The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand: A Reader's View

Howard Roark is the prototype of another, more famous character. I am talking about the famous John Galt from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Roark was created some fourteen years before Galt was introduced in 1957 in Rand's 1947 work The Fountainhead. I will confess that of Ayn Rand's two major works The Fountainhead was my favorite. It was my favorite because it had a general message of individualism and spent less time delving into deep Objectivist theory. (For those who do not know, Objectivism is Rand's philosophy, combining free market libertarianesque political ideas, atheism, and the presumption that selfishness is a virtue). Even in spite of being my favorite, I need to throw out a caveat. When I say "favorite" what I really mean is, "This book is a bit more tolerable than Atlas Shrugged."

For a brief synopsis without giving away too much. Howard Roark is a struggling architectural student who leaves architectural school and struggles in obscurity for some time because of his refusal to compromise his artistic standards and individualism to what the crowd wants. His "friend" Peter Keating meanwhile becomes an immediate success because of his lack of individualism and readiness to regurgitate Greek classicism. Roark eventually gets his break when he design's a house for a newspaper columnist by the name of Austin Heller, who appears to have a proto-libertarian outlook on politics. A contrasting character with Roark is the architectural critic Ellsworth Toohey, an avowed socialist and enemy of individualism who seeks to denigrate all individual achievement in favor of collectivism. The story comes to a head when Roark designs a building and the design is fiddled with. What he does and the response is for you to find out by reading or simply to look up on Wikipedia.

Now let me begin with the review. I will from the outset say that this book deserves the absolute lowest rating possible. I do not relate to books in which the protagonist is an arrogant man who looks down his nose at the supposed "irrationality" of others. Mr. Roark is a profoundly elitist character who could easily be portrayed as an anti-hero were the author somebody other than Ayn Rand. Rand, having a black and white worldview, portrays this arrogant prick as the ultimate hero while portraying people like Peter Keating and all those who are not jerks as profoundly evil. Indeed, Rand portrays selfishness as a virtue and in doing so pretty much throws the traditional morality of all religions out on its head.

The characters are bland and have virtually no depth as if to represent an ideal. To Rand, a man's ideas were himself, there was nothing else important. Ellsworth Toohey is a socialist, therefore evil. Peter Keating is a weak kneed compromiser, therefore evil. Howard Roark is a hardcore individualist who listens to nobody, therefore good. Roark represents Rand's ideas, Toohey represents the ideas of generic collectivists/leftists (see Marx, Karl and associates) whereas Keating is the non-ideological everyman. As I repeat, nothing else matters. It doesn't matter what their hobbies are, what foods they like, etc. All those things make up a human being in real life, but to Rand we are the product of one single thing. As you can guess, many prominent characters, particularly those playing the role of hero and villain, have no bearing on real life. Roark is shown, for instance, as being almost a robot in his emotionless attitude, which is odd given that at the same time he is portrayed as an idealist. This is the bizarre thing in all Rand's writings. All her heroes seem to be an odd combination of Patrick Bateman, Gandhi, and Scrooge McDuck. From Bateman we get the sense that the Randian archetype is a full of himself, young, good looking, sociopath, from Gandhi all the idealism, and from Scrooge McDuck the fact that that idealism represents itself in extreme capitalism.

The plot line is drab and gray. In Randian fashion it is uninteresting and features mostly dialogue and ramblings about how the collectivists are oppressing the spirits of the true rational individuals. The ultimate conclusion is that true rational individuals must rise up against the collectivists and defeat them. If you've read one, you've read them all. It is pretty much worthless therefore to read them at all because if you just read about Ayn Rand on Wikipedia you already know what's coming.

There are two types of people that Rand's work will ultimately appeal to. 1) Hardcore Objectivists. 2) Hardcore libertarian ideologues. Not all Objectivists are libertarian nor libertarians Objectivist, though there is some overlap. I will say that in both cases Rand's books preach to the choir. Though some claim to have been "converted" by Rand I would suspect they hold Randian and/or libertarian sympathies to begin with. I can't advise the average person picking up Rand's work but if libertarian/Objectivist screeds appeal to you then you might as well. If you are looking for an entertaining and meaningful plot then I suggest go elsewhere. The only thing I find interesting is that after how bad The Fountainhead is, Atlas Shrugged, which is far more tedious and far more ideological, can be considered a "magnum opus." Then again, some consider L. Ron Hubbard to be a prophet so anything is possible.