AYN RAND BOOK "THE FOUNTAINHEAD" AND IDEAS BEHIND ITS PHILOSOPHY One of my favorite books of all time

me is Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead". When I us e the word "favorite", I am not being entirely honest. Actually, my feelings tow ards this novel are very complex and difficult. I felt that this novel was a real challenge to me on many levels - both personal ly and in terms of the ideas and ideals it expressed. In the novel there is a character Elliott Twoomey, who is Howard Roark's nemesis - Howard Roark is the main character and Ayn Rand's idea of the "perfect man". Elliott was describing popular art and culture - paintings, sculptures, music, b ooks - and he was predicting that in the future anything and everything would be acceptable. Considered true art. He also predicted that this would be the end o f civilization as we know it. And he seemed almost happy about this. Elliott was a radical in his own way, full of hatred towards people and this world. Even th ough he was friendly and likable on the surface, he wanted to see people dehuman ized from the inside out and controlled by others like him, who shared his "visi on." Elliott's predictions were right. In some ways, you can see it happening even no w. The lowering of standards, artistically and otherwise. Making anything that p eople care to present into artistic masterpieces, or at least interesting enough to purchase. Art to shock, art to arouse, art to gain attention and initiate controversy. But art with nothing at all behind it. No meaning, no beauty, not even talent. Howard Roark knew that in order to have anything be worth something, we needed t o apply standards. Values. Criticisms and judgements. Also, a hierarchy - in oth er words, this is less than this, this has more color, more talent involved, som e things are indeed less or more than others. And there is no shame at all in th is. Elliott Twoomey insisted that the lowest common denominator should be applied to everyone and everything - "come on in, everybody, the water's fine! No matter h ow you are, how little you have, how poorly you function, we are all the same he re. And we must accept and embrace you as equal to others who do and be more, wh o have more talent, more things to say and to offer." Now, in terms of human life, yes, we are all equal. We must all be treated with a modicum of respect and kindness. There is no other way to live. BUT THIS APPLI ES ONLY TO BASIC HUMAN LIFE AND RIGHTS. THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO ART AND OTHER AREAS OF HUMAN EXISTENCE. We are clearly not equal when it comes to talent, artistic ability, how well we function intellectually, competency levels. So there has to be a recognition of this and a clear healthy respect for it. To do otherwise is to commit artistic a nd intellectual suicide, as well as culturally to destroy whatever is of true an d lasting value. Another point that was extremely important was the one that Elliott made, and Ho ward later answered. The fact that altruism was killing man and would ultimately lead to his total de struction. And of course, Elliott encouraged this. Give, give and then give some more. To anyone and everyone. No matter that they are thieves and killers, no m atter that they are people you do not know and do not like, keep giving. Don't t hink of yourself or even the cost. Keep yourself out of the picture entirely. Th at was one sure way to kill a person's spirit faster than anything. Self-immolat ion, I think the term was. Self-denial. Howard answered brilliantly. He said there could not be the other without me. I have to exist to be able to give. And I am alive and I am the only one who can g ive as me. So I have to take care of myself first and foremost. I also have a ri ght to decide who and what I will give my time, money and affection towards - ag ain, using my standards, my values, and my hierarchy system. This time applying it to people and how important they are to me. This novel was a challenge in so many ways because Howard Roark was such a diffi cult person to relate to. As a role model, impossible for me and perhaps others to understand or even to try and emulate. The sheer individualism, the intellect

ual qualities, the competence, the indifference to people's feelings or opinions , were amazing and almost like ice cold water in your face. Yet it did have the effect of waking you up to some extent. At least temporarily. My objections were few but they were meaningful. I almost sensed in Ayn Rand's w ritings a contempt for humanity as poor, as less than noble, pristine, intellige nt, functioning. In other words, the two main characters she portrayed as "ideal " were both tall, slender, elegant and beautiful in their own ways, minimalists in terms of gestures, smiles, talking and emotion - very cold yet beautiful with in that coldness. Anyone she portrayed as laughable or beneath the ideal were: shorter than averag e, overweight, poor and unclean in their povery in some respects (clothes hung o n a line, etc.), intellectually less than average, overly friendly, animated, et c. This was not the case in all aspects or all characters, but most of the above co uld be applied to some of her less than admirable characters in her novels. They did not physically or emotionally or mentally resemble Howard or Dominique - hi s soul mate - and in fact might have been the physical opposite. This might have been done just to show contrast but it also might have had a deeper meaning. If you believe that her physical descriptions of Howard and Dominique were meaning ful and used to express inner qualities, then the opposite could also be meaning ful in terms of being "less than worthy". As mentioned at a party scene in the Fountainhead, who you think is beautiful is very significant, and reveals quite a bit about your own character. Did the author do the same with the physical de scriptions of her own leading characters here in this novel? Valid point, maybe . A very interesting book and worth reading. But be prepared to think quite a bit on this book and the characters as well as the ideas presented. It will certainl y open your eyes.