I finally finished reading Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead. People all over have been pestering me about it, telling me how life changing it is and how I’ve missed something if I’ve not read it….
So I did and here are some of my observations:
1. Howard Roark is not genuine. I seriously felt a lot of respect for the character in the start, where he believes in his talent and his capability. Then somewhere he get’s lost preaching in the book and finally, when he blows up Cortlandt, it was my culmination of hypocrisy. For all those who think this character was flawless, here is the biggest flaw.
The driving factor was this: It would have been better if he had believed in his ability to create, rather than get attached to his creation. The whole book talks about the seeming individualism of Howard Roark and finally in that one incident of Cortlandt, he throws it all away.
One good friend of mine caught on to the actual act of blowing up the project, thinking that terrorism was my problem, saying “He did it to shock people to attention. Like 9/11. Like 26/11. They did it so that people would listen”. That was not my point. I do not condemn his blowing up of the structure, I question his need to do it. If Cortlandt was built exactly as he designed it, would he have walked away satisfied?? I’m sure he would. Isn’t that being too attached to your creation, rather than your skill and ability??
Isn’t that what we all do with our resumes and our professional lives?? We end up talking about what we’ve done, rather than what we can do… as if without the definition of our past work, we are nothing. I’m not talking about the second-handers, but for the would-be Howard Roarks out there, here is your Waterloo!!
2. I did not understand the character of Dominique Francon. Period.
3. Peter Keating was the most human character I could find in the book. Human, because there is a lot of Peter Keating in all of us, yours truly included. The necessity to conform is born, not out of our need for acceptance, but out of our fear of rejection. To say that Peter Keating was not talented would be rubbish. But with a dotingly ambitious mother, praising teachers and a world singing your praises, it would have been frightful for Peter to turn away from it to express his individualism. I felt truly sorry for Peter Keating. Not because he was weak, but because somehow, everyone played with his fear of being alone, which eventually he admits in the courtroom. Peter Keating never feared Howard Roark, he feared becoming Howard Roark, because deep down he knew he would not be able to bear the seeming loneliness that Howard Roark seemingly felt so comfortable with.
It does help to express your individuality and believe in your skill and abilities, even unto the point of rebellion. Sir Richard Branson is a live successful example. However, the need to have someone to support you through the lonely phases is what eventually gets you through. Howard Roark, throughout the book, had his angels to fall back on, even if the authoress never admitted it. Mike the electrician, Henry Cameron, Dominique Francon, Stephen Mallory, Gail Wynand……
Note: I’m reminded of a rather poignant scene in the Hindi movie “Guru”, where Gurukant comes to take back his estranged wife, Sujata. She runs into his arms, realising that their love is undiminished by their fight, and says, “Fight with the whole world, but never fight with me”. Gurukant looks at her and says “If you’re with me, I can go fight and win the whole world”. Sujata then retorts, “Well then don’t just wait here, let’s go win the world” :)
4. Everybody hates Ellsworth Monkton Toohey. Like its in fashion. What I liked about Toohey was his methodical approach to power. To be able to have patience and method in the execution of evil is infinitely more dangerous than being the perpetrator of evil itself. Its hard to ignore the Ellsworth Tooheys. Because as Ayn Rand painted him, you like the chap!! He’s fun to be with, speaks a lot of wisdom and pretty much would be everything that people would agree to symbolize perfection. Its essential to keep a lookout for these fellows. Would it make us more cynical and sceptical a race?? Yes, it would. It would cripple our ability to accept true love, but it’ll help us perfect the recognition and treasuring of love when we find it!!
All in all, The Fountainhead is a good read. At 700 pages, its a long read as well. It did tend to get overly philosophical in places. These are the places I skimmed through. Somehow philosophy from a fictional book is something I can’t take too seriously. Ayn Rand has a very forceful style of expression, tending to depart from subtlety while describing her characters as well as their interactions. As a result, her characters become very pronounced and in a way, non lifelike. But then that is the pleasure of fiction, to be able to create characters!!
I was reading what other people thought of The Fountainhead and was drawn to Jay’s Review of the Fountainhead. It is a spiritual website, so the review would be a bit coloured towards Christian doctrine. However he makes a very strong point about the “courtroom argument”:
“In this book, those that are completely selfless and serve others either are secretly after power (“the worst kind of second-hander”) or they become miserable, bitter and mean. I can’t help but wonder which category Rand would put Mother Teresa in!… ”
One thing I did agree with Rand is the argument on Altruism. Altruism, which is synonymous with plain charity. I believe that there is nothing more demeaning to a human’s spirit than plain charity. There are two aspects which define a human’s state in life, his circumstances and his inner spirit. Plain charity is an attack on the human spirit, specifically signalling to him or her that she is essentially not capable and that is why an outsider needs to “help” them.
The only form of Altruism that matters is sustainable charity, the type that aims its attack on the choking circumstances that limit the flight of the human spirit. Those circumstances that force a bright orphan to not dream about becoming an engineer or doctor, that force a debt ridden farmer to commit suicide, that force countless villages to cease all activity after sunset for want of light!! That’s the charity that Mother Theresa engaged in, targeting the circumstances that forced people to die in the gutters!! That is the charity that Baba Amte engaged in, targeting the emancipation of lepers to give them the will to live normal lives!! That is the charity that enabled Muhammad Yunus to lend, not give money to poor villagers in Bangladesh to rebuild their lives, thus starting the Microfinance revolution!!
My suggestion to wannabe readers is to read the book, but don’t take the philosophy as gospel truth. Treat it like a work of fiction and read it like a story, without trying to find meaning between the lines… But most importantly, just let it be your individual experience with the book, no matter what people tell you, even me :)
Update: Reader Birdy just finished reading the book and came away with pretty much the same feeling. She puts her thoughts rather beautifully in her review.
