http://www.amazon.com/Fountainhead-Centennial-Hardcover-Ayn-Rand/dp/0452286751
I remember reading Ayn Rand when I was in high school. It was a translation (in Marathi my mother tongue) that I read since I did not speak or write much English back then.
I do not remember whether it was Atlas Shrugged or Fountain head but I certainly remember what I came back with. When a friend of mine asked what the book was about, I remember providing the synopsis “It takes a lot of words to fool the world”. Clearly it was not my age to understand the underlying philosophy J
A few months back I noticed and bought Ayn Rand Box Set on Amazon and thought it would be fun to read the books again and hence started with Fountain Head.
Before picking up this author one needs to be comfortable with libertarian philosophy. This is not an post to debate on the merits of this philosophy, however the reason I am mentioning this is that it is a pre-requisite for enjoying this book.
To give an example: “I don’t work with collectives. I don’t consult. I don’t co-operate. I don’t collaborate ” When the main character (Howard Roark) refuses a commission with these words, it does not make sense to ask yourself whether you will be happy being such a person, when you would want to work next to such a person. Never ask yourself whether such a person will be able to conduct any complicated organization tasks and whether earth would be a better place if everyone starts behaving like this.
This is why I am saying one must believe in the underlying philosophy in order to enjoy this book.
This book primarily revolves around Howard Roark whether he is on the scene or not.
The characters are mostly clear cut, black and white, they always do what is expected of them, there is no shade of grey involved. There are a few exceptions though but the exceptions are to the downside. It is difficult to accept that Hopton Stoddard who was an investing genius would follow Toohey so blindly and to subscribe to his barely concealed illogical reasoning so eagerly.
Another example would be all appearances to intellectualism by Dominique Francon are lost when she stays in a low income housing society and basically states that the people deserve the low standard of living because they are lazy enough. Of course this contradicts in a sense when Roark builds a housing project for low income group. Let us just say that it is difficult to remember what has been said previously if someone is writing a book that is six hundred pages long.
The problem with six hundred pages becomes apparent in other places as well. When Gail Waynand character enters the stage, there is a lot of talk how he owns multiple newspapers and magazines across the country. The all of sudden the references to multiple magazines are completely lost and the story is told as if he owns a single newspaper, Banner, only to see that references to his large empire come back in the end of the book. And incidentally I do not have a clue why Gail and Dominique did some of the things that they did, it completely defies logic but this may be the result of completely low EQ on my part rather than any problem with the author. Another such example would be there are references to how Waynand does not read his own newspaper as well as references to how he proactively manages the running of Banner.
One thing I was looking forward to in this book was intellectual encounters. However, the author has stayed clear of argument between equals, the plot is weave and dialogues constructed in such a way that libertarian character walk the high moral ground and everyone else is wimpy, old fashioned and against progress. I cannot help but think that interaction between Ellesworth Toohey and Dominique could have been made much more interesting and enlightening, had the author not been so intent on spreading the message.
This does not mean that the author lacks style. Writing such as below is scattered all over the book, I mean this is beautiful
Walking the soil of a desert island holds one anchored to the rest of the earth; but in their penthouse, with the telephone dis-connected, Waynand and Dominique had no feeling of the fifty-seven floors below them, of steel grafts braced against granite – and it seemed to them that their home was anchored in space, not an island, but a planet.
Thus we come to the end of the book when all of a sudden everything becomes highly symbolic. The destruction of the housing project and the resulting court case are highly symbolic. I can understand the symbolism behind the court case but I do not have a clue about what the destruction of the housing project stands for and how it can be justified under any interpretation.
In all I found this book very entertaining at emotional level and very disappointing at intellectual level.
Regards
Harry