Just discuss the plot of the book with me?

[Ann]

So I'm only 16, and I'm reading this book right now (for myself, not school or anything), and I'm having a hard time grasping why this book is as special as it is said to be. Am I just too young to understand a book like this one, and so I should just reread again after several years, or am I missing something? Or could the book really be as simple as my understanding of it right now? and I would totally get Roark to build my house ;)

[Feliks]

Eeek. There's a lot more edifying and fortifying works of literature I would have recommended to you (a 16 yr old girl) rather than anything by this writer. Really, I wouldn't worry about 'getting' this book; Rand is a poor novelist; she's mainly trying to promulgate a hare-brained, crude, and dismal philosophy of hers under a thin, 'pot-boiler' veneer. Less than meets the eye. Check out her biography wherever you can find it on the web and then ask yourself whether you really need to be wasting your time on this. Heck if you just want to ensure you grasp the plot, rent the Gary Cooper movie. The backstory behind the movie (real life adultery) is added value to boot!

p.s. interesting link
http://atlasleft.org/colbert-atlas-sh...

[One]

Which is one person's opinion. I think perhaps you're too young to appreciate the book. It tends to be one of those books that people idolize or utterly despise. It's really a take on how most of mankind have their value systems all messed up. Capitalism has gotten a terrible reputation lately, especially from left wing enthusiasts (or nutters, depending on how you see it). While capitalism isn't perfect, it's easily the best system we have.

I'd suggest waiting until you're older. PJ O'Rourke's 'Parliament of whores' or 'Eat the Rich' are probably better books to try, that have similar themes, but aren't so overly serious or long winded.

[Feliks]

Eh. H'mm. Actually most modern philosophy and literary criticism repudiates Rand, hardly just I. If we re-ordered our values to suit Rand's vision..now that would be truly, messed up.

This, definitely odd:
One wrote: "While capitalism isn't perfect, it's easily the best system we have...."

Outlandish. Terrible argument. The kind of argument people make even when it kills the rest of us. Remember, capitalism was really efficient when we had landowners and slaves; but what did that do for the enslaved? Do we mainly care about efficiency (which it is far from being) or democracy and quality-of-life (which it corrupts)? And since when must one be part of 'the left' to observe this...?

[One]

Which is why I stated that people either love the book or hate it. There is no point in getting into an argument that neither of us could ever hope to win.

[Walter]

As "One" noted, Rand's philosophy is polarizing. If you follow online blogs and such, it seems that those who disagree with her conclusions, will despise almost every word she writes. Moreover, especially political progressives (my observation), will distort and smear her philosophy. And sometimes try convince others to not even bother to read her work! To me, that would be a reason TO read it. I hate being told what to read or not to read. ;-)

Mind you, I have no qualms with those who disagree with Rand's line of thinking--the logic, assumptions, strength of her evidence--, but you won't see this kind of rational debate in blogs or in discussion sections of Goodreads. There are scholarly positive treatments and criticisms of her works, but I'm getting ahead of myself. You want to learn about The Fountainhead.

Perhaps, you could throw out some specific questions, like what's the meaning of this passage? Or I don't get Roark's motivation to say/do X in this scene? I do think adolescents can appreciate The Fountainhead, but I can also appreciate that the philosophy can be a bit dense in parts.

My background: I'm a doctoral student in clinical psychology & do self-esteem research. The theory behind my work is, in part, tied to Rand's "theory" of self-esteem. More specifically, Nathaniel Branden's theory of self-esteem is one of the main theories (along with others) that guides my research. Branden's self-esteem theory has it roots in Rand's ethical philosophy. I guess what I'm saying is that I am quite familiar with Rand's philosophy, although it has been almost 20 years since I read The Fountainhead. Ask away!

[Harv]

For me, the plot of THE FOUNTAINHEAD is all about "Success," the different definitions of Success, and the different paths individuals choose in attempting to attain their unique version of Success; and, ultimately, the consequences.

It's not entirely clear to me whether I value THE FOUNTAINHEAD highly on its objective merits, or whether I am being unduly influenced by the recommendation that I read this by a girlfriend during college whose opinion I still respect. Perhaps this book hit me at the right time in my life, with a message I needed to hear: Howard Roark.

