The Fountainhead

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

OK, nevermind.

Just looked it up.
Freakin weird.

Edit: Just wanted to correct my spelling of weird and reiterate how weird that is. I can see how it would be talked about vaguely. What the?...
oh well.

[Fist and Faith]

Yeah, the whole love aspect, if "love" isn't too good a word for it, is too dumb to remember or talk about. No secret/spoiler, just... *shakes head*

But since you won't be reading the book, let me give you a couple of quotes here, gathered from posts here and at the Hangar. I'll type out a couple more when I find the book.

If it were true, that old legend about appearing before a supreme judge an naming one's record, I would offer, with all my pride, not any act I committed, but one thing I have never done on this earth: that I never sought an outside sanction. I would stand and say; I am Gail Wynand, the man who has committed every crime except the foremost one: that of ascribing futility to the wonderful fact of existence and seeking justification beyond myself. This is my pride, that now, thinking of the end, I do not cry like all the men of my age: but what was the use and the meaning? I was the use and meaning, I, Gail Wynand. That I lived and that I acted.

At first, his buildings were merely a little different, not enough to frighten anyone. He made startling experiments, once in a while, but people expected it and one did not argue with Henry Cameron. Something was growing in him with each new building, struggling, taking shape, rising dangerously to an explosion. The explosion came with the birth of the skyscraper. When structures began to rise not in tier on ponderous tier of masonry, but as arrows of steel shooting upward without weight or limit, Henry Cameron was among the first to understand this new miracle and to give it form. He was among the first and the few who accepted the truth that a tall building must look tall. While architects cursed, wondering how to make a twenty-story building look like an old brick mansion, while they used every horizontal device available in order to cheat it of its height, shrink it down to tradition, hide the shame of its steel, make it small, safe and ancient - Henry Cameron designed skyscrapers in straight, vertical lines, flaunting their steel and height. While architects drew friezes and pediments, Henry Cameron decided that the skyscraper must not copy the Greeks. Henry Cameron decided that no building must copy any other.

"Mr. Janss, when you buy an automobile, you don't want it to have rose garland about the windows, a lion on each fender and an angel sitting on the roof. Why don't you?"

"That would be silly," stated Mr. Janss.

"Why would it be silly? Now I think it would be beautiful. Besides, Louis the Fourteenth had a carriage like that and what was good enough for Louis is good enough for us. We shouldn't go in for rash innovation and we shouldn't break with tradition."

"Now you know damn well you don't believe anything of the sort!"

"I know I don't. But that's what you believe, isn't it? Now take a human body. Why wouldn't you like to see a human body with a curling tail with a crest of ostrich feathers at the end? And with ears shaped like acanthus leaves? It would be ornamental, you know, instead of the stark, bare ugliness we have now. Well, why don't you like the idea? Because it would be useless and pointless. Because the beauty of the human body is that it hasn't a single muscle which doesn't serve its purpose; that there's not a line wasted; that every detail of it fits one idea, the idea of a man and the life of a man. Will you tell me why, when it comes to a building, you don't want it to look as if it had any sense or purpose, you want to choke it with trimmings, you want to sacrifice its purpose to its envelope - not knowing even why you want that kind of an envelope? You want it to look like a hybrid beast produced by crossing the bastards of ten different species until you get a creature without guts, without heart or brain, a creature all pelt, tail, claws and feather? Why? You must tell me because I've never been able to understand it."

"A house can have integrity, just like a person," said Roark, "and just as seldