The Fountainhead: Ayn Rand

A book like The Fountainhead must be judged on two levels – first of course as a work of fiction but second on the philosophy it propounds, since in Rand’s case I think we can reasonably assume that the character traits she ascribes to her hero are indeed traits we are meant to find admirable.

The publishers blurb describes this book as “one of the greatest books of its time.” It goes on to describe the plot in terms that sound more like a clash of civilisations than a love story.

“You will reel, stunned, …at the meeting, and mating of these two most powerful creatures in modern America”

The reality is rather different. As a work of fiction ‘The Fountainhead’ is probably one of the worst books I have read in my life – and that includes the glorious excesses of Lionel Fanthorpe for Badger Books.  It is so flatly written it needs a micrometer to find any variation; the characters are cardboard cut-outs who never change, remaining the same arrogant adolescents throughout. The plot scenario could have been interesting but in Rand’s hands is thrown away. The final pages, (an interminable closing statement in a preposterous trial) are almost unreadable and entirely pretentious. The true awfulness of the book is made even more obvious by comparing it to John Dos Passos’ trilogy ‘USA’, which covers much the same period and addresses many similar themes. The end product is not a fictional representation of Rand’s philosophy, but a badly written Mills and Boon.

Rand appears to have held her fiction in high regard. Bizarrely others appear to agree with her – look at some of the reviews on Amazon.

…it explores the intellectual frontiers of personal freedom and responsibility in many magnificent, powerful passages that are second to none. And it exposes in searing detail as few modern novels do the deepest flaws and dishonesties in collectivist/Leftist politics.

---

This book was recommended to me by a friend who described it as a life-altering work and the best book he had ever read. I greeted this with the cynicism that such emotive comments often deserve. Nevertheless, I bought the book and have bought it for many more friends since. No book (or other art form, for that matter) has influenced me, encouraged me, excited me and criticised me as much as Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead".

---

Thank you Ayn Rand. This book has inspired me beyond wordss.

However, high levels of self regard do not guarantee either quality or capability. If that were so, then Florence Foster Jenkins would be a great soprano.

The book concentrates on five characters, all of them pretty much two-dimensional.

The hero, Howard Roark is a modernist architect. He is also a rapist who from the opening of the book is incapable of relating to the people around him and who in his arrogance transforms that incapacity into a life principle.

Set against him is Peter Keating, another architect. Like Roark, Keating is totally self absorbed, but lacks Roark's arrogance.  He is a dishonest man who on several occasions presents Roark’s work as his own, albeit with Roark’s consent, for financial advantage. Why Roark should agree to do this is never made clear. Keating is slightly less of a cardboard cut out than Roark although no more likable.

The love interest is Dominque Francon, a journalist working for Gail Wynand and daughter of another architect for whom Keating works. It is she whom Roark rapes although for some unexplained reason she returns to him time and again, seeking degradation at his hands. It must be said that despite the description of her in the blurb as one of America’s most powerful creatures she is also pretty wet.

Two other characters are important to the plot (such as it is).

Gail Wynard is a newspaper owner – in the Hearst mode. He is a crook, buying and selling politicians and destroying competitors by corrupt methods, but he is presented by Rand as another heroic figure.

Finally there is Ellsworth Toohey, another journalist working for Wynand. In ways not elaborated or explained, Toohey wields considerable power, which he chooses to use to undermine Wynand, finally engineering a destructive strike.

It is around this sorry bunch that the book revolves.

Rand wants us to regard Roark as the hero, because of his refusal to compromise for his ‘art’. He is described as a modernist, although Rand’s grasp of the reality of the modern movement in architecture is pretty nebulous. Nevertheless, his modernist pretensions are supposedly sufficient in themselves to make him one of the good guys. Any links to the past, any sense of history, any recognition even that others have solved problems already, are presented by Rand, through Roark, as weakness, even moral degradation.

The book is dishonest in its use of plot devices and manipulation to argue the case for Roark's/Rand's philospohy, rather than relying on the philosophy per se. Two examples will suffice:

•  The activities of Toohey and his cohorts are presented not as those of corrupt people acting in self-interest. This would be impossible for then there would be no way to distinguish the arrogance and self-interest of Roark from that of Toohey. Instead Toohey is presented as the front man for collectivism, even though his political philosophy is clearly one with the likes of Hearst (or for that matter Wynand).

• Roark agrees to design a public housing project for Keating, on condition that his name is not attached to it. Clearly he cannot allow this since the whole idea of public housing is anathema to him, yet he does it nevertheless. He then destroys it, claiming that he was forced to contribute his work as a gift!

Rand does not concede that the impact of individual choice on others is in any way relevant. Any action is acceptable so long as it does not depend primarily on other men.

This is the voice of totalitarianism. Since only the individual making a choice can judge it, no man can argue that the choices of Hitler and Stalin are wrong so long as they get away with it. It doesn’t matter that they get away with it because so many people are ‘second-handers’, since it is the victim’s fault.

