bargaining" and "minimum wages" as an immoral and corrupting demand that slackers,  layabouts and people who just plain can't be bothered to work, be payed much more than their efforts are worth, ultimately demolishing the work ethic and making sure no-one wants to do a decent days work. 

Experience has shown us that the higher wages of mixed economies with collective bargaining and government regulation work much better than either of the extreme alternatives of laissez-faire-capitalism or communism.  Just look at all the third world nations that suffer in increasing poverty because they are compelled by (I'm sure) well-meaning economic requirements attached to loans or foreign aid to introduce more extreme (or "free") forms of capitalism in their countries than any American business leader would accept or attempt in his own country. It breaks them.  

We have a balance between a lot of different interests in all our western economies and while that balance may be a bit off in one direction or another now and then,  people still yell for one-sided policies that will just wreck the whole thing. As experience has shown us.

I'm serious. This mantra of "let the dollar be free to do what it wants and we'll all live in a paradise of milk and honey" is as banal as it is tiresome. 

Far better to figure out what the proper balancing points are than argue over theoretical ideals that we already know won't work.

The first being that a man goes into business, not to provide jobs, but to make money.

People start businesses with the sole intention of making a profit. Adam Smith points out that reward is what drives the free market system. Employers need workers in order make a profit by via surplus labor. The average person has no choice but sell their labor for a wage or else die of stravation. Concern for your fellow man has never been part of the capitalist system.

"It was long before 1987. When Marvel expanded in the late 1960s beyond Stan Lee's voice, you had a flood of young baby boomer talent come onboard that challenged EVERYTHING. Specifically, in their view, institutions were corrupt, and it came through in their work."

This is a bit more general than what I'd wondered about.  Authors like Gerber, Englehart and Starlin were totally irreplaceable for me in the gradual shift from childhood to the great beyond.  What I was really curious about was the issue of black villains.  I can't comment about 1987 or later since I had already by that time abandoned comic books for a couple years.  I can recall that in the 70s we had things like Pennysworth turning out to be the mastermind who funded and manipluated the Sons of the Serpent, and Luke Cage used to have a fair share of black villains.  Did that actually change to the point where black characters in general ceased to be villains?  I'd be curious about that if anyone can recall anything.