At one time or other I think I've tried to read every book Ayn Rand had published. THE FOUNTAINHEAD is the only book of hers that really worked for me as entertainment and enlightenment. I managed to finish ATLAS SHRUGGED, but I think the novel is bloated and self-indulgent, like Heinlein's later works. Carefully Cut 40% of the text from ATLAS, and we might really have something! (When Ayn Rand's editor for ATLAS suggested shortening the book, her reaction was something like: "What? You would dare edit The Bible?")

Ayn Rand's philosophy doesn't interest me. What interests me are the sharply-drawn and even unrealistic archetypes of Dominique Francon, Howard Roark, Gail Wynand, Peter Keating and Ellsworth M. Toohey in THE FOUNTAINHEAD.

Howard Roark is an architect whose work is wildly, even fiercely unique; and totally uncompromising. Kicked out of college for failing to perform as expected, Howard is fine with that because he has learned all he can there. "I design and build MY WAY, take it or leave it." Mostly, people want to have nothing to do with him, as a result.

Peter Keating is The Pleaser Architect, knowing just the right thing to say, giving people what they want, having no original ideas of his own but stealing bits and pieces from any source to make do. His career initially rockets to the top. Later, his inner emptiness haunts him. He as no artistic vision, but rises like froth.

Gail Wynand is the ends-justify-the-means newspaper guy, who single-mindedly focuses on monetary success at the expense of every other aspect of morality or his own personal inclination, building a media empire that can make or break the architects, the designers of buildings. Incredibly perceptive, he subordinates his own views on art or architecture to whip up the masses to sell more papers--until he wants his own country home designed, and turns to Howard Roark after rejecting everyone else (not remembering that his own media empire at Toohey's direction had attacked and denigrated Roark without mercy, earlier.)

Ellsworth M. Toohey is the behind-the-scenes political-player always networking and trading favors who works for Gail Wynand, but who ultimately teaches Gail a lesson on real political power, when he shuts down the Wynand media empire later in the book by getting his many contacts to move in unison at Toohey's direction.

Ayn Rand is not kind to her female characters in THE FOUNTAINHEAD. Dominique, the heroine, doesn't even get her own "Part" in the Four Part novel, and her sex scenes, if not actual rape by 2013 Standards of Political Correctness, are disagreeable. She seems to be a neurotic to me, who sees far more than almost anyone else, but is unable to utilize her vision to produce Art, but is instead wounded by what she perceives.

And I have to give Ayn Rand points for understanding that passion/LOVE/sex are unconscious forces that can make us do things in bed that surprise us!

When I needed to hear it, THE FOUNTAINHEAD gave me permission to go my own way in the world, regardless of what anyone else thought, and completely abandon the safe slotted career paths that were about to draw me in. If Howard Roark could do it, maybe, just maybe I could do it. "Career Failure" became not an unthinkable, avoid-at-any-cost path, but a valid option of personal vindication.

Anyway, that's my take on THE FOUNTAINHEAD.

Cheers!

@hg47

[Hayley]

There's a lot in The Fountainhead (and Atlas Shrugged for that matter) that you don't need to read deeply. But as someone wrote, she writes of archetypes, of black and white characters, so of course it's unrealistic but the characters have ideals to either strive toward or strive against, depending on your view. When you walk around a city and you hear people saying things like, "isn't it a shame at these new, boring structures" or "the old architecture is so much more beautiful" you can think of Howard Roark and ask yourself, "Do I agree with that? Why? Why is old considered good in some cases and why is new considered good in other cases?" If you get into Atlas Shrugged, you can look at a row of factories and either be despondent about the loss of nature and an idealized past where we all skipped through grassy meadows happily, or you can say, it may not be pretty but that's development and development brings jobs and jobs tend to make people happier than not having jobs. Yes, she takes things to extremes, but what better way to see her message? (And I think part of the reason The Fountainhead gets so much play is because of those insanely brutal sex scenes!)

[Ann]

Walter wrote: "As "One" noted, Rand's philosophy is polarizing. If you follow online blogs and such, it seems that those who disagree with her conclusions, will despise almost every word she writes. Moreover, esp..."

Would it be possible for you to sum up, the motives I guess, behind Roarck and Dominique's relationship? I feel like I understand each of them, separately, at least to an extent, and I get the sex portions of it and that whole deal, but if you could just clarify the whole thing in general? Just what attracts them to each other? And thank you, I really appreciate this :)

[Ann]

Harv wrote: "For me, the plot of THE FOUNTAINHEAD is all about "Success," the different definitions of Success, and the different paths individuals choose in attempting to attain their unique version of Success..."

Do you have anything to say about Dominique??

[Harv]

Ann wrote: "Do you have anything to say about Dominique??"

Hey, Ann!

Well, don't give up on your own impressions of THE FOUNTAINHEAD; your own idea of what Dominique is all about. Don't let us old codgers bludgeon you with our fossilized scholarly opinions.

Beyond what I wrote in message 7 of your Discussion about Dominique, I think she is afraid of her own emotions. She seems to share Roark's superior in-depth perception of society and brutal honesty, but is more whimsical and fragile in her behavior. When Peter Keating first kisses Dominique she feels nothing and pretends nothing, and seems comforted by that nothing. Isn't Dominique afraid to love Howard Roark? Afraid that her love might destroy him and possibly herself as well, like she destroyed the statue?

But that's just my opinion, Ann. What do you think?

@hg47

[Walter]

Ann, I can see why you're asking about the motives for their relationship. Why they are together is rather confusing, and I think Rand intended it to be confusing. I have to admit I was quite confused by it and I was in my mid-20s and had gone through a few romantic relationships.

From my guy perspective, my question was, "What does he see in her?" To me, it's like there are 2 sides to Dominique. I think Roark saw through her facade; her emotional callousness and pretentiousness. That's how she presents herself to others. Her other side is what he knew she could potentially be; more real, more independent, more rational, more true to herself. Mind you, I would have avoided an emotional wreck like Dominique at all costs, but then the story would not be as dramatic if she was the "perfect" woman for him.

Why is she attracted to him? Well, he is the hero of the book; a man of virtue and independent vision. I'm guessing that she sees this and that although she may be denying or disowning these parts of herself, deep down she wants to be that way as well. So, in a way, she can experience the person she truly wants to be through her relationship with Roark.

I'm just throwing this out there; my personal hypothesis as to what attracts them to each other. I don't know if that's what Rand intended, but it's how I can make sense of their confusing relationship. There's more to it, and more ways at looking at it (such as Harv's), but I hope you find this useful.

[Irene]

I think that the reader has to be inquisitive. I read this -- 1 of my favorite all time books -- when I was 18. The book opened my eyes to architecture and the idea of the incomplete masterpiece. Looking at the background of the characters, the reader can see how one's upbringing shape their art/ethical code and their work ethic. It is about breaking out of the box and creativity for the sake of the creator. I love her 3 novels with "We the Living" being my favorite. To date, no one has been able to get Rand's words off the pages and unto the screen.

[Ann]

Naiya wrote:What is your understanding of it?

Well first off, thank you for saying that I'm not too young for this book. :) In general, I hated the length of this book, especially because it's so dry compared to the YA books I usually read. Plus, I usually listen to music while I read, and it's easy for me to just skim through the longer passages and finish the book within a few hours. I probably shouldn't have done that with this book, because there were times when I would read outside by the pool, and I understood so much of more of what I read then. This book took me DAYS to finish, which is practically unheard of for me, HOWEVER, when I got to the final trial at the end of the book, I found that I really had, at the very minimum, a general understanding of each of the characters, and I don't think I would have had that if the book would have been shorter. So that's what I would say about the length. :P
From this book, I think I'm going to take away many of Roark's outlooks on the society around him. He's kind of the 'perfect' guy. He doesn't need anyone else to tell him who is he, like how when he went on the long cruise with Wynand and he had the long spiel about 2nd handers. He definitely is not one of those people, but is he just as successful, if not more successful, then they are? Well yeah, and he didn't even measure his success by wealth or fame.
Another thing that was really inspiring for me was seeing how much he loved what he was doing, and how he wouldn't let anyone or anything stand in the way of that. Or if they did, he wouldn't care, but wouldn't give in to what they wanted. It takes something special to be able to do that, something that I don't know if I will ever be able to obtain, but is certainly something I can strive for now.
What else... a lot of the economic/ social themes in the book, like capitalism, I'm still not too sure about. But I still could almost feel the struggles going on in the book that were linked to those themes. So maybe I don't necessarily understand them, but I could feel them.
This is probably just a lot of rambling, haha, sorry. :P
All in all, I think that I'm glad I read this book, regardless of the length. I would read it again, especially because of the way I understand it now, because there is so much more I would understand if I did, but I don't think I have it in me to go through the entire thing again.
I liked all the architecture stuff in it too, because for some odd and uncharacteristic reason, I got all of that stuff. The way Roark would build for the landscape, and only that setting, was something that I could perfectly envision. I was surprised by that, because I have never even seen anything like what he was describing, yet I had this perfect image that always came to mind in my head. But I could understand why he would design things the way that he did, and why he would refuse to build if he had to build under certain circumstances, or if his design would be altered. I feel like there's some stubborn part of me that would do the same thing. (and if there are legit houses and building that Rand had in mind while she wrote this book and you know what they are or how to find them, I would absolutely love to see them)
So that's a little of what I'm taking from this book :)

