I decided I should read The Fountainhead. Maybe it was a desire to overcompensate for an inferior literature education, but it could have been the title. Those words: The Fountainhead, held a mystery to be be delved and considered beyond the initial glimpse of article plus compound noun. Obviously, I didn’t have a clue as to the book’s content.
It took weeks to trudge through (that’s what happens when you read at 15 minute intervals), and I won’t trouble you with a synopsis, because in the words of an airplane seatmate from L.A., most people read this when they were “students in like the eight grade”. So you know already, or even if you don’t, it isn’t really important.
The Fountainhead was largely conceived as a vehicle to promote Rand’s philosophy, objectivism and to project the ideal man. So, I wasn’t the target audience…The initial encounters between Dominique Francon and Howard Roark strike me as anything but ideal (and more than a little disturbing), but I will leave those details for the critics and students of comparative literature to sort through.
After I finished the novel, I came away with two impressions.
The first being Ellsworth Toohey was colossal dick, brilliant but a dick is still a dick. Toohey’s subtle manipulation of characters like a deft puppet master, infuriated me off, like a well written character should. He was so wonderfully despicably written that Bagging Tooheys became another euphemism for expunging waste from the litter box.
As for my second impression, maybe objectivism has a limited application. I object to one size fits all philosophy based on principle. I have yet to encounter an ideology, or an ism for the matter, that adequately takes into account the complexity of individuals when proclaiming what behavior is most beneficial to the collective. I don’t agree with Larry Flynt about many things, but I do agree with his quote, “Majority rule only works if you’re also considering individual rights. Because you can’t have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.”
Objectivism’s most logical application is art. Not inclusive of so-called-art that infringes upon the rights of an individual or group. By infringing, I mean unsafe, or unlawful.
Artists are more apt to create their strongest work when they follow their own vision. They may not succeed in creating timeless work, or work that appeals to the masses, but they will produce work that better represents the essence of who they are and their path of growth. Will it make the world a better place? Probably not, but do millions of velvet Elvis paintings, or Thomas Kinky reproductions make us more enlightened?
Artist choose their own paths. I’m not condemning anyone who has made sacrifices to obtain some level of commercial success. All must eat. Freewill permits us to choose. I’m glad some still choose to follow their own stream of conscience even if it doesn’t lead to greatness, because sooner or later it could inspire someone else to transcend the barrier.
I read several of her novels years ago, what I mostly remember is that her characters seem to enjoy suffering – or she enjoyed making them suffer? I can’t remember which.
I loved Atlas Shrugged (many, many, many years ago) and Anthem. But i read The Fountainhead, got as far as the scene where Roark rapes Dominique and she loves it. I put the book down and never picked it up again.
I am not cool with rape.
Bob, this the only book of hers I have read, so I can’t make claims about her characters in general, but the characters in this book suffered both regard to plot and personal flaws.
******
meno, I’m not cool with it either. I continued reading to determine if it was pertinent to the plot. I suppose it was in establishing what was ultimately tortured fucked-up relationship, but it was a relationship I failed to understand.