A little thought
After reading The Fountainhead in one straight sitting, (no lunch breaks, no pee breaks, nothing) I am confused about one little thing.
Why did Ayn Rand have to end it the way she did? I would have much preferred Howard Roark to have lost the case.
Ultimately, the issue of his life had to be decided by the so called Second Handers. Would Howard Roark like that? I wonder…
And why should all things end all hunky dory? Real life is no way black or white. There is always a compromise, a gray area. And the good guys don’t always win.!
RSS/XML
June 22nd, 2004 at 11:54 am
You hit the nail right on the head(fountainhead, i shud say). Very correct in your assessment that the portrayal is white n black. but hey that was very deliberate. Take a close look at every character in the book, are’nt they a little ‘too well defined’ ?
Have you ever seen a person with a character that has not been chipped or rubbed round at the edges?
I would’nt find fault with the ending, but if you have to ask, I wud’ve preferred a different profession than architecture- something that has a direct effect on society, where Objectivism makes more sense.
Zaway by Nevil
June 22nd, 2004 at 11:56 am
You hit the nail right on the head(fountainhead, i shud say). Very correct in your assessment that the portrayal is white n black. but hey that was very deliberate. Take a close look at every character in the book, are’nt they a little ‘too well defined’ ?
Have you ever seen a person with a character that has not been chipped or rubbed round at the edges?
I would’nt find fault with the ending, but if you have to ask, I wud’ve preferred a different profession than architecture- something that has a direct effect on society, where Objectivism makes more sense.
Zaway by Nevil
June 23rd, 2004 at 1:25 am
The main motivation for Rand in writing her novels, I think, was to communicate her idea of what a perfect man should be and what a perfect philosophy should be. She HAD the idea, and she wanted to communicate it. Thats why, for someone familiar with her view of life, the characters seem not only well-defined but even predictable. While Fountainhead is a good book, many dont think its a great book. Some of the really great works of literature have come from writers for whom writing was a process of self-discovery, a process of understanding himself and his relation to the world, rather than from those who write to communicate what they believe in. This again is the reason why people dont get so excited about propaganda writing.
June 23rd, 2004 at 1:29 am
The main motivation for Rand in writing her novels, I think, was to communicate her idea of what a perfect man should be and what a perfect philosophy should be. She HAD the idea, and she wanted to communicate it. Thats why, for someone familiar with her view of life, the characters seem not only well-defined but even predictable. While Fountainhead is a good book, many dont think its a great book. Some of the really great works of literature have come from writers for whom writing was a process of self-discovery, a process of understanding himself and his relation to the world, rather than from those who write to communicate what they believe in. This again is the reason why people dont get so excited about propaganda writing.
June 6th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
yea right…
I think Aynrand jus proposed a Philosophy and instead of putt’n ‘em in a non-fic got ‘em in fiction to make it intrst’n…. n moreopver i think Howard Roark isn’t realistic, i mean this character can’t fit in normal life exactly… there shud be certain adjustments according to the self.. I feel Hank Rearden was a best n realistic character of Ayn Rand