[Ann]

One wrote: "Which is why I stated that people either love the book or hate it. There is no point in getting into an argument that neither of us could ever hope to win."

Did you love it or hate it?

[Ann]

Harv wrote: What do you think?
You just had to throw my question back at me didn't you ;)
Dominique, it's like I don't understand her exact motives but I understand what she does. Like how she hates so much of the world she lives in, like Roark does, but she takes such a different approach to her life compared to the one he takes. So maybe that's why they are so perfect for each other, because they are opposites, essentially, in how they live their lives. But Dominique, she puts herself through pain to get back at the world she hates? I know she wants to test herself, but what for? If she wanted to, she could move somewhere and just escape from the people she despises. She could even just live through somewhat more desirable circumstances, but instead she wants to put herself through the worst scenarios.
And then how she is constantly trying to make Roark fail with his career, even though she wants to fail at making him fail because she loves his work so much. That didn't make much sense to me either. Was she trying to make him unsuccessful so he wouldn't be faced with all the popularity and fame that would ultimately result in the trials and the possibility that his career would end?

[Walter]

Ann, you wrote, "(and if there are legit houses and building that Rand had in mind while she wrote this book and you know what they are or how to find them, I would absolutely love to see them)."

Ayn Rand, in part, modeled Roark's architectural vision on that of Frank Lloyd Wright. Enter "frank lloyd wright houses" on Google - Images and you'll get some idea of what inspired Rand.

[One]

Hi again Ann, I fall into the loved it category. It helped change the way I thought about a lot of concepts when I was younger. Most people tend love the book or hate it depending on whether they agree with Rand's conclusions or not.

As for Dominique, her motives were complicated but understandable. She tried to make Roark fail because she felt that the world didn't deserve what he was trying to offer it.

[[deleted user]]

I fall into the category of people who love it. Everyone says that Ayn Rand's philosophies are extremely twisted, and while that may be true, I don't think people should hate the book just because of that. I'm not a very political person, but I understand if you don't agree with her philosophy- but that's not all there is to the book. It really makes you wonder about life, and it is written beautifully. Many people also say that Ayn Rand's characters in The Fountainhead are black and white. That's not true at all- explain Roark, Dominique (who I am coincidentally named after), and Wynand. None of them are black and white- they have confusing motives and are not completely good or bad, and in no way shape or form are her characters flat. Even Keating has depth in his lack of it.
Dominique loves Howard Roark because he is determined and strong, and he stood out to her because he is so different than everyone else. Dominique just wants a relief from all of the sickeningly fake and shallow people around her. Dominique also wants someone that understands her. And Roark does, completely, but he lives his life very differently from her- so they are alike in some ways and different in some ways and that is why they connect as much as they do.
Roark is independant and knows what he wants, and he doesn't let anyone's opinion bother him. He loves Dominique because she is beautiful, she understands him, and has a refresheningly different outlook in life than most of the others around him. He loves her because she is strong and opinionated just like he is, and because she too is determined. She will stop at nothing to destroy him and knows how to get what she wants. He loves her because she is the only person on Earth that can have any power over him, the only person that has an effect on him, because she is so similar but not the same.
Gail Wynand puts Dominique at peace and is a step up from Keating because he also challenges her, like Roark does, whereas all other men look at her and tell her that they love her without knowing her, or understanding her, or connecting with her at all. Wynand is like Roark only he can be affected by other people, and that is why he built himself to the top and made sure that he had supreme power over everyone, so that they couldn't have power over him. He lives his life differently than Roark but understands Dominique.
Dominique believes that the other people on Earth aside from her and Roark don't deserve beauty. That is why she is intent on destroying Roark, because she thinks that his talent and beauty is wasted on everyone. Pain is how Wynand, Roark, and Dominique feel passion, because for them pain and suffering are the only ways to live in the world.
I do not necessarily agree with Ayn Rand's philosophies, but there is, believe it or not, more to the book than that, and it doesn't matter what she or the characters believe, it matters how the characters deal with the world, how they live, and what they do, and it matters how it is told. I think that The Fountainhead is a masterpiece. It, like Roark, Wynand, and Dominique, is a challenge. It makes us think and wonder. Anything that does that is a work of art.

