|
It is a masterpiece; to say anything more is pointless. You'll either get it, or you weren't meant to.
that we use for other works; such comparisons just don't suffice. Commercialism has captured and doomed any ability that most current writers might possess so it is impossible to compare The Fountainhead by utilizing the same scale of 2-stars, 3-stars, etc. However, being limited to 5-stars, this is the level I choose. Having read Atlas Shrugged first, I may have been expecting too much from Ayn Rand in this book but I was not disappointed. The Fountainhead was another example of Rand's genius we so seldom experience in today's writers.
Besides having a great plot and writing style, this novel challenge your mind and philosophy of life through the story of its characters, it contains so many quoatble lines of dialogue that I had the urge to use the headlighter in a lot of parts, it also has a very fast pacing: I could read 100 pages in one sitting without feeling tired, the only negative thing I could say about this book is how Rand handles the romatic relationships but that doesn't detract from the overall quality of this novel.
But the big problems with this book are (1) the plot, which is just ridiculous and (2) the philosophy behind the book which is just a failed attempt to justify extreme selfishness as a way of life. I didn't like the sometimes clumsy use of English, which is not the author's first language. Joseph Conrad was so much better at English as a second language. I read this book a few years ago after watching the famous movie with Gary Cooper. I think this book is really bad, but I gave it two stars because it is so influential. But I decided to read the book because Ayn Rand is still an influential figure among some conservatives. I thought the film was silly in spite of having some first-rate actors. Rand was obviously a highly intelligent woman but this book is just as silly as the movie.
She also has a bizarre fascination with causing Roark as much pain as possible. All that's left is to land the girl and get the world to appreciate his talent. The protagonist, Howard Roark, gets expelled from architectural school and can't find any commissions. There's also Dominique Francon, Roarks love interest.
To transition from showcasing the perfect man to creating a practical philosophy would require integrating knowledge about human behavior and human psychology.That said, Objectivism is an interesting philosophy and I would definitely recommend reading the Fountainhead. Roark has all the talent he needs and has reached the point where school has nothing left to teach him. Thus, even if an argument is logically sound, the premises are always open to question. It is better written than her later work, Atlas Shrugged, but still suffers from Rand's heavy-handed philosophizing. This does not even address the issue of whether her conclusions really were derived directly from the premises without any gaps or leaps.The second problem is an issue of human psychology.
It's the same problem as overly strict, moralistic religions: they don't realize that it's impossible for people to live up to those values and the result is self-loathing on the part of its adherents.As for Rand's philosophy, she is very much pro-individual. Rand knew little psychology and gave it little consideration. He has all the talent and architectural knowledge he needs and has seemingly answered life's big questions. He rapes her, but it's okay because he's the perfect hero and she secretly wanted it. There's also Gail Wynand, the head of a news company who could have been like Roark had he not sold out, and Ellsworth Toohey, a power-hungry columnist who holds great sway over the architectural community and enjoys elevating mediocrity. His expulsion was effectively the result of being too far ahead of the curve. The Fountainhead is the novel that made Ayn Rand famous. In short, his character has no room to grow.
I did not manage to catch what was so great about her, but Rand tells us that she's the perfect woman.The plot follows Roark's career as he contends with leading architects who are actually mediocre and Toohey's attempts to sabotage him and curtail his genius. Human achievement is to be valued, with selfishness and egotism numbered as virtues. By Rand's characterization, I wouldn't be surprised if a monkey with an Etch-a-Sketch could design a better building. It serves as an introduction to Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, and tells a decent story to boot. The trouble with using a man like Roark to showcase her philosophy is that it really doesn't show people how to apply it to their own lives. She considers collectivism and altruism evil. The Dean didn't understand his modern style, and he got the boot. Her preferred roles for man and nature are master and servant, respectively.
He is a bit too confident and lacks the self-doubt that affects everyone else. In an allegorical sense, it tells of the triumph of the individual talent, integrity, and persistence over mediocrity and the evils of collectivism. Curiously, her own philosophy was not to be questioned, the reason being that since it was all worked out logically, it is the truth, and questioning it shows an error on the part of the questioner.Part of the trouble with Rand's philosophy is its all-or-nothing approach. His character arc is virtually non-existent. Indeed, anything that questions whether the individual is the greatest thing in the universe is not good for Rand. The focus is on positive accomplishment.
Rand desires people to base everything on reason, hence the name "Objectivism". Rand has something of a one-size-fits-all approach, but we know today that temperament and personality are heavily influenced by genetics.
In the case of Rand's philosophy, we may choose to accept certain premises and reject others, leading to different conclusions. Roark is more like a high-schooler's dream than an actual person.
Any rational argument is based on certain axioms or premises which are assumed to be true; it is impossible to start with only the rules of logic and deduce anything meaningful. He is young, talented, and a social pariah.
Rand likes people who reach the top through hard work and talent, not by undermining the opposition. Not once did his resolve falter.
He is confident in himself and does not express much in the way of self-doubt.In contrast, we see the character of Peter Keating, a man who managed to reach the top of his class despite having little talent. It's an interesting story, but gets dragged down by poor characterization and a heavy philosophical bent.
|
