The Fountainhead
discussion
Should I Move On?
I hope you liked the Saw movies. Do you know the theme of the movies? Rand has has the same view of man. She expects great things from people. She see's the world in black and white, I think. She has trouble accepting human weakness, and expects everyone to live with an ideal consistent with her's.
Dominique is characterized as someone who feels that humanity has fallen, and that everyone is plastic, there is no I in anyone in her eyes. Roark to her is her ideal man who lives by his own rules. She loves him because of what he is, and hates him because the world does not deserve him, or that the world will destroy him.
I would recommend the book to you.
I'd check out Anthem or We the Living. Both MUCH shorter and easier to read. Both espouse Rand's philosophy with equal clarity to Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead.
This book sucks! It is about being selfish! Please!
Brian wrote: "This book sucks! It is about being selfish! Please!"Look deeper. It is really about how easily people can be manipulated into thinking differently than they truly believe. Consider the "Oprah Effect" for an example.
This book is truly inspiring. Rand goes to opposite extremes to explain her philosophy but it is not about selfishness. The thin line between the definition of this word and what Rand means by it is blurred but what she wants to say is to keep your true self and in a way not to sell your soul to society. So you become selfish for wanting to be yourself and not what anyone else wants you to be. And Dominique actually praises Roark through her articles but one must read between the lines.
I would stop reading. It doesn't get ant better.
Ellen wrote: "Brian wrote: "This book sucks! It is about being selfish! Please!"Look deeper. It is really about how easily people can be manipulated into thinking differently than they truly believe. Conside..."
I am plenty deep already and Oprah has no effect on me.
Brenda (Lansdowne) wrote: "Ellen wrote: "Brian wrote: "This book sucks! It is about being selfish! Please!"Look deeper. It is really about how easily people can be manipulated into thinking differently than they truly bel..."
I also take into account that Rand was an atheist. She has no sense of service toward others. I do not fear selling my soul to society, whatever the hell that means. But I make a point of serving other when I can.
Charity has nothing to do with the issue. Rand does not mean to ask people to stop helping others but to help others in any way you can but without losing yourself on the way. Roark helps Mallory doesn't he? He actually gives meaning to his life again. We all want to help others and selling one's soul to society means succumbing to the general ideology without even knowing what the hell it is leading one to or even what it truly means. we just become blind followers that don't consider their actions twice but just do because everyone is doing the same thing.I would keep reading without twisting or misunderstanding every word.
Brian wrote: "Brenda (Lansdowne) wrote: "Ellen wrote: "Brian wrote: "This book sucks! It is about being selfish! Please!"Look deeper. It is really about how easily people can be manipulated into thinking diff..."
Yes Rand was atheist. Her ideas of charity would be teach people how to earn things for themselves, not handouts. This tends to promote a sense of accomplishment that motivates people to do even more work.
What is all this talk of charity. I am self employed and I volunteer for my professional organization - I am on the board, we are a service organization - and I help people that struggle with addiction, people that are not as strong as me. I don't consider either of these charity. I don't have a problem with atheists but I do have big problem with selfish people.
If you are going to read Ayn Rand, give yourself perspective on the real life of Objectivism by reading
The Art of Selfishness
and Nathaniel Branden's
My Years with Ayn Rand
.For a perhaps tangential consideration, look at Arthur Greenspan's memoir and tenure.
Right, Alan Greenspace. He used to pow-wow with Rand. His tenure didn't work out too good, did it?
Brian wrote: "I don't have a problem with atheists but I do have big problem with selfish people."Brian -- if you want to consider a charming little book that is a refreshing alternative, you might want to pick up The Collectibles by new author and former judge James J. Kaufman.
Christine wrote: "I'm stuck. I admit that I only picked up this book because I got into a philosophy debate with a self-proclaimed objectivist who convinced me that this book was worth reading. I have to assume that..."I am no Randian, but I have read everything she's written, and The Fountainhead itself several times.
I last read her actively almost 25 years ago, but I'd like to commend you for how quickly you have seen through all of her smoke and mirrors bull-crap. I eventually did too, but at the time I was a young teen-aged male with no self identity, and I was subsequently easily impressed.
Your issues with the book are spot on. There's nothing wrong with your reading or critical thinking skills.
Move on.
Read some Hesse or Dostoyevsky. They like people, are capable of compassion, and their writing reflects that.
I liked the fountainhead best of her three novels that I've read. I've also read 2 biographies about her written by a couple who were part of her inner circle at the time she was writing Atlas Shrugged (the husband and wife each wrote their own version of those events -- intersting). I think ayn rand had a pretty twisted idea about sex and relationships in general and it shows in her fiction. Rand is a total misogynist, no doubt about it. Her concept of selfishness is interesting but her misogyny is totally off-putting.
I like the idea of the "ideal man"--too often, and especially in our culture, we seek the practical rather than the ideal, and this, to me, is uninspiring. That said, I would not consider Howard Roark the "ideal man." To my mind, ideal man serves not his self but some greater good--by that I mean his art, his work, his people, his family, his society,or even his God.
Brian wrote: "This book sucks! It is about being selfish! Please!"It's not selfish like we think of it now. It's selfish as in, take care of yourself. Be your own person. Don't expect everyone else to take care of you and think for you. Maybe she thinks being selfish is a good thing?
And I don't think its selfish to think people should take care of themselves.
I adore Ayn Rand. And I'm excited that my name is in The Fountainhead!I completely agree with Kate. I feel like she beefs up the selfishness so you get the ultimate point, which is when people do things for themselves, or do things in order to make things better for themselves in an honorable type of way (not like killing people), then everyone can benefit.
Think about it. If you go through life only thinking about other people all the time, where does that leave you at the end? Yeah, you stocked up a lot of karma, but that good feeling that some people get from doing those types of things can't really help you in the long run. Do you know the thing people say about major disasters? Make sure you're safe before you worry about anyone else. Plus there's the problem where if people are conditioned to rely on others for everything, they won't be able to stop, and that sucks the life and energy out of the people who are giving.
Dominique wrote: "Plus there's the problem where if people are conditioned to rely on others for everything, they won't be able to stop, and that sucks the life and energy out of the people who are giving."Some messages of Rand's writing can be very positive, especially if one has been brought up in an environment of give, give, give and not take adequate care, especially emotional, of one's self. The following is not as thrilling reading as Rand, but for a story that takes a much, much more balanced view for living out life, consider James Kaufman's The Collectibles . Hopefully, we can learn the limitations of being a "me-generation". May all of us learn to balance the extremes.
I read Atlas Shrugged first and it has become one of the most transformative books I've ever read. So I picked up Fountainhead but simply could not finish it. The characters were so overdone and ridiculous. I was so surprised, considering how much I loved Atlas. I have no plans to finish Fountainhead, but I do have We The Living and plan to read that.
Bella wrote: "I read Atlas Shrugged first and it has become one of the most transformative books I've ever read. So I picked up Fountainhead but simply could not finish it. The characters were so overdone and ri..."The characters were overdone compare to the people we meet everyday. In my opinion, this book is an epitome of an individual. For example Howard Roark who is complete in himself. Most of us are peter keating, we are a part of everybody we meet. Our own identity is formed in relation to what we are to another. In her view the ideal man would be able to create his own identity, he would be an end in himself. Man though is a social animal, alienation from society is very difficult. It is, non the less necessary that there are such Howard Roark who can stand on their own judgement, be an individual and fight the commonly held doctrines. History is shaped by individuals.
Projwal,I agree with what the book is about but the story-telling struck me as so ham-handed that I couldn't get past it. She used a lighter touch in Atlas Shrugged (and for Ayn Rand and her two-by-four, that's saying something--LOL). I've heard people tell me it's better to read Fountainhead before A.S. first for this very reason. But ultimately the story lost me because of the twisted romance. That was messed up even tho I agree heartily with the themes of Fountainhead.
I don't buy into all of Ayn Rand's philosophy, but I think she makes some good and important points. Understanding her philosophy better is a good thing and Fountainhead is as good as any place to get it. To say the book is about people being selfish misses the point, I think. Rand's point as I understand it was that society will ultimately benefit when people take care of their own interests first.
This book is not an easy read, but I think worth the effort.