[Walter]

I'm enjoying the discussion here. Other people's views helps me realize that it's been too long (17+ years) since I last read it. Maybe I need a refresher.

Rand's philosophy does seem to be another level of discussion. I won't belabour my points (although in retrospect, I did) or defend the philosophy in this thread, but I wanted to comment on the following:

Dominique wrote: "Everyone says that Ayn Rand's philosophies are extremely twisted, and while that may be true..."

I'm disappointed to read this coming from a fan of her fiction. Seems to me that the smearing of Ayn Rand's ideas by progressives/liberals is achieving some success, even among fans of her fiction. I'm not implying that you're smearing her philosophy, Dominique. But based on your statement, I suspect that you're a "victim" of this smear job.

Anyway, I wanted to be clear that not "everyone" believes Rand's philosophy is "twisted." There is serious and academic scholarship, including a peer-reviewed journal, on Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. Wikipedia does a nice job at summarizing some of the main Objectivist scholars. For those interested, I'll just suggest searching for "Objectivism" in Wikipedia.

I would be skeptical of any person who offers their broad pronouncements about Rand's ideas--whether positive or negative conclusions (e.g., extreme, silly, sociopathic, antisocial, uncooperative, "greatest philosophy since Aristotle," etc.)--as sufficient reason to take their statements at face value. Intellectual independence is a lesson that Rand really drove home for me: Think for oneself. Question authority. Ask why.

Obviously, to think about the truth or validity of Rand's philosophy, one does have to read it for oneself. I would recommend doing this over reading political blogs or op-eds that opine on Rand's ideas. If anyone is interested, I can private message you with a list of non-fiction books related to Objectivism.

Harv indicated that he is not too interested in Rand's philosophy, but that he does appreciate the characters. I was a little confused by this because, for Rand, each central character is a living embodiment of philosophical beliefs. Their behaviour reflects these philosophical beliefs; the philosophy in action. Unfortunately, Rand seemed to reduce all our core beliefs to philosophy and people's beliefs are much more nuanced than that.

So in understanding what motivates Rand's characters, you do get some understanding of her philosophical ideas. Mind you, Rand's connection between philosophy and character is probably much more explicit in Atlas Shrugged than The Fountainhead. Like I said, I may need to re-read The Fountainhead!

To summarize, if you feel you can learn something life-affirming from Rand's characters, then I think you are implicitly learning about her philosophical system. If this is true, Rand's philosophy may not be as twisted (or psychopathic or pathological) as some bloggers & media writers would have us believe.

As I noted previously, I'm all for questioning and criticizing her philosophy, but first one needs to be accurate and fair about what the philosophy actually entails. Rand's lesson of intellectual independence applies here too!

[Hayden]

Ann wrote: "Naiya wrote:What is your understanding of it?

Well first off, thank you for saying that I'm not too young for this book. :) In general, I hated the length of this book, especially because it's so ..."

You articulate yourself very well, Ann. And I'd say you have a really good grasp of the book.

