Attack of Ayn Rand & The Objectivists

Here's my review of The Fountainhead, for which I've received a sound drubbing on Amazon. At the bottom I've posted comment that was made by a fan of the book. If you read my review and then the comment, I think you'll see how this person actually proves my point.

Unkindness as Philosophy, January 28, 2007
THE FOUNTAINHEAD has been described by one of its many followers - yes, followers, not readers, for the book is essentially unreadable -- as a "passionate defense of individualism [that] presents an exalted view of man's creative potential." This is a fair description, although it points unintentionally to the book's main flaw: it is not a novel, but a tract posing as a novel.

Traditional progressive novels tend to be suspicious of the exalted, especially of those who occupy exalted positions based on birth or social class. In the case of Ms. Rand, the exalted are those rare individuals who, like herself, must be allowed to work their will upon the world because they believe themselves exalted. A circular argument at best, a bad faith argument in truth, this tacit nod to the slow ascent of the common man and woman since the Enlightenment spares Ms. Rand from plumping for monarchy which, even by today's repellent neo-conservatives standards, is universally seen to be repellent.

Because her main character, Howard Roark, architect extraordinaire, is an argument and not recognizably a person, he not surprisingly suffers from a lack of inner-animation. Sensitive readers will chafe against the underlying and predictable framework that ultimately treats characters as props for Ms. Rand's objectivist philosophy, an anti-progressive stew of prejudices posing as a critique of the welfare state and its "leveling effects."

Here's the problem with her "philosophy:" for every Howard Roark it raises up as Hero, it writes off millions of people as unworthy of our interest, our sympathy and our compassion. Unkindness is not a philosophy most find acceptable. With THE FOUNTAINHEAD, Rand attempted to make it so and has managed to fool many. Because she has, she is therefore lauded by her conservative followers because her apologia absolves them of any responsibility for the fate of their fellow men and women.

Regrettably, this book and her other tendentious work, ATLAS SHRUGGED, have found their way into the backpacks of idealistic college students. One suspects that many, because their relative youth causes them to see themselves as unique individuals, are seduced by the notion that they, too, are slated for Heroic status. I have nothing against people having heroes; young people especially should have them. But Howard Roark is no hero. He's a stick figure that represents a hero. I suspect too, that because of their general unreadability, students think the books are "deep."

In retrospect, it seems true that those people whom I knew in college who didn't finish this tract-posing-as-a-novel were people who tended to be relatively reasonable in their social and political views. Those who did finish it, on the other hand, tended to be immoderate and dogmatic. Judging by some of the reviews posted here, this probably remains true today.

Now here's the comments of Lonnie E. Holder, a Top 500 Amazon reviewer.

Lonnie E. Holder
I disagree with your comments starting from the beginning. I have read this book, twice. I loved it both times. I found the book easy, yes, I said easy, to read. I was gripped by the story line and the concept of the purity of Roark's purpose.

Your second point is that this book is a "tract." A "tract" is defined as a leaflet or pamplet containing a declaration or appeal. Rand's novel contains elements of a philosophy, not a declaration. If there is an appeal, it is an appeal to sanity and away from socialism. Read Mikhail Bakhtin's "Discourse in the Novel." Rand meets Bakhtin's highest standard, an original voice. There are critical essays noting that when someone speaks (or writes) with an original voice and the voice attains authority that is substantially different from established authority, then frequently the voice is reviled. On the other hand, Rand knew that she would be reviled by those who failed to understand her and her not-so-subtle preaching against socialism.

In your second paragraph I see you totally missed the point of Rand's novel. Her central point was that no one should work their will upon the world. Rand deliberately fashioned Toohey to be someone who imposed his will on the world so that she could point out that these are the people she felt were destructive and anti-progressive. Roark did what Roark did and he knew that there would those who understood him and those who did not understand him could never be his clients and he would not work for them. Roark was an anti-manipulator because he could not manipulate or work his will on anyone, nor would he want to.

You next argue that "exalting" Roark is anti-progressive and anti-leveling. You sort of have that right. Rand recognizes that (revelation here) not everyone is equal. Oh my. Guess why communism failed. Some people are suited to be mathematicians and physicists, others art not. People are born equal in rights, but not in capability, and no amount of wishing and hoping will ever change that. I admire Roark's purity of purpose. Many in our so-called "modern" society would repress his creativity and talent for the sake of making inferior talents "equal." Such repression and imposition of will by the masses is wrong and removes the benefits of great creativity and genius from being able to improve our technology and our society.

Rand did not intend Roark to be a hero. She intended Roark to be a role model for purity of purpose. Never did she say that millions should be written off. Neither was she preaching or suggesting that we have no compassion for people that fail to meet the high standards of Roark. What she did say is that the vast majority of people will follow what someone suggests they should follow (read sheep), and those people should speak with their own mind rather than being dutiful robots. As noted above, people that speak with their own mind are often reviled by those who follow current authority.

You state that Ayn Rand's works are tendentious. Really? Well, is that not good? Your comments are tendentious, in case you had not noticed. Of course, they are also specious, but that is only because you failed to understand the novel.

You stereotyped people with respect to Rand's novel. Those who did not finish it are nice moderate people. You mean boring. So sad for them and their tedious little lives. Those who finished the book are dogmatic and immoderate. Those are your tendentious statements, not mine. I have a flexible point of view and am generally moderate. I have found that most people who have read this book, understood it, and enjoyed it, are seekers of truth and like people who think for themselves. They do tend to be generally in favor of individualism and are anti-communists. However, the converse (meaning those people who have not read the book) is not necessarily true, because there are people with those characteristics who have not read the book.

One final point. I suggested in my review of this book that Howard Roark would likely not have read "The Fountainhead." Something for you to think about.

I shall continue to think, but so far, count myself Roark-like in that I did not finish the book, while my critic did. Three times.