I've been wanting to write about this for a long time (ever since I read the book) and here I go. This book was recommended to me by a friend who said it depicted the realities of the world.
The fountainhead is regarded as an excellent fictional book the world over with heavy doses of philisoophy, ethics, morality and her unique philosophy "Objectivism".
However I failed to understand why the book is appreciated so much the world over. It is not a very engaging book and is extremely pessimistic and disillusional.
The protagonist Howard Roark is an extremely unrealistic character who if he had existed in the real world would probably have had a nervous breakdown because of his isolation from the social world of humans. But jokes apart I read in a website that Rand had modelled Howard Roark on what she considered the 'ideal man', free of prejudices and free of common human failings like jealousy. To ensure that she introduces him as an orphan who is free of the 'corrupting ' influence of his parents.
As the book progresses we see that Howard wants to be an architect in his own right and wants to build bulidings in his own unique way. Pretty idealistic and perfectly alright. We are then introduced to his friend Peter who is a pretty pathetic creature always requiring the approval of others for everything he does and says- a perfectly insecure young man who will go to any depth to get things his way.
Then she introduces us to a beast of a human called Dominique Francon who like I said if had existed in the real world would have been locked up in an asylum for her sadistic cruelty. This lady will go to any length to ridicule and and belittle others in the knowledge that she is more purer and nobler than others. It is at this point that I start having doubts.
Someone who knows the faillings of others will most likely understand the reason for those human incocnsistencies and sympathize with them or at the most will consider themselves superior. But this lady in her attempts to depict the shallowness of those around others stoops to a level worse than them in her cruelty and highhandedness.
But as she is pretty and the daughter of a rich architect she is tolerated at best by most and despised by a few. This lady falls in love with Howard for according to her he is the embodiment of all that is pure in mankind. But she realises that this 'shallow' and 'ugly' world will not let him survive.
So she decides that she will accelerate his downfall because she does not want him to be 'tainted' by the 'ugly world'.
She goes about spreading wrong things about Howard and hitching every possible assignment he gets to destroy him totally. And every day that she successfully ruins his projects she sleeps with him.
At this particular point I have become totally convinced that this is an absolutely psychotic book but I continue reading it to see what I have missed that the others can see. The book continues on with Howard's heroic struggle with the world and his ultimate triumph in the end. As the book unfolds Domonique keeps moving from one successful guy to antoher and ditching him in his moment of despair. Needless to say she unites with Howard in the end.
This book is supposed to champion the celebrated concept of individuality and it expresses the idea that taking care of your self interests will benefit the society in the long run.
She portrays Horward as a dynamic individual who charts his own course and succeeds in life. But what of the female protagonist?
Howard loves his job and wants to work the way he wants to. He is an admirable perrson in the book. The author portrays Dominique as a woman of pure and noble nature above human failings(I dunno how to express this but that is how she is percieved in the book). But she does not have an ambition of her own, she does not seem to love her work , however she loves to point out other people's faults.
This degrading mentality disgusted me and being a bit of a feminist myself wondered why Rand being a woman had opted for such a disgusting portrayal of a woman. (She is not required to, but well I always pin my hopes on female writers to tell the female side of the story.) The female protagonist does nothing more than sleep with different guys and bring them down at the best possible opportunities. The merits of the book are how it successfully showcases the superficiality of the world and its failings.
Rand is an advocate of "laissez fair" capitalism and free market fundamentalism both of which can be disastrous to a country. Concepts like welfare are anathema to her and she believes in exclusive capitalism. Socialism is a strict no-no, and the concept of equality for all a completely devious plan bent on 'punishing' the truly 'meritorious'.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
A refreshingly different perspective! I wonder if you have read "Atlas Shrugged" and what you might have to say of Dagny Taggart!
Thanks. I havent read Atlas Shrugged because of my disappointment with Fountainhead. I think most Indians like Fountainhead because of their disillusionment with our collectivistic culture.
rags:
I agree with your sentiments regarding Fountainhead. I never liked it either. I read it long ago and never found it 'great' as people described it.
This was before 1994, I wrote small criticism of this book - on a piece of paper and took copies to distribute [This was before advent of internet in India].
I found the book too long, and too disengaging. Characters are monolithic. Just to get the point of objectivism, one need not write such a big book. Schopenhauer would have spent less than a page to convey the entire message.
Sujai said:
Just to get the point of objectivism, one need not write such a big book.
Absolutely right. I felt the same way. Haven't read Schopenhauer though.
Rags: Which other book evokes such strong reaction like what you did in your post?
The very fact that people never forget about Howard and Peter long after they finished reading Fountainhead, is Ayn Rand's success.
I read Fountainhead in 1994 and I still remember the passages so vividly. Hats off to Ayn Rand!
Okay, so if I don't like a book because it has terrible characters and the memory of the book is with me forever does it mean that the author is extremely successful? I don't understand.
I remember certain terrible Tamil movies because of its bad storyline and bad characterisation. Does it mean that the director has done a good job? I will concede one thing though. This book is deeply disturbing. You could probably compliment Rand on that note.
The other thing I don't like about this book is that, Ayn Rand applies objectivity to subjective preferences like different styles of architecture. Howard Roark is a modernist who likes straight edges and doesn't care for ornamentation and such in his architecture. But I don't understand what this has to do with objectivity. People will have different tastes in the arts, but Rand belittles everyone who doesn't conform to her modernist and minimalist preferences.
Roark is someone who would have designed the former World Trade Center towers - bland and boxy, as compared to the Empire States Building with its spire which looks a lot more majestic. Well, Howard would have hated add-ons like the spire, wouldn't he?
Can't agree more. According to Rand all architectures with ornamentation and flowery designs are "unoriginal" because they are an imitation of the past and hence should be done away with.
I read it in college long time ago, and didn't think much of it. What's surprising is how many people get brainwashed by that psychotic crap written by Rand and blindly believe every word of hers. Randroids are not much different from any religious fundamentalists.
-Chirkut
Hi Rags,
Love ur blog, especially this post. It's such a coincidence, `cause i've been thinking about this book off-late as well. i read it in college, and was blown-away by its supposed idealism. But now i do question a lot of things, that you have so succinctly mentioned.
cheers,
sonia
mediaencounter.blogspot.com
I felt the same when I read Fountainhead..just cudnt figure out what was so great about this book that every book lover seemed to endorse it...but then i got a chance to read Atlas Shrugged - and it really is a good story which depicts Rand's objectivism in a much broader and better sense.
Of course there are issues in it which are neither practical nor relevant to the world - but a work of fiction is a work of fiction and should be treated that way - it does depict the realities of the world in some ways, but in an exaggerated fashion. Its upto us to be able to sort out the practically possible from tons of overstatements.
omg! this is the first time i saw anyone state my views on fountainhead!!! normally people list ayn rand's books as their 'favorites' only to 'sound well-read'.
Hi roop. Yeah, many people do that, but I've realized through the blogosphere that there are an equal number people who despise the book!
Post a Comment