It is as simple as you thought it was. The basic point of the book is that you have a right to your own creative vision and a duty to yourself to express your unique talents and gifts. Others are threatened by that and will try to stop you. How determined are you not to let them? That's really it. You can lay a whole lot of other stuff on it--but then that wouldn't really be in the spirit of the story, would it? :D

It's a message we really should hear more of and one that's particularly important when both we're young and forming and older and have forgotten to be passionate. ;D

[Ana]

Hello-

I read this book in my late teens and was initially impressed by it. As I got older I realized that Rand is not much of a novelist-- her characters are very one-dimensional, her plots are utterly unrealistic, and she tends to do what many inexperienced writers tend to do which is put long speeches of philosophical speculation in 'dialogue' which, as we know, is not how any real person speaks. However, that doesn't mean the book is of no value and it has endured over so many years for a reason.

The best way to understand the Fountainhead is to see it more as an allegory or a morality play than a novel. Each character stands for a specific ideal (either negative or positive) Only Gail Wynand is given a little more nuance in that he's a more complex than the other characters.

Rand takes her philosophy and uses her characters to take her philosophical positions to the extreme. For example, in Roark she portrays the uncompromising artist but the way in which he acts in the book is to be uncompromising to the point of caricature.I thought of him as Frank Lloyd Wright taken to the absolute extreme and encased in what is an unintentionally comic 'perfect' body based on the descriptions...gifted architect trapped in the body of a Calvin Klein model!

Other lesser beings envy Roark's perfection and they set out to destroy him. This is also depicted in a very unconvincing way but it's all to the purpose of drawing out Rand's ideas to their logical conclusions.

Her reversal of conventional ideas (charity=kindness/goodness) is radical but she convinces the reader of her positions by having the most loathsome characters be avatars of these ideas. It's a very clever gambit.

I think when you read through it expecting less realism but reading it as a symbolic narrative it becomes a better book in a way...because as a realistic novel it utterly fails in every way. (Don't get me started on the love scenes...ugh) I do think it has many fine passages and I have reread it since my teens and appreciated some of its strengths even if I don't subscribe to any of her philosophies!

[Arsalan]

I read this book at 13, it wasn't that hard to grasp, you'll be fine.

[Ann]

Dominique wrote: "I fall into the category of people who love it. Everyone says that Ayn Rand's philosophies are extremely twisted, and while that may be true, I don't think people should hate the book just because ..."

Thank you for taking the time to write all of that! The way you explained Dominique was close to what I thought of her so I guess I am on the right track!

[Ann]

Walter wrote: "Ann, you wrote, "(and if there are legit houses and building that Rand had in mind while she wrote this book and you know what they are or how to find them, I would absolutely love to see them)."

..."

I looked some of the houses up and just wow. They aren't exactly how I imagine them but in a way, they are so much better. Thanks!

[Ed]

Personally I think a lot of you missed the point. To me Fountainhead is about PRINICIPALS. Which means to believe in something and stand by it no matter what, no matter how bad it hurts. I think that is why so many people don't like the Fountainhead (especially younger readers) because there are practically no principals in society today. Everyone seemingly wants to take the easy way out, the path of least resistance.

[[deleted user]]

Yes, I agree with that. It is about principals. And society has hardly any of those.

[Walter]

Ed, I think others are stating what you are stating, but doing so differently. Regardless, I agree that Rand's protagonists, like Howard Roark, are challenged in living a life of virtue, of upholding their moral principles regardless of their situation. Yet, despite their struggles, they stay true to their principles (or values, as Rand refers to them in Atlas Shrugged and her non-fiction) because their self-esteem and authentic happiness depends on it.

[E.D.]

One could find the same principles or "values" in every Disney production. "Believe in yourself...stay true to yourself..YOU can do it if you try". Would knowing of Walt's racism change your view of Dumbo? Would Rand's relying on government "handouts" cloud your perception of her idea of "virtue"? Would it really matter?

Probably not. We take away the messages we're inclined to hear.

One interesting "what if", though.

How different might the story have been if Roark (through the luck of the genetic draw) had been a short, fat, prematurely balding, troll of a man with a flatulence control problem? Same artistic skills, same sense of values. Same outcomes?

[Ann]

E.D. wrote: "One could find the same principles or "values" in every Disney production. "Believe in yourself...stay true to yourself..YOU can do it if you try". Would knowing of Walt's racism change your view o..."