“A man thinks and works alone. A man cannot rob, exploit or rule – alone. Robbery, exploitation and ruling presuppose victims. They imply dependence. They are the province of the second-hander.”

Fundamentally this is a repellent book about a repellent philosophy. It has no redeeming merit as fiction. If you want to see individualist ideas presented in that format read Heinlein.

Comments

[sandeep nagar]

sir,

i read ur comments on fountain head and would like to discuss some of the points that u have written.

*The reality is rather different...
my views:
yes it is.thats what rand wrote,but apart from that she explains why it is so.simple:because world is dominated by SECOND HANDERS so in thier world "reality" will obviously be different.

*It is so flatly written it needs a micrometer to find any variation.
my views:
again i agree with u.it was delibrately done.truth is written like that.no sugar coated words.just FLATLY WRITTEN.just the content.nothing else.we CREATERS like things that way.as roark always did.

*the characters are cardboard cut-outs who never change, remaining the same arrogant adolescents throughout
my views:
thats the property of creaters.they dont change for the demands of the world because they do not live for it.they live for themselves.

*The hero, Howard Roark is a modernist architect. He is also a rapist who from the opening of the book is incapable of relating to the people around him and who in his arrogance transforms that incapacity into a life principle.
my views:
u have described marvellously the very character of roark as it is.but he has no GUILT for that.he shouldnt.he is a creater.he lives for himself.works for himself.satisfying his own ego.
avtually thats what everybody does,but nobody recognises it because everbody is brainwashed to feel that this is evil.roark doesnt feel so.this is why he is incapable of relating to the people around him and this is why u interpreted that his arrogance transforms that incapacity into a life principle.this is exactly Ayn Rand wanted to convey.ROARK HAS A FACE WITHOUT GUILT.

* Peter Keating, another architect. Like Roark, Keating is totally self absorbed, but lacks Roark's arrogance. He is a dishonest man who on several occasions presents Roark’s work as his own, albeit with Roark’s consent, for financial advantage. Why Roark should agree to do this is never made clear.
MY VIEWS:
first two sentences are true to every word.i shall answer the question the third sentence.
roark always wanted his work,his designs to be build.and as u have read that finally he concluded that this was impossible in the world of second handers.what option does he have.simple.to fool keating.keating want designs as he( a second hander is incapable of making them).roark gives them to him.keating is happy to have them in his name.roark is happy to have his ideas being erected on ground.roark always loved his work more than anything else on earth(this is what u call his arrogance).its natural for such a man to fulfill his love at any cost.

*It is she whom Roark rapes although for some unexplained reason she returns to him time and again, seeking degradation at his hands.
MY VIEWS:
yes roark rapes her.and she likes it.because only roark could give her the intellectual satisfaction which is an important part of sexual intercorse.to completly enjoy it one must match with others undersatanding capabilities.if it matches one does not need to say a word.body becomes the language.they communicate through it.thats what is depicted in the novel and thats what u call a rape.
now the reasons for why she comes back to him.to seek that intellectual satisfaction which she could not get from anybody else.what else would she want?what else would one want?

*Gail Wynard is a newspaper owner – in the Hearst mode. He is a crook, buying and selling politicians and destroying competitors by corrupt methods, but he is presented by Rand as another heroic figure.
MY VIEWS:
rand presented him as a hero because he understands roark.he understand his moves because he might have been a creater himself in his past( as everyone of us)but changed to a second hander under the influence of market forces.

*Ellsworth Toohey, another journalist working for Wynand. In ways not elaborated or explained, Toohey wields considerable power, which he chooses to use to undermine Wynand, finally engineering a destructive strike.
MY VIEWS:
u missed the point that toohey is a perfect parasite( a second hander).please read the ways through which he does acquire power and then read the way rand defined parasites in final speech of roark.then u would agree with me.

*The activities of Toohey and his cohorts are presented not as those of corrupt people acting in self-interest. This would be impossible for then there would be no way to distinguish the arrogance and self-interest of Roark from that of Toohey. Instead Toohey is presented as the front man for collectivism, even though his political philosophy is clearly one with the likes of Hearst (or for that matter Wynand).
MY VIEWS:
as i explanied in my views previously,toohey is a parasite whereas roark is a creator.this clear cut difference explains the so called arrogance of both.both arrogances has different objectives.roark living for himself and none other and recognising it too.toohey also doing so but in parasitic fashion:gaining public support,telling them that human spirit is inferior and thus feeding on their inferiority to sustain his own life.he doesnt even recognise what roark does despite the fact that he does the same.

