Reading Response for The Fountainhead by Any Rand

Overall, I liked The Fountainhead. It is a great book for thinking and ideas. I personally liked Anthem by Ayn Rand better, but that's for another rant. This was not my introduction to Rand.  I had read one of her nonfiction collections a couple years prior, and I enjoyed it as well. On most topics, I would probably agree more with Ayn Rand than the average American.

The Fountainhead works best for me as a provacative philosophical soap opera than a psychologically authentic literary fiction. 

My Responses (mostly critical)

1. Architecture- the topic and subject matter of architecture is a brilliant metaphor. I really liked that. It worked throughout the entire story.

2. Howard Roark- I get Howard Roark is the symbol of Rand's ideal person. Are readers supposed to think everyone, most, or some people can be like Roark? Is it more that the reader should want to be more like Roark?

Roark has no attachments at the beginning of the story. He is asocial and withdrawn. Rand creates a creative genius, as a philosophical ideal, but he comes off as a robotic person. Roark lacks many of the aspects that make humans human.

Even his refusal to conform can be seen as signaling prestige: showing and proving he is better than Keating, Wynand, Toohey, etc.

This goes against Rand's ideal, but wouldn't Roark be better off if he worked for money, bought land, and then built what he wanted? Trade and division of labor! Do what you're best at, so you can do what you want. Instead Roark struggles to get by and barely builds anything for most of the story. His refusal to compromise is a limitation to build. It's about tradeoffs.

And rape. I love how Rand's ideal man is still a rapist that should be in prison. Talking about taking other's personal rights.

3. Peter Keating- Rand makes Keating especially weak and pathetic. I really like how Keating doesn't know who he is. He blindly lives for status and pleasing others. That's all great. I like that he can become a leading architect without being a good architect. That works. Early in the story, Keating is a very competent person: smart, charming, charismatic, probably good looking, probably tall, etc. His success is not random. But, somehow, he becomes a fat, ugly, unhealthy alcoholic loser? I'm not against that happening, but I don't buy how it happened or how pathetic Keating is. 

4. Mrs. Keating- I like her. She selfishly wants what's best for her son. She manipulates her son, and her judgement is bad. She prevents her son from doing what he wants and marrying the person he loves, but she does so selfishly. She wants what she thinks is best for him. Maybe she saw something readers don't get to see about Keating as a child or young man? Either way, Mrs Keating is a good example of why an individual knows what is best for themselves.

5. Melodramatic- the opening scene was almost laughable to me. The dean was such a terrible performance of a real person. It got a lot better after that, but still. It serves Rand's purpose, but it doesn't;t satisfy my literary snobbery. Says more about me than the novel...

6. Caricatures and exaggerations- continuation of the melodrama and my biggest complaint. I don't see real people. I see too much hyperbole to make philosophical points. Rand hates altruism, so the so called Altruist in the story is really an evil super villain. Toohey evolves into a Nietzschean caricature of a will to power maniac as the story unfolds. He has a few good lines, but otherwise is way too pretentious and influential for me to take serious and see as authentic. Other supporting characters present similar issues.

7. Helping others and altruism- I'm skeptical that altruism exists. Helping and doing things for others makes people feel good, gains status, signals wealth. Rand is correct to question people's motives, especially those of the so called selfless ones, but she exaggerates and simplifies those motives in her characters.

8. Culture and Institutions- Rand under appreciates or underplays how culture and institutions contribute to the production of individuals. Roark is dependent on culture and institutions. He and other creative geniuses have been the recipients of culture and collective knowledge. Newton independently developed (so did Leibniz) calculus, but he didn't create calculus in a vacuum. Creatives are taking, borrowing, and building on what was handed down to them. I'd argue culture and institutions are more responsible for the greatest creations than individuals. The US is the Mecca of innovation because of culture, institutions, incentives, and several other factors, not just having lots of self interested individuals.

9. Christianity and religion- Rand under appreciates or underplays how religions/ideas have gone through a selection process. I don't think any religion is true. Some are more useful than others. But religions provide human needs: like solving/improving barriers to cooperation and cohesion. This process is somewhat like a natural selection where the most useful ideas and ritual spread and the less useful die out. 

The selflessness in religions provides some need. Reciprocity is a good example. One shares with others when they have extra, so others will share when they have extra. It's reciprocal, not just free loading. One reasons religion spread is because they created norms like sharing and reciprocity which helped groups cooperate and flourishing.

It goes both ways. People in power trying to take and keep power, but also the masses selecting what works for them. Over time something like an equilibrium is met. Add in institutions, progress, education, science, and personal rights.

So there is probably something to the helping others and acting selfless besides being a means for people in power to control groups of people.