I really like that comparison to Disney movies :)
And hmmm, as much as it pains me to say it, I have to think no, the outcomes would be different. Because (and ugh I hate saying this) I feel like Roark is the 'perfect' man and a perfect man wouldn't look like that. (I sound so terrible right now). I feel like he would've had even less respect had he looked differently, but at the same time I don't think that Roark himself would've cared what he looked like. I think he still would've been the same person, so in actuality, he probably could've gotten to the same level of fame he had achieved by the end of the book. Really good question, though, what do you think??

[Walter]

Interesting to see E.D. trolling in this Ayn Rand thread as well. Ann, you take the civil approach, and believe that E.D. is serious in his questions, but I suspect--based on his posts-- that he is not interested in a rational discussion about Rand's ideas.

[Ann]

Walter wrote: "Interesting to see E.D. trolling in this Ayn Rand thread as well. Ann, you take the civil approach, and believe that E.D. is serious in his questions, but I suspect--based on his posts-- that he is..."

Oh :( you think so?

[E.D.]

Oh, poppycock, Walter. Do try to stay on topic.

Ann,
You make an excellent point. Real life is complex, and not always fair. Troll Roark might indeed achieve the same level of success professionally. Then again, he might not. You show a heightened sense of empathy in your response. Don't lose that. Some consider that the greatest of values. :}

[Walter]

Ann, based on E.D.'s comments here and on an Atlas Shrugged thread that I started, yes.

[Walter]

Your own words, ED, speak louder than your protestations.

[Marie-pier]

Harv wrote: "For me, the plot of THE FOUNTAINHEAD is all about "Success," the different definitions of Success, and the different paths individuals choose in attempting to attain their unique version of Success..."

What about Dominique Francon, I would be interested to know what you think of her character. I'm having a hard time pinning her down, I think Roark and Keating are so polarized, (first one idolized, second one despised)it makes it easy to see where they fit in her doctrine, but Dominique?

She understands real art (which makes her valuable in Rand views), but sacrifice herself to it, by never being happy again. Doesn't this go against Rand views?

She just confuses the heck out of me.

[Harv]

Hey, Marie-pier!

I was disappointed that Ayn Rand didn't give Dominique Francon her own Part in the novel. If Peter gets his own part, she should have one too!

As I think I stated previously, I am not much interested in Rand's philosophy. Walter is the Go-To Guy for that. What interests me in THE FOUNTAINHEAD is Rand's story and the characters. The five major characters seem to me to be extreme unrealistic archetypes, created deliberately so to advance Rand's story.

My take on the Dominique Francon character is that she is a hyper-sensitive neurotic, who has sort of emotionally shut-down in order to function at all. Dominique is as perceptive and intelligent as anyone in the novel, but instead of being able to utilize her own thoughts and vision, seems wounded by "Reality." She is broken. This is just my opinion.

My take on artists is outside of Rand's philosophy. Artists are broken in a way that sometimes fixes other people. My theory is that an artist's creative output is a kind of therapy that allows them to express self-destructive hyper-sensitivity; to emotionally blow-off-steam. Over time, the love and passion between Dominique and Howard, even her opposition to Howard, seems to have a healing effect upon Dominique. In my opinion.

Rand's rape scene is a puzzle. I read it more as a demonstration of transcendent emotional frenzy of love, sex, and passion crashing these two humans together, beyond either Dominique's or Howard's ability to resist. I read Dominique's "resistance" as an acknowledgment of her own powerful feelings of desire which frighten her. Again, that's just me.

If you are confused about Dominique, don't feel bad, Marie-pier. IMHO Dom is also confused about Dom.

Cheers!

@hg47

[Marie-pier]

Interesting! I like your vision of it. I seem to have read the story line and characters only as mascots and "promoters" to objectivism , for which I could appreciate the value, if it wasn't so bias by random redefinition of term and lack of pragmatism.
It makes the book more bearable to read as a story in its own

[[deleted user]]

I liked the first part of the book, but reading further made me detest the " positive " character- Howard, and Dominique. I also od not think AYn Rand is a good novelist, or at least her propaganda aims are making the characters flat and the plot shcematic. I felt she is doing what those novels of socialist realism did in the fifties in communist coutries ( I grew up there)- promote an ideology rather than write a story.
The book was a disappointment. And Dominique's enjoyment of rape preposterous and naive. AT least that is what I feel.