Yes, objectivism has its limits, even in Atlas Shrugged. One should not trade up on people the way one does on economic theories. LOL
Rand's "philosophy" is not new. She has 'thought up' nothing original (Objectivism) that hasn't already been explored by Aristotle.However, having said that, being the selfish prick who pursues the purest of his/her field does have its advantages.
Then again, stating that this is the only way of life is a naive claim and a complete disregard for the concept of relative existence.
Rand was a brilliant writer. I love her usage of metaphors in The Fountainhead. She was also a mere reactionary product of Soviet subjugation and was rather romantic about her reactionary theories. Taken as a novel that offers a few lessons on the pursuit of the ultimate answers, it is brilliant. Taken as a Philosophy of life, governance, and coexistence it is naive, dangerous, and just plain silly.
Arth
Rand claimed to live by the principles of her philosophy. If you're curious to see where that led her, I'd recommend reading Anne Heller's Ayn Rand and the World She Made. Possessed of a great intellect, it did little to help her emotionally and while she could reason logically at times, she was also capable of some pretty impressive rationalizations.
I'm personally a fan of skipping The Fountainhead and heading straight for We The Living or Atlas Shrugged. When I've got the tinfoil hat on, I tend to think the reason why freshman philosophy courses always pick The Fountainhead is because it's the weakest of her books and it does contain the rape scene. As for the philosophy, I often find it amusing to see how many different views and takes people can have on it. I've seen people refer to Rand as a Fascist (they apparently have a very flexible definition of Fascist).
But, for the record, Rand didn't care about serving society, or creating a better society by serving yourself. Serving yourself was it's own good. If the world worked out to be a better place because of it (which she thought would happen) all the better. If it turned out worse, well, I'm fairly certain, having lived through Russia of the early twentieth century, and then seeing what the Nazis came up with when they decided to serve the "greater good" that she was certain it couldn't be worse.
In the meantime, a philosophy founded on the idea that man's natural state is joy, and that it is the right of every living person to go after his joy, doesn't sound like such a bad idea to me. The idea that you morally cannot force anyone else to do anything else, appeals even more to me. The idea that we must co-operate and find ways to entice each other into doing what we want by voluntary trades of physical or emotional goods, is likewise appealing.
And, even if those things are not appealing to everyone, at least Rand's goal of perfect selfishness didn't send millions of people to their graves, which is something that can't be said of the philosophies of the "greater good."
Christine,I suggest you read the last speech by Roark at the end of the lawsuit.
I read this book in 1985 (I think). I forgot many things but this last speech is still in memory.
Yes I had hard time understanding the Dominique's character and her relationship with Roark and everyone else in the novel.
Christine wrote: "I'm stuck. I admit that I only picked up this book because I got into a philosophy debate with a self-proclaimed objectivist who convinced me that this book was worth reading. I have to assume that..."You are quite correct. In the real world this would all be a bag of nonsense. Yet, this is precisely the point of fiction. We suspend our disbelief for the sake of enjoying a good story. Mixing up fictional characters with real-world people and attributing real-word expectations to them may well spoil the fun of reading made-up stories. This is what is happening to you. In spite of all its evident shortcomings, I still feel this is a good story.
"I've always demanded a certain quality in the people I liked. I've always recognized it at once--and it's the only quality I respect in men. I chose my friends by that. Now I know what it is. A self-sufficient ego. Nothing else matters."And I have nothing else to add.
Brian wrote: "What is all this talk of charity. I am self employed and I volunteer for my professional organization - I am on the board, we are a service organization - and I help people that struggle with addic..."That's great for you. It really is beside the point though. Clearly you disagree with the objectivist philosophy and that's fine. However, the philosophy itself is not selfish. It teaches self respect and service of self. Her arguement against socialism and charity is that it enables people to not find solutions themselves. The solutions are being handed to them by others, they will likely not ever seek out solutions for themselves. They are then dependant upon a world that will inhibit their growth as individuals.
What is selfish is you putting yourself above others. You say that these people are weaker than you; the reason for their weakness the absence of a chance to fend for themselves. These people are probably just as capable as you, they just have not been given a dire enough situation to prove it.