* Roark agrees to design a public housing project for Keating, on condition that his name is not attached to it. Clearly he cannot allow this since the whole idea of public housing is anathema to him, yet he does it nevertheless. He then destroys it, claiming that he was forced to contribute his work as a gift!
MY VIEWS:
as i explained above why roark used to give his projects to keating so i think its better not to repeat those arguments.he destroys cortland because the spirit of his project is insulted.

*Rand does not concede that the impact of individual choice on others is in any way relevant. Any action is acceptable so long as it does not depend primarily on other men.
This is the voice of totalitarianism. Since only the individual making a choice can judge it, no man can argue that the choices of Hitler and Stalin are wrong so long as they get away with it. It doesn’t matter that they get away with it because so many people are ‘second-handers’, since it is the victim’s fault.
MY VIEWS:
individual choices do have impact on others.but then should others guide the individual's choice.if yes then its not an "INDIVIDUAL CHOICE" AT ALL.ITS A COLLECTIVE CHOICE OF PERSON AND ALL OTHERS.what a paradox.then what is individual choice.so better we accaept that there is a thing called individual choice.whenever someone "decides" we call it "making an individual choice" because the act od deciding is individual:to feel happy and satisfied.even if we decide to make others happy we do so because we "ourself" feel happy doing so.
so did hitler and stalin.they get away with thier choices because they had power.

shall look forward for ur comments.
thanxs

sandeep nagar
phd student
nuclear science centre
new delhi
india

[Z. A. Akhtar]

kuttey kameeney, bhosadi key,
tere pass lund hai ya nahi, yaa tho hai nahi aur yadi hai tho khada nahi hota hoga, tabhi tu itna phijul philospher ban raha hai, pahley apney physical system ki error delete kar phir aagey ki soch.if u r unable to delete ur physical error,then u meet anybody anywhere.
wait for ur next response.

Z. A. Akhtar
Diploma Student
Pakistan Intstitute of Technology
Pakistan

[Hanzel jeff escalona]

st want 2 say thanx 4 the criticism that you had submitted, it really helps.

[Tristan]

While I disagree with the vast majority of this commentary, I would like to address the final comparison of Roark and the proponents of Ayn Rand's philosophy to Stalin and Hitler. You have clearly misrepresented, or perhaps just deeply misunderstood, the basis behind Rand's beliefs. First, I find the comparison to Stalin laughable, considering that Rand would say that Stalin is the antithesis of her "perfect" man, actively using and pursuing power to the determent of the individual. Futhermore, Rand never argues that hurting another human being is justified; she just says that it is wrong to use force to control the actions of others in any matter. The fact that you misrepresented the purpose of Rand's quote with regard to rule, exploitation, and robery simply disgusts me. Rand is stating that the actions of rulers and thieves is wrong, not justifying them, as any person capable of reading a sentence and qualified to think for themselves would clearly understand.

[Ian Bertram]

If you want to discuss Rand's ideas I am happy to do so. Come back when you are able to do rationally and without resorting to insult - and have properly read my post. I suggest ypu look very carefully at the section beginning:

Rand does not concede that the impact...

[Rangaram]

i dont agree to your comments in any way roark is a person who lives for himself and does not work to meet the needs of what the society calls a good person
rand also brings to the fore the makings of a hypocrytic society

[Chris Schnurr]

You know, I read both Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. I did not STUDY them. I prefer to deal with things based on personal experience. However, that said, I look at it this way - only I am responsible for myself.

For years I relied upon government welfare, but could not progress. Only when I took a personal risk, and went to work in a restaurant for tips only did things begin to change for me. It was both horrible and motivating.

I set out to change my path with NO assistance. I educated myself. I studied HTML and finally got a job in a non-profit designing their webpage. This led to graphic design because we couldn't afford to hire one. So I learned the in's and out's of photoshop and illustrator and tapped into my artistic talent.

I then had to raise money to pay for the publications I created. This all led me to my present job.

And you know what? I appreciate where I am, and where I can go. I'm motivated further. I had two choices - do it myself, or wait for the government to do it for me. I'm glad I did it myself - I felt rewarded.

That's what I got out of Ayn Rand. Do I agree with everything she writes. No. But I agree with the underlying message - when we work for the social good, we forget about our own good.

I sum it up this way. There's a homeless man who lives in our downtown core. He wanted money for food. Rather than give him money, I said, I'll buy you lunch. I also very much enjoy talking with various people and learning from their stories.

However, the man refused and uttered some profanities and walked away - I guess he wasn't that hungry, and hence quite fine without having money.

I do recognise that some people have neither the capacity nor ability to provide for themselves. I have no problem assisting such people. However, when we provide for the "social good" we create a mentality of dependence, as demonstrated in my story.

I identify with Rourke. And with John Galt to some extent. While in Atlas Shrugged the creators created their own "collective", I believe what she writes is more a study of the uses of collective.

Unfortunately, I believe current uses of collective are measures of controlling the population and debilitating the population to justify hegemonic existence - for the public good, which is laughable.