The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
Utopian, idealistic but just enough.
Spoilers ahead. And I’m not a literature scholar reviewing books for decades, so take this lightly.
The Fountainhead is one of the two most popular works by Ayn Rand, along with Atlas Shrugged. It is popular consensus to read the former before the latter, so I followed the advice.
There is ample discussion on the Fountainhead online, from literary blogs, to terrible opinion pieces, popular tech and finance discourse on Twitter etc. The discussion seems to center on Roark, architecture, Rand herself or maybe even Dominique.
I am yet to come across something that focuses on Toohey, because in my opinion, Fountainhead is really an education in a masterful villain. This blog explores that facet as a review of this novel.
The Fountainhead is divided into four parts: Peter Keating, Ellsworth M. Toohey, Gail Wynand and Howard Roark. The sequence of these divisions is important, because it displays the control on the novel, and a loose perspective of that character.
Each division contains a gripping yet straightforward and transparent description of the conflicts riddling the character. These conflicts are rooted in childhood in the case of Toohey and Wynand, and in the overall identity for Keating and Roark.
Dominique Francon is the “priestess” to Rand’s hero, Roark. The “religion” here is architecture in modern era, trying to escape the clutches of olden Greco-Roman concepts. And for this article’s sake, we can regard Roark, not as God, but a human hero.
This is not out of oblation to Rand, rather, it is so on her insistence throughout the novel, to regard Roark as the best of humans. So be it. The “devil” for the reader is not Keating, who we are led to believe, at the end of his chapter.
Toohey is the devil, in his mannerisms, actions and thoughts, wanting to keep this religion in the past and enjoying the most control on the narrative for us plebeians. The novel is set in post-WWII New York and it concerns the most to an uniquely American ethos of individualism.
The main plot points according to me are: Toohey’s botched assassination, Stoddard Trial, Wynand’s betrayal, Roark’s trial and the final confrontation between Toohey and Roark.
The novel is a slow burn, with the first two parts being the most gripping, and the latter two being more of a resolution to the conflicts. Rand’s style is a propositional philosophy treatise crossed with a soap-opera fashion exposition. She terms her philosophy as “objectivism”. I have tried understanding it, listening to Yaron Brook a couple of times, but to no avail.
However, Rand does a fantastic job, developing the villain. Ellsworth Monkton Toohey is a columnist for the Banner and the organizer of some official sounding associations he himself has created, such as the Council of American Builders. These are tools for Toohey, to effectively control the narrative in the architecture discourse.
He switches course in defending Greek porticos and pediments to Modern sharp tones in a way that makes people think is natural. His poster boys, the architects he praises in his column, are mediocre dullards. He peppers nonsense such as “like a gallant gallstone” in popular discourse to make nonsensical writers such as Lois Cook seem plausible and artistic.
His effect of personality on his niece, Kate, is most entertaining, as she turns into a cackling, loud, animated woman doing nothing useful from a shy, home-bound girl. I listened to the Fountainhead on Audible too, with my monthly free credit and this part was much better listened to.
Overall, I find that Toohey’s effectiveness as a controller of narrative and mass opinion is really underrated. This is because people like Toohey do exist around us. People who wield extraordinary power over narrative because of official sounding acronyms.
People who cause conflicts by fettering fringe opinions. This is not meant as a deep-state like representation. Because, these don’t have to be villains. The Fountainhead is a nice read but ultimately does not go all the way because it seems off.
The Fountainhead’s misfortune is that Roark is too towering a hero, almost inhuman. There is no way that Roark wins in the end in a show trial like that.
Rand’s dialogue is too propositional to feel natural, such as this exchange:
Peter Keating:
“If you were me, Howard, would you become an architect or a painter?”Howard Roark:
“Peter, I can’t tell you. Nobody can tell you what to do. You have to decide for yourself.”Peter Keating:
“Come on, Howard, just suppose. If you were me?”Howard Roark (after a pause):
“If I were you, I’d go be a painter.”Peter Keating (after a moment):
“But, Howard — I said I’ll be great.”
Why say “I’ll be great”? The reliance on quips and one-liners feels excessive. There are a million plot points I have not discussed here, such as the AGA, Austen Heller’s house, Cosmo-Slotnick Building, Steve Mallory, Cortlandt homes etc that contribute to the plot.
However, I’d like to shed some light on Dominique and Wynand in this perspective I’m trying to present. Dominique is the daughter of popular architect, Guy Francon, and a columnist on the Banner. Let me say, she just feels completely unnatural.
Rand says she is portraying herself as Dominique vis-a-vis her husband, Frank O’Connor as Roark. That is her privilege, but their relationship, the popular forced sex scene in the quarry town, feel “toxic”, as banal that is to say.
Wynand is a billionaire, rags to riches story, running a slate of businesses, most importantly the Banner. The Banner is a tabloid that concerns itself with all kinds of NY intrigue.
The summary of Wynand’s arc is that he regards Roark as a genius, but Toohey uses the Banner to smear Roark in the wake of Cortlandt blasts, and Wynand regards it as a betrayal of his character.
Wynand sells off the newspaper right after the final trial, effectively getting rid of Toohey. He then commissions Roark to build his home.
The character of Wynand is of interesting conflict. His Hell’s Kitchen upbringing has a big effect on his decisions and philosophy, but all his mannerisms indicate an outwardly patrician appearance. His fascination with Dominique is an ill-explored side plot.
Overall, these two characters serve their purpose in keeping Roark’s character alive and relevant to the plot, like links.
At this point of writing this review, I think I have focused a lot on the negatives of the Fountainhead. This book can genuinely challenge someone’s perspective of work ethic and purpose of their job.
Excelling at what you do, just because, should be the purpose to work for everyone. Rand delivers that well. I did have quite a lot of fun reading the Fountainhead.
The dialogue and flow feels akin to a convoluted Netflix show (I guess all Netflix shows are like that). It is quite a long read too, with the popular edition standing at ~720 pages.
But I finished it in a couple of days, reading it, listening to it and sometimes both.
Currently, the Fountainhead is popular in tech and finance “bros”, especially in the US on Twitter. There are a lot of people misquoting, misinterpreting and misrepresenting Roark in these discussions.
Many of these have convinced themselves that Roark is a libertarian, or an anarchist, or a capitalist. Roark is none of these. He is a humanist, a person who believes in the power of the individual to create and innovate.
Not only that, they think that Roark is every hero who the society has ostracized. The catch is that ostracization is not a proof of heroism. Some people are ostracized for good reason and there is no need to romanticize it.
(A whole debate can be had on prevalence of victimhood in modern society, but that is not the point of this review).
Having said that, I would recommend the Fountainhead for everyone to read. Just don’t take this review at its word and parrot it online. Roark would be pleased, or maybe not.