I wouldn't say Rand was against charity per se. She was against altruism. So, assuming you're doing whatever charity work it is because you enjoy it, because you receive value from it, then it's fine. It's doing something entirely for the benefit of another, something from which you derive no satisfaction from, that's inherently evil according to Rand.
So, say I donate time to the local animal shelter (I don't because I'm allergic to most critters... but this is a hypothetical) as long as I enjoy it, as long I receive satisfaction from spending time with the critters and my co-workers, it's perfectly cool. Now, an Objectivist may wonder why I don't open a pet shop, since that would maximize my ability to do something I enjoy and make a living, but he's got no cause to complain about me donating time to the animal shelter. It's an even exchange of value.
Meanwhile, the local blood drive calls me up again for the 7,000th time this year wanting yet more blood from me. They try to make me feel like a criminal for wanting to keep my blood inside my body. I grudgingly sign up to get more blood drawn just to get them to stop calling. I'm angry, resentful, and thinking of changing my phone number. Now, most people would consider this virtuous, because, even though I'd rather be anywhere other than sitting in the Blood Van with a tube in my arm, I'm there making sure that someone else has the blood they need. Some would say it was extra virtuous because I didn't want to do it and did it anyway.
Objectivists would say that was evil, because I was emotionally coerced into an action I didn't want to do, nor did an equal exchange of value occur.
I agree with that.
@Keryl- those are good examples, although you would not be "evil" in the blood bank example, just not living according to the Objectivist morality (so "immoral" I guess, or at least weak).Rand herself used a different example at some point. You're passing by a river and see a man drowning. Should you jump in and save him? If you are a good swimmer, yes, because you save a human life (the highest of Objectivist values) at minimal cost to yourself. If you are a terrible swimmer, no, because you would be risking your life for that of a stranger, which means you value your life less than that of a stranger, which under Objectivism is immoral. However, if the person drowning is your husband, you would jump in and risk your life anyway because your life would lose value with him gone.
Also, slightly off topic, giving charity resentfully after being nagged (back to the blood bank example) is the lowest of all forms of charity in Judeo-Christian ethics. The highest is to make the poor self sufficient through training or employing them. Not so different from Objectivism after all, at least on a practical level.
The Fountainhead was a better story than Atlas Shrugged in my opinion. I guess mostly because that radio broadcast that John Galt did was way way too long and he kept saying the same boring things over and over again. I'll take Roark over Galt any old day.Don't get me wrong, they are both classic books and deserve more attention than I can give them. I read them, probably won't read them again.
I get confused and don't know why she named one character Dominique Fancone (sp) in one book and Fransico Dancone (sp) in the other, just a little too similar...
Myriam wrote: "This book is truly inspiring. Rand goes to opposite extremes to explain her philosophy but it is not about selfishness. The thin line between the definition of this word and what Rand means by it i..."Miriam...yes, well said. There is an idea in America, that self-sacrifice is noble. It is not. There is difference between wanting your own life to be wonderful and being a doormat so someone won't call you selfish. Rand was right. We owe it to ourselves to be selfish. We are all we've got. It's our lives. Not anyone else's. I don't understand why people call that selfishness.
@ C.J.- The Fountainhead is technically a better novel because the structure is tighter and more traditional. However, when people ask me about Rand, I recommend starting with Atlas Shrugged because that's where you find out her philosophy and then The Fountainhead makes more sense as well. As for speeches in AS, although they are valuable in their own right, they are really not necessary for understanding of the novel. I recommend reading through skipping the speeches (or skimming them), then you can go back and read them if you wish to gain even more understanding. Atlas Shrugged heroes are much easier to understand because you get to know what made them who they are. Roark is just THERE like a force of nature, but you never get to really know what made him who he is.As to the names- it's Dominique Francone and Francisco D'Anconia. They are not intentionally similar, but Rand likes strong sounding names in her heroes.
@Mia- I like what you said as well. Rnad was trying to re-define the word "selfishness" to mean self-sufficiency and integrity, but obviously never succeeded.
