Hello, a couple of months ago (on January 4th), I wrote a post on how much I disliked the fountainhead… someone responded that I was wrong on a couple of points and that I should reconsider… to Walter from Chicago, IL. Please enjoy.
I appreciate when people respond to anything I write. I have never met with anyone who said they loved this book as much as you. There was one girl who wouldn’t shut up about it during my freshman year, but she proved to an idiot who only enjoyed it for the controversy. You, on the other hand, provide some depth in your response. I will offer you a rebuttal now.
1 – I did not say that Roark and Keating were equally as talented in the field of Architecture. That is incorrect, as you know. Sadly, Roark is Keating’s only friend (in Keating’s mind). Keating can open up to him and will tell him anything – things he would never tell his mother. At the beginning of the book, immediately following graduation, Keating sits on the stoop of his house with Roark and tells him of how he wished to be a painter as a child. This is a mirror of Roark – who decided as a child he wanted to become an architect. Roark has no family and has been on his own for years. Keating’s mother instructed him to be an architect because there is no money in painting.
If you remember towards the very end of the book when Keating and Roark discuss the housing projects, Keating arrives with some pieces of canvas where he has painted something. Rand never tells us what was on the canvas, but Roark looks at him and says, “It is too late.” He means that Keating cannot recreate himself into the painter he wished to be as a child. He has chosen his path, and he must walk the line to the very end. He then feels pity for Keating and is disgusted by the feeling.
I do not know much about Rand’s philosophy, but it appears that Keating was taking a step in the right direction. He had decided he did not want to be a free loader, and he wanted to become the man he was to be, but Roark tells him no. Who is Roark to tell anyone they are to stop? It is against everything Roark believes. I believe if Roark had evolved into something other than an architect, he would not be held back by anyone’s words – he encouraged the sculptor (whose name escapes me) to return to sculpting because it was his calling – perhaps I read too much into the painter thing, but this is how I interpreted it.
2 – Thank you for agreeing with the Toohey thing.
3 – Dominique Francon is an interesting character. The only reason I call her a whore is because she will willingly give herself to men who do not deserve her as punishment. She will play the role of the perfect wife to effectively punish herself. To give herself to Roark would be death because she would stop pretending and start being the perfect wife – submissive and adoring – no longer the individual she must be to keep Roark. Meanwhile, she cannot be alone.
She divorces Keating, only to marry Wyndham. Wyndham is the worst kind of second hander in accordance to Roark. He is the highest offender due to his thirst for power over other men. I will never understand why Francon would sleep with these men, and somehow internal reflection isn’t even something that she can handle well. She needs external forces to help her to achieve her worthy state for Roark. It seems contradictory to the essence of Roark and the perfection of man, but Rand has an interesting take on sex and gender relationships. The woman and the man in all her books end up together, and the woman is a submissive creature in both. The female is something that requires saving and guidance. The Females are flawed and learns slower than the men in her books.
4 – I can’t really speak to the fourth piece. This is my belief on Roark. He is an elitist and an egoist in the worst sense. Be the change you wish to be in the world – I hate that quote, but it is applicable. Here would be a great time to implement strategies that could change the world. Roark can be considered another Christ figure. The perfect figured of Christ perhaps – Roark is Rand’s answer to all the Toohey’s – and a reflection of what men can become (Keating being the opposite – One of Toohey’s protégés). Only Roark does not lead men – he waits for them to come to their own – without guidance. He judges men and can be fooled (for example, he was fooled by Toohey and the old rich guy at the Temple). It is selfish and very unnecessary – and it all runs by Roark’s standards and no one else’s. Somehow he is the only correct person in the book – and those that differ in opinion are wrong and pervert the world…
I don’t believe I need to take yet another look at this book. I’ve read it twice. The first time in high school for cash, the second as a young man starting off in the world. Neither time was I touched by it. Both times I saw flaws with its ideas. I outlined some of those flaws here. As you can see, I’m capable of more detailed analysis. What was written for the blog was really a quick and dirty version. I would have left it at that if not provoked. Perhaps, you should take a second look at the book. If you come to the same conclusions, than you and I fundamentally disagree and must go our separate way. I am a believer of altruism – but I am no doormat. I think there is a balance that can be struck, and Rand only speaks of extremes that do not really exist in real life.
Toohey’s niece is Rand’s definition of an altruist, but in what light was she painted? She is ruined by her altruism – she stopped being a person completely. She was cold and sterile – she frowned upon anyone who lived without her help and worked hard at making his or her lives hell. This book is not something I can stand behind. It is not something I can say I love, because I believe in the value of mankind, but I also understand and see the value of human interactions and connections. To remove that social networks makes us no better than apes – or Howard Roark.
JJRC
that is a great review, especially the painter part