[James]

It's a good book, the characters are intriguing. I read the book when I was sixteen, too, and it was for an English class (summer reading). Someone mentioned earlier that the point of the book was success. Perhaps, but I think it was more so integrity. Sure, Rand has her own version of what integrity means and why it is in keeping specifically with her philosophy. But whether or not the characters are a bit flat, they are still real enough to make people love or hate them. In my mind, that is the mark of a good character.

[[deleted user]]

Yes, I suppose you have a point. But Ayn Rand seemed to show her sympathies too strongly.the characters would have been all right if there was not that tone of self righteous admiration by AYn Rand for Howard and Dominique.

[Ed]

James wrote: "It's a good book, the characters are intriguing. I read the book when I was sixteen, too, and it was for an English class (summer reading). Someone mentioned earlier that the point of the book was...but I think it was more so integrity"

I yhink you hit the target James - integrity.

If only our society had that value today. Look around - there is no integrity among anyone, especially our so called leaders.

[Daphne]

I actually started reading Ayn Rand in college, and I think it was very fitting at that time. I'm not saying you are too young to read it because honestly she does come to be very eloquent with her ideas but perhaps at this phase of your life, it isn't exactly relatable for you yet.

However a few years into the workforce, I admit I am not as enamored as I was with her works when I was in college. So I guess it just depends on your frame of mind.

When I was in college, I was deeply in need of roots and ideologies that have vague footing in reality so when I read this book I was really moved by it. I guess its one of those books that really moved me especially that part with Stephen Mallory and Howard Roark.

But well time, time changes everything. lol

[Tom]

I liked The Fountainhead. Haven't read Atlas Shrugged. But from what I've read about it, Rand's controversial philosophy is more represented by Atlas Shrugged than The Fountainhead.

I thought the Fountainhead is about how an individual's artistic vision should never compromise to the committe's views or public opinion or conventional wisdom or popular taste. That's why he blows up his building rather than submit to the changes.

The book seems to be arguing that group think can never produce great art. Just look at Hollywood blockbuster movies versus independant films. Hollywood may make entertaining movies, but they aren't of the same artistic quality as an individual's vision in an indie film.

No great novel was ever produced by committee. In fact, committees have banned many great novels.

Artistic taste is not democratic and should never be.

That's what I got out of The Fountainhead, which is about the triumph of the individual's artisitc expression, which is quite different from the philosopy of selfishness Rand later espouses.

Unfortunately, the hostility to Rand's selfishness colored the reaction to all of her work.

[Arnab]

I liked it. Howard Roark, architect. Some characters, I didn't and probably won't understand - Dominique for example - have no idea what she wanted to accomplish by her affair with Peter, and then Gale Wynard, if she was in love with Haward.

[[deleted user]]

Yes, HOward Roark although rather too " symbolic" was a character I liked, too, and the architectural discussions, that was great, Dominique- I do not think AYn Rand knew what to do with her female characters- any of them.
And while I detested Peter to start with, I sympathised with him more later.
But still, the book read like an ideological pamflet. But then, I grew up in a communist country- I have poor tolerance of preaching and ideology of any kind!

[Walter]

I didn't read Ayn Rand until after I graduated from college. In fact, I read most of her non-fiction, as well as several self-esteem and psychology books by Nathaniel Branden, before reading any of Rand's fiction. This may have helped me put the stores within philosophical context.

A few years into the workforce, namely the government, I was even more enamored with her work and libertarian ideas in general (e.g., John Stuart Mill, Ludwig Von Mises, Frederich Hayek). Whether you like her work, I think, also depends on your pre-existing philosophical frame of mind. I found myself agreeing with some of her key conclusions--that happiness is result of acting virtuously (e.g., honesty, integrity, productiveness), that evidence-based reasoning is the optimal way to truth, that to truly think independently we need a politically free society. With agreement in those areas, other aspects of her ideas fell into place for me; like pieces in a puzzle that finally fit together.

Contra to Rand, I don't agree that egoism is ultimate justification for a moral action, but we definitely follow a egoist framework in our daily lives from where we shop, to which friends we choose, to people we choose to affiliate with, to the careers we choose, to our choice in spouse(s). But in some instances, we need to consider that the other person is the primary beneficiary of a moral action and that we get very little benefit; maybe a little feeling of pride in minor situations (e.g., holding a door open for a little child who doesn't even acknowledge your existence as s/he walks through).