The idea that man becomes great through his or her own powers of accomplishment and capacity to create permeates the book as Howard Roark decidedly stands up to a society that constantly rewards inept ability. Peter Keating, a college acquaintance of Roark’s, is the poster child of social achievement by means of complete and utter inability. After reading one of Toohey’s books Keating “… was certain that it was profound, because he didn’t understand it.” Keating was the perfect victim.
After years of avoiding it I finally had to read this book, since Thoughts lent it to me saying its one of her favorites. I am talking of “The Fountainhead” by Ayn Rand, the much revered classic. I had attempted reading this when I was in school or college, found it immensely boring and thrown it away.
And now? Well, sadly my opinion has not changed drastically. I did enjoy the book to a great extent mostly in the first half. But after around 250 pages or so, it starts going through highly philosophical corridors where I lost my way. I am guessing I am the last person to read this book but still here goes. To put it briefly, The Fountainhead follows the life of architects Howard Roark and Peter Keating. Enmeshed with their stories are the lives of newspaper critic Ellsworth Toohey and their love interest Dominique Francon.
It is through Roark that Rand propounds her theory of objectivism, the following of individualistic pursuits as against collectivism. And I did find the beginning extremely interesting. I was fascinated by Roark, a seemingly cold, emotionless and terse figure who refuses to design buildings which conformed to popular designs. Roark worships creativity and individualism and he struggles to maintain his values in an age that blindly follows the past. Erecting buildings based on past classics such as the Parthenon or decorating a building with superfluous trimmings like angel figures imitating Renaissance structures, is something he abhors. Keating too, is passionate about his work, to the point of being callous. He meets Ellsworth Toohey and the critic is impressed enough to write a column on him. However, just after he informs Keating of this news, he is shot at. Keating’s immediate reaction, “If he’s dead, does that mean they won’t publish his column tomorrow?”
But while Peter Keating gives his clients what they want, Roark tells his clients that if he has to work on a design it cannot be altered in any way later. He lives life on his own terms and because of his almost inhuman demeanor he has few friends and fewer clients.
Into his life comes Dominique, his mirror personality and they fall passionately in love. But for reasons that I only vaguely understood Dominique marries Keating with the full mutual understanding of Roark. The confession of his love, one of the rare and fleeting glimpses of humaneness in Roark’s manner, is in fact touching to read. “We never need to say anything to each other when we’re together. This is – for the time when we won’t be together. I love you Dominique…. To say ‘I love you’ one must first know how to say the ‘I’.”
Frankly, after this Rand lost me. I never fully comprehended Dominique’s character. She goes on to marry Gail Wynand too after she divorces Keating and by then I was groping around for meanings. At the end of the book, Roark remained my favorite. He remains pretty much unchanged and I absolutely loved some of his ideals. One of his thoughts that instantly was burnt into me.
“To sell your soul is the easiest thing in the world. That’s what everybody does every hour of his life. If I asked you to keep your soul – would you understand why that’s much harder?”
The essence of the book is in Roark’s long speech in the court right at the end of the book, which says we shouldn’t blindly copy the past and fail to utilize the energy of the zeitgeist. I was reminded of T S Eliot’s essay Tradition and the Individual Talent, written around the time Rand’s book is set, in the 1920s. Eliot says the poet must take traditions and ideals from the past and express it in his own way thus making it unique. But here Rand overrides that completely, going one step further saying the past should not be followed at all, through Roark’s voice.
I know I haven’t done justice to the book in the review mostly because long parts of it simply zinged by. And thus, Rand has not changed my life in a radical manner as she has done for many people who have been recommending this book to me. I agree with most of the points that reader Navin Quadros says in his review and I have to leave it at that. And yes, like Roark, I stick to my opinion/ideas about the book, though contrary to the majority. At least, Rand taught me that much.
No comments:
Post a Comment