I read this book when I was in 11th grade and I have read it a countless times since then. I have always wondered about the secret of its appeal. Most people think of it as a brilliant satire. It talks about how we celebrate mediocrity but fail to reward greatness and originality. It communicates this through five principal characters. Howard Roark the hero of this book. He is a brilliant architect who believes that a building should have integrity. He is original and talented at the same time uncompromising. He does not believe in adding frills to a building just to make it look beautiful. Everything about a building should serve a purpose. At the other end is Peter Keating who is every thing which Roark is not? He possesses no great talent or originality, believes in playing to the gallery and copying other great works of architecture. You can guess who is the more successful of the two! Ayn Rand brings out the stark contrast between the two characters in a brilliant dialog
No man likes to be beaten. But to be beaten by the man who has stood as the particular example of mediocrity in his eyes, to start by the side of this mediocrity and see it shoot up, while he struggles and gets nothing, to see the mediocrity snatch from him, the chances that he did give his life for, to see mediocrity worshipped, to lose, to be sacrificed, to be ignored and beaten not by a greater genius, not by god, but by Peter Keating. Do you think the Spanish inquisition ever thought of a torture to equal this?
Then there is Dominique Francon, a newspaper women and the daughter of a very famous architect. She is in love with Roark and appalled by the way the world treats him. Ellsworth Toohey, another newspaper man, who wants to control the world by preventing independent thought. Finally, Gail Waynand, my favorite character in this book. He is a media baron. He owns the largest newspaper chain in the country. He is a man of great intelligence and refinement. Yet he achieves success by compromising his integrity, by writing not what he believes but what appeals to the majority.
There is something timeless and larger than life about each of this characters. The more I think about it, the more I feel that it is not just a satire. It’s genre is mythology. The story is written like the epic struggles between the gods and the demons. Like the gods and demons the characters in this book understand the working of the world and can determine its destiny. These characters do things which would be quite unacceptable for mere mortals. And just like mythology, this story sells a philosophy, the philosophy of selfishness. The importance of putting our own selves before anyone else. Maybe, this is one of the reasons for it’s appeal. Most of us are selfish most of the time and it feels good when someone says it is the right thing to do 
. There are many dramatic moments in the book. Like the first time Dominique and Gail meet. The conversation between them is brilliant.
Once Gail presents Dominique with a beautiful diamond necklace set in platinum. She tells him, “The story of the Bronx housewife who murdered her husband’s young mistress is pretty sordid. But I think there is something even dirtier, the curiosity of people who like to read about it. And I think there is something dirtier still – the people who pander to that curiosity. Actually it was the Bronx housewife who made this necklace possible, I shall be proud to wear it”
Gail replies, “That is one way of looking at it. There’s another. I like to think that I took the worst refuse of human spirit, the Bronx house wife and the minds of people who like to read about her and made of it this necklace on your shoulders. I like to think I was an alchemist capable of performing so great a purification”.
Ayn Rand is a brilliant writer. As you read the book, you feel like you are being let in on a huge secret. It is just you and the characters in the book, the rest of the world is out of it. She does it by means of subtle statements which leave a lot unsaid and makes you think you have figured out the meaning yourself. It is full of symbolisms. And just like most mythological stories, it has an enduring quality; you can read it a million times and still want more.
It is one of those great books that can never leave you untouched.
Archana,
Nice review. Fountainhead is a true classic. To me Roark is my favorite character.
You make an interesting point that humans are selfish and hence anything that promotes selfishness is a good thing.
It is a good inference.
I would argue that the entire capitalistic model that has done the world so much good (some bad as well like everything) has its foundations in selfishness.
We are yet to create a model that can compete successfully with capitalism (communism is a huge failed competitor) because it taps into our innate selfishness.
I am sure another competing model will rise, but untill then it is selfishness and capitalism to lead the way.
Thanks Sukumar. This must be the only book of fiction that both of us have read
Gail is my favorite because he is a very complex character. It is harder to be Gail than Roark. I also feel that Ayn Rand destroyed his character in the end to make Roark appear good.
Capitalism is good model, no doubt. However I think Ayn Rand takes it to the extreme. She condemns any form of Altruism. In order for capitalism to work it has to be tempered by checks which limit its negativities.
You can draw parallelism between Adam Smith’s and John Nash’s economic theories. Smith contention was that if everyone works for their own best interest in will serve the best interest of the world. John Nash proved it is not so. Excessive focus on self interest has led to ills like deforestation, collusion, cartels etc.
I do think capitalism in its extreme, without any checks and bounds will be very bad. China is an example of that. It has adopted capitalism but does not have a democratic framework to keep its ills at bay and look how people are suffering.
Yes, Ayn Rand WAS my favourite in my twenties.It was Atlas Shrigged that I first read, Fountainhead came next. I think it is impossible to talk about Fountainhead without mentioning her magnum opus which is Atlas…..
John Galt, Antonio, Roark, Gail wynand, Hmm… They have ceased to fascinate me anymore.
Ayn Rand calls her ‘philosophy(?)’ as objectivism thinking she was an original in puting forth an ideology in which the likes of Jefferson are noble. In Atlas.. she calls” the real progress of mankind are in the objective quests of man than in the mud howels of Ganges!”
A span of just fifty years has negated this particular statement. Myself, who was a thorough atheist, who felt that smoking was indeed a personal statement, felt so hollow later and went in further search and landed in the spiritual treasure of Bhagavad Gita ,Thirumandiram, Devaram, and Divya Prabandam (in that order! first rational then pure devotion).
The world has seen destruction due to capitalist ideals as much from its deadly cousin, communism. With every passing day, evidence is tumbling out about how much scientific our own ancestors were and how they shunned material pusuit for Subjective enquiry.
Yes, I propose subjectivism now to Ayn Rand’s ‘Objectivism’. As much as she tried to negate Kant’s subjective focus on philosophy, her contemporaries and later thinkers has dubbed her ‘ism’ as non workable. Some have even gone to the extent of calling it as non existent.
But, no one can deny the sensation she created. Personally I feel she was a misled person. May be her personal trauma in Communist lands made her go to the other extreme of the scale, which was another wastage.
Interestingly she asserts that ” that which exists, exists. The present philosophy of negating the existence is false”. Check my latest blog at
http://sanatanavenkat.blogspot.com
I have stated the reverse there.
Venkat
It could be a literary device to take things to the extreme to prove a point. K. Balachander in the world of tamil movies does that all the time and he also said so in an interview. Ayn Rand is far too intelligent to not understand that altruism is useful.
I believe Corporate Social Responsibility could be a good countervailing force to the ill-effects of capitalism – sort of like the bridle on the runaway capitalist horse.
It will be nice if you can do a post on how John Nash disproves Adam Smith. I have not come across that work.
Every single human-created system causes problems – religion, for example, has killed far more human beings compared to every other scourge combined and it continues to kill. How come no one is offering a countervailing system to counter religion – non-believers form a mere 5% of the population – by no means enough to offer a countervailing force to the ill effects of religion.
I can see that you really liked this book, Archana.
Hmm. I must be one of the few people that don’t like Ayn Rand’s writing style. Its not because I’m opposed to her philosophically, but I wish she had conveyed her thoughts simply.
The Fountainhead is a book that I enjoy to this day (age 46), not merely as a teen. I’ve outgrown neither the novel nor her philosophy, which has been a very effective tool for living a good life. A friend in college who shared my independent streak recommended the book to me, and I’m very grateful for his opening this door for me. I was even considering architecture school before reading the book! I think that’s why he chose to recommend The Fountainhead in particular.
One of my favorite scenes has always been the opening of Part 4, where the boy is riding the bicycle over the hill and sees Roark’s buildings. The sense of anticipation and the blooming of spring leaves, of hope, of inspiration. It also reminds me of my own enjoyable time spent riding a bicycle over hilly terrain near my home, and at the time, it fit with my intention to become an architect. What a great scene.
I’m glad you enjoyed the novel. There are similarly vivid characters in Atlas Shrugged, like Hank Rearden, Franciso D’Anconia, and others. Brilliant.
I don’t know if you have read any of Rand’s non-fiction/philosophical works, but if so, I do have one suggestion: pay careful attention to her definitions. This will make, or break, your understanding of her philosophy.
Rand took great pains to define her terms before embarking on an essay, and beyond the obvious reason of providing clarity, the reason is simple: many of the most controversial terms we have often contain two contradictory meanings, and it’s not possible for her to speak coherently about the topic until these meanings have been distinguished and a proper definition provided.
As a reader, this is important because if you retain the contradictory meanings of the popular definitions you won’t be able to truly grasp what she is saying. You will literally be reading the popular meaning of something, rather than her philosophy.
A couple of examples:
>Ayn Rand is far too intelligent to not understand that altruism is useful.
Actually she does reject altruism, but it’s because the term contains contradictory meanings in its common usage. Rand distinguishes the two meanings as: 1) the notion that our primary moral purpose is to live for others and 2) the notion of giving or helping (a meaning that is already sufficiently covered by these two concepts). Ayn Rand defines altruism purely as #1, and condemns it, but has no problem whatsoever with #2. This is only apparent to readers if they understand and use her definition. If they do not, they will mistakenly think Ayn Rand condemns giving, and will not be able to truly understand what she is saying about altruism (i.e. definition #1). The definition is the key!
>the ill-effects of capitalism
I believe this is another case where Ayn Rand’s definition can clear the air. People commonly refer to the ill effects of capitalism, when what they are actually referring to is a mixed economy, a mixture of freedom and government controls — where either business is oppressed or business is granted special privileges that give it an unfair advantage. Rand saw that the essence of capitalism is the freedom from coercive intervention by the government (or anyone else), and so her definition means laissez-faire capitalism.
Laissez-faire can perhaps be most easily understood as the application of the principles we use for criminal law to the economic sphere: like private individuals, business should be innocent until proven guilty, and only then should be punished. In the same way that we do not restrict or license individuals to leave their house each day to shop simply because they may commit a violent crime, we should not license or otherwise restrict business simply because they may commit fraud or damage life and limb. Capitalism applies the same principle to both, and would insist on the same rigorous punishment in the case of violations.
But a better spokesperson for the case would be the author herself, for example in “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal”.
I thought that a good review and enjoyed reading it. I’m an old fan of Ayn Rand (at 50, even older than Jeff) and of course agree that The Fountainhead loses none of its power the nth time around. That’s because, as you said, it is about timeless, larger than life characters – but human heroes and villains rather than gods and demons.
However, I don’t agree that “Most of us are selfish most of the time”. Selfishness, in Ayn Rand’s rigorous definition – devotion to the values one must pursue if one is to flourish and achieve happiness – is difficult to achieve and a rare virtue.
Good review. Because you enjoyed The Fountainhead, I highly recommend Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.
Venkat – Thank you. Really great to know you discovered the treasures in our religion. Bhagavad Geetha is a master piece
Sukumar – I agree that any institution, including religion without its checks and bounds is bound to be dangerous. It can be seen in countries where they follow religious laws. What makes you say “no one is offering a countervailing system to counter religion” US and India have both seperated religion and the state and are following secular principles, isn’t that a countervailing force. Communist countries have pretty much destroyed religion, what do you call those forces. Ask anyone in India, no one wants a Hindu or Islamic law in our country. I disagree with the notion that religion is not being balanced by other forces.
Priya – Thank you. I think Ayn Rand is a love it or hate it kind of writer. I know many people who just hate her.
Jeff – Thanks for visiting and thank you for the elaborate comment. I remember the bicycle scene, you can visualize it as it is being described. I have read Atlas Shrugged, but I did not enjoy it as much as I enjoyed Fountainhead.
You make a very interesting distinction between two forms of Altruism. But from what I remember of Atlas shrugged she was opposed to even the #2 form. It as if she thought only the geniuses deserve altruism.
Don’t you think a mixture of freedom and government controls are necessary. Would a purely capitalistic society protect its weaker sections?
Valda – Thank you. /* devotion to the values one must pursue if one is to flourish and achieve happiness */ that is a great definition of selfishness. In other words, selfishness is sticking to your principles.
Derrick – Thank you. I have read Atlas Shrugged. However I did not enjoy it as much as Fountainhead.
[...] trish wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptI read this book when I was in 11th grade and I have read it a countless times since then. I have always wondered about the secret of its appeal. Most people think of it as a brilliant satire. It talks about how we celebrate mediocrity but fail to reward greatness and originality. It communicates this through five principal characters. Howard Roark the hero of this book. He is a brilliant architect who believes that a building should have integrity. He is original and talented at the same time uncompromising. He does not believe in adding frills to a building just to make it look beautiful. Everything about a building should serve a purpose. At the other end is Peter Keating who is every thing which Roark is not? He possesses no great talent or originality, believes in playing to the gallery and copying other great works of architecture. You […] [...]
Archana,
I read Fontainhead and Atlas Shrugged during my college days and one of them twice – do not remember which one. Her books made me think about capitalism vs. communism for the first time and the importance of “I”.
I have been trying to express the same sentiments as Jeff and reconciliation of capitalism as we currently know it to her definition. I am glad Jeff also pointed out her definition of altruism which is important to keep in mind while reading her books.
As you have agreed, Valda’s explanation of Ayn Rand ’s definition of selfishness is excellent.
Perhaps it is time for me to pick Fountainhead once more!!
Ganesh
Thank you Ganesh. Its a pleasure meeting you here after a long gap. You have been missing from Sastwingees too.
The thing is that what Rand says Capitalism, she means Capitalism; not the semi-styled version we have today
The simple reality is true however that we’ve never seen true Capitalism working. I think one day we will however see it as such.
John.
Thanks Archana. I certainly look forward to your posts.
I have been watching the interesting discussions on Sastwingees from the sideline. I believe the “History of India” series at Satswingees deserves all the attention and at this point did not want to dilute the discussion with any of my post.
Ganesh
Sukumar,
I am going to state something obvious – “Religion does not and did not kill human beings” – Human beings do and did in the name of religion. Religion was just a convenient excuse to justify hate mongering and killing.
One can also make a case for the fact that religion has helped people get together and organize solely with the aim to help others. One great example is Mother Teresa.
Of course, you could counter argue that she could/would have done the even otherwise. But the point is that her faith helped her devote her life to the cause of others.
Other examples include Gandhiji and MLK Jr. who used religion as a guiding force to gain the strength needed to serve humanity.
IMO, blaming religion is an easy way out for a lot of problems. I believe that most religions at its core preaches – “live and let live”. It is the middlemen who have corrupted this message and managed to corrupt the fickle minded.
Ganesh
Rational selfishness is more than just “sticking to your principles”. It requires that your values be rational ones, that is, values that further your life as a human being. In contrast, sticking to religious principles would be absolutely anti-life. That is the reason that the religious eras of a country’s history are filled with hatred and bloodshed, and that is why separation of religion and state is such an important political principle. Hate mongering and killing are caused by ideas: irrational ideas, which include all ideas based on faith. If Mother Theresa had had command of an army, she would have been about as tolerant of opposition as Stalin.
John Pliskin – Thank you for visiting and commenting. Maybe you are right, but I think it is for the good. Capitalism, like any other system is fraught with imperfections and it has to be balanced with other mechanisms which counter its illeffcts.
Ganesh – I agree 100% with you on what you said about religion. In fact, religion is one of the oldest institutions of mankind and is still going stong because of its great benefits which far outweigh what ever misuses it may be put to. The best of a culture is embodied in its religion.
Valda Redfern – I have to completely disagree with you on this point. How do you determine any value is rational. Wright brothers thought they could, was that rational ?
/*If Mother Theresa had had command of an army, she would have been about as tolerant of opposition as Stalin */ this statement is nothing short of a sacrilige. I think religious leaders command a lot of power although they may not have an army and the fact that most of them do not misuse it, rather use it for the benefit of mankind is credit to religion.
This is a good discussion.
Rationality, in Rand’s view, is adherence to the facts of reality–that is, metaphysical reality (e.g., there is such a thing as gravity that behaves a certain way), not man-made reality (e.g., you have to pay a certain percentage of your wages to support the local schools). Therefore, the Wright brothers knew something about how reality worked and believed flight was possible. They didn’t just have a revelation and work from nothing.
The Ayn Rand Lexicon is a good first resource for clearing up some of the confusion about what terms like selfishness really mean. Check it out: http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/
As for the notion that religion is somehow a positive force consider that all religion is merely an extravagant form of what Rand called “blanking out,” i.e., refusing to use your rational mind in exchange for the temporary luxury of not having to cope with reality. But, like a drug addled junkie, religious people are forced to cope with reality. When they are confronted with reality their religious philosophy (or, in the case of junkies their drugs) will be of little help because it is not meant to help them cope with reality, it is meant to allow them the false luxury of putting engagement with reality off for another day. When reality catches up to them, e.g., when they are faced with a medical or financial emergency, the blanked out will have no choice but to deviate from their philosophy and engage with reality or die.
To elaborate on an example from a previous comment: If the Wright brothers had relied on their faith in human flight, they would not have gotten very far off the ground. They used their rational minds, not their faith, to construct their airplane. Prayer did not put Bernoulli’s principle into action.
This is why most religious philosophies describe man as less than perfect. If strict adherence to the philosophy prevents man from living as a rational being by requiring him to trust faith above reason, if it robs man of his only means of survival, then the man who follows that philosophy will fall short of the ideal for as long as he keeps himself alive through rational means.
Archana, this isn’t about this post, but I hope that you or one of your readers can help me find a photo. I don’t know where else to post this.
I was following a stream from one of your posts and found a wonderful photo of an beautiful old man who watched the sunset with the photographer by a temple or shrine somewhere in India. I thought that I had bookmarked it but I didn’t. I have searched many times trying to retrace the stream but to no avail. Does anyone know where the photo can be found.