Honestly, I'd say We The Living is her best work. It's tight like the Fountainhead, with more "understandable" characters than either The Fountainhead or AS, and a better plot than either. It's vastly more accessible than her other works as well.But I still love AS. I still think that's the book you read if you want the philosophy to make sense. That huge radio speech which just about everyone skims, that's the climax of what Rand considered the most important bit of the book, the philosophy. But most of us like the fact it's a good story, so we skim.
It's been fifteen years since I read AS the first time, and I still haven't read Galt's monologue all the way through. (I've read all of it, just not straight through.) She unfortunately stuck it in the middle of the climax of the plot,and it does throw the book off it's stride. If they ever make part three of the movie, I have no idea how they're going to film that. Cut it out and you've lost most of the meaning of the book. Leave it in and the fans go catatonic.
We the Living is very different from the rest of her work, and although very readable, is too dark for my tastes. It also doesn't reflect Rand's main philosophy as well as her later novels.I read through "THE SPEECH" completely my first time of reading Atlas Shrugged. I've since re-read the book maybe 4 or 5 times and have skipped the speech. The parts surrounding the speech are some of my favorites and the book would flows nicely without it. And in reality, whoever didn't get the message of the book without the speech, will not get it ever.
I loved Fountainhead & Atlas Shrugged. I agree with most of Rand's points, except on her view about sex & relationship. Her book simply mirrors the kinds of men in our society. The psychology of parasites, how man is always indebted from the compassion & help of others, thus, creating a chain of slaves. The unthinking who sits comfortably knowing that his thoughts/likes/tastes is aligned with the public. One of the things that made me feel good from reading her novels is, I shouldn't feel guilty if I think about myself first and that there is nothing wrong about being selfish. There is no such thing as free (I think), and I believe her. People exchange value for value. And that is what I believe. Thanks for Rand. She made me realize that I'm not a bad person, I just know how to value myself.
I have read only Fountainhead so far and even though I loved it, I believe it is difficult for everyone to accept her philosophy. Such people tend to label "objectivism" as selfishness.
Masha wrote: "@Keryl- those are good examples, although you would not be "evil" in the blood bank example, just not living according to the Objectivist morality (so "immoral" I guess, or at least weak).Rand he..."
Very well said Masha!! I liked your coment. Apt.
Marian wrote: "I loved Fountainhead & Atlas Shrugged. I agree with most of Rand's points, except on her view about sex & relationship. Her book simply mirrors the kinds of men in our society. The psychology of pa..."I always thought her ideas on love/relationships was one of the stronger aspects of her stories. (At least in AS, Fountainhead is a trickier subject.)
Your partner is a mirror, showing the world the level of esteem you hold for yourself. Rand tells us that, and so far, I have yet to see a relationship where she was far off the mark.
Relationships should be a celebration of each other. Sex an exaltation of the self and your partner's self.
Rand denigrates the idea that sex should be an act of charity. And she's right. This is probably a PG rated group, so I won't get into that too deeply beyond the idea that if you're doing it entirely to make the other person happy: A. They usually know. B. You're probably doing a bad job of it. C. Generally does not result in fireworks.
So, what specifically (on the philosophical level) did you not like about Rand's view of sex?
@Keryl- the reason The Fountainhead relationship is "tricky" is because Dominique is pretty screwed up when you meet her. She hates herself, hates the world, hates anything beautiful because she feels it does not belong in this world with the people she despises. She thinks Roark is too good for this word so she wants to destroy him before the world does. Not exactly a healthy basis for relationships. Dagny is the opposite. She loves the world, loves herself, believes victory and achievement and love are possible. So her story on a romantic level is about searching for a perfect man, which is much easier to relate to for most women. That's why I usually recommend Atlas Shrugged to people before The Fountainhead.
Masha wrote: "@Keryl- the reason The Fountainhead relationship is "tricky" is because Dominique is pretty screwed up when you meet her. She hates herself, hates the world, hates anything beautiful because she fe..."I tend to think of it as tricky because of the rape aspect. If memory serves they've never really met, he's got not way of knowing anything about what she might or might not want, and he just goes into her room and takes what he wants.
That, in a nutshell, is how most people who aren't familiar with what's really there, see Objectivism. The strong take whatever they want and anyone else be damned.
It's problematic because it's so much more the sort of "love story" that was popular during those days (No means yes. Rhett grabbing Scarlett and carrying her off... and on and on...) than any sort of exchange of value between individuals.
I also wonder what it tells us about Roark that he likes Dominique?
My biggest problem with Rand's view of love is that people seem to fall in love ON SIGHT. Dominique sees Roark and falls in love. Roark has barely two words with Dominique and KNOWS she want him (she does, but that's beside the point). In AS, Rearden sees Dagny standing on the railroad tracks and falls in love. Galt sees Dagny through a window and falls in love. You get the idea. I get the point of a person's inner strength sometimes showing in the way they carry themselves physically, but still, that does bother me a bit.To address the "rape scene," I think it should be viewed as more symbolic than the regular "woman wants to be taken" view. Since Dominique is convinced she does not deserve happiness, she is trying to deny herself what she knows would be the first satisfying sexual experience of her life. How does she know it? How does Roark know that's how she feels? Well, see the paragraph above- they know it ON SIGHT, and yeah, that's a problem if it were meant to be a "realistic" style novel. Instead it's a Romantic novel, so there's some give of realism to make a point.
Keryl wrote: "Marian wrote: "I loved Fountainhead & Atlas Shrugged. I agree with most of Rand's points, except on her view about sex & relationship. Her book simply mirrors the kinds of men in our society. The p..."Dominique loves Roark. How she shows it? She destroys him & married Keating instead. I understand that she did it because Roark is too good for this world.I guess, they're the only one who understands what kind of love is that. Dumped Keating. Then she agreed to sleep with Wynand. Then Wynand & Roark became bestfriends. These 3 are like tangled with each other. While I was reading, I was about so close into anticipating a menage de trois. In my point of view, it's too complicated. This is the kind of relationship that I won't be happy to have.
Rather than thinking of Dominique, Roark & Wynand in terms of 'relationship'. I am more comfortable to see them as representations of man: Dominique= an individualist, a woman for the "prime movers", Roark= the prime movers, Wynand= the man who could have been. So with this, it's not that complicated to understand how they treat each other..Not in the terms of 'real' relationship.
@Keryl- Sorry. I missed to read 'philosophically'. Hmmm..thinking about it. I must have confused myself with the relationship of characters & Rand's philo on sex & relationship. Reading back to your reply, thank you for pointing it out & reminding me on how Rand see it as an important & beautiful act of celebration. I was wrong not to agree with Rand's point about sex (the tragedy of focusing too much in the storyline).
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Collectibles (other topics)
The Collectibles (other topics)
My Years with Ayn Rand (other topics)
The Art of Selfishness (other topics)
More...
James J. Kaufman (other topics)
Nathaniel Branden (other topics)
Ayn Rand (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Ayn Rand and the World She Made (other topics)The Collectibles (other topics)
The Collectibles (other topics)
My Years with Ayn Rand (other topics)
The Art of Selfishness (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
James Kaufman (other topics)James J. Kaufman (other topics)
Nathaniel Branden (other topics)
Ayn Rand (other topics)
I was oddly curious to keep reading through about 1/3 of the book. Both Peter and Roark are despicable in their polar opposite and archetypal fashions. Neither of them is entirely believable as a human being but I understood that the book was using exaggeration to drive home a point. And I completely disagreed with the idea that architecture ( a form of art ) could be objectively correct but I managed to set that aside because I could believe that a person is so convinced by his own correctness that he would live his life for those principles and really, who am I to judge such an act? I just won't pay him to put up a building, like most of the rest of the world.
Then I got to the twisted relationship between Roark and Dominique and I'm just disgusted. I'm not sure I understand the point and I am sure I don't want to read more about it. First he rapes her...but of course he knew she wanted it and she knew he knew and he knew she knew and they had this great mind-reading game going on because neither one of them has any idea how to actually communicate and they probably don't think it's a useful thing to do because why would they want anyone else to know what they think anyway....Then Dominique gets all bitchy, tries to put Roark in the poorhouse with some dumb vengeful article she wrote, and then tells him they're going to sleep together every time she pulls a stunt like that. Why would anyone do something like that and why would this make someone else want to sleep with them?
I'm sure I'm missing some deep intellectual sentiment here.