Thank you Janet. Are you refering to this one
http://archanaraghuram.wordpress.com/2008/01/05/snapshots-from-the-countryside/
I have not posted many pictures on this blog.
Fountainhead has always been my number #1 book. I still have to find one book which I can keep above it. Its a masterpiece which somehow changed the way I looked at the world. It opened so many doors in my mind. Truely a masterpiece.
“The Fountainhead” was my first introduction into the world of Ayn Rand and it makes sense why it happened when it did. I was very much looking for specific answers to general principles about life, although I may not have expressed it as such at the time. Ayn Rand provided that for me. Afterwards “The Fountainhead” became my favorite novel and still is to this day.
Your thoughts in Rand’s novel are interesting though I don’t agree with certain sentiments about it. If you’re interested there is a whole website devoted to explaining in more depth Rand’s novels, their literary as well as philosophical implications. It also talks about the characterization of Gail Wynand and his role in the novel.
http://www.aynrandnovels.com
Michael – Thank you very much. I will look up the link.
Amit – Thank you. It is one of my favorites too.
There are some books I can never get beyond the first few pages and one of it is The Fountainhead. I dont know why (”readers block” ?). Probably after your post, may try to make an earnest attempt to read it. I know it is not the book that can be finished off in a day or two. If I may ask you, how long did you take to finish reading it ?
Actually I did it in one day. I started in the morning and finished it at 2AM in the night. I found it so gripping I could not stop reading.
If you get past the first chapter, you will find it very hard to abandon.
Wow that is amazing. I did the same with Robert Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. I am sure you would have read it. Keenly expecting your post on it soon. I read it long back and it is time to read it once more.
Krishna- Isn’t it a coincidence. I could not get past the first few pages. Now that you recommend it, I will attempt reading it again.
Ganesh,
Thanks for responding to my comment. Mine was actually a rhetorical question. Yes, no religion actually officially preaches violence but most violence today takes place in the name of religion. And you are right, it is being done by people who misuse religion.
But my point is more on the lines of religion doesn’t seem to have any ability to create a system of checks/balances within itself. Whereas Capitalism has now many regulatory bodies and policing mechanisms that try to make sure that people are not destroying the ecosystem, exploiting people etc.
But do you see any religion having any such methods?
The fact that the church/state have been separate don’t seem to have a bearing on it. In India killings continue to happen in the name of religion and the USA is fighting needless wars in the name of religion. palestine and kashmir are going to remain a festering wound for the foreseeable future. i just don’t see any mechanism evolving to stem this tide of religious chauvinism which i see as one of the biggest threats to humanity.
Hopefully that clarifies my position.
[...] received very interesting comments on my previous post, The Fountainhead. . Although I have read the novel many times, these comments gave me a whole new insight into Ayn [...]
Thank you Sukumar. I have written about Adam Smith and John Nash’s theories.
Ganesh wrote,
“I am going to state something obvious – “Religion does not and did not kill human beings” – Human beings do and did in the name of religion. Religion was just a convenient excuse to justify hate mongering and killing.”
This misses the most important point about Ayn Rand’s philosophy. Human action is driven by the ideas the humans involved accept. That is why philosophy is important, why rational thought is important, why recognizing reality is important!
By directing human minds away from those values, Religion does indeed kill human beings. The same is true of communism and socialism, which simply replace God with the Collective. (There is no such thing as a Collective, as it is comprised entirely of individuals.)
There are other ways these two systems kill human beings and cause enormous physical suffering (not to mention undermine happiness). Please see my comment (#4) on the next post An Invisible Hand and A Beautiful Mind.
Hi Archana,
Am very late in commenting. But Fountainhead was one of the first novels I read. It has a great mythological quality to it as you mentioned. My favorite character was Dominique
I loved the scene where Howard Roark defends himself in front of the jury. I also love the character of Roark’s mentor. I cannot recollect his name now. But he was also a man of integrity but did not get his due recognition.
After reading the book, for many months I had this dream of becoming an architect. However the dream slowly faded away as reality sunk in
Thank you very much Saraswathi. Roark’s mentor – even I don’t seem to recall his name. He was also great character. Almost all characters in the book are memorable.
The first time I read FOUNTAINHEAD, i fell hopelessly in love with Howard Roark. He is a character, you wish should exist in real life and you get to meet him.
And yes, Roark’s mentor is Henry Cameroon.
I think its Ayn Rand’s greatest book.
And you did justice to it by writing a wonderful review…
Thanks a lot Sonu. I too feel it is Ayn Rand’s greatest book. No other book of hers made such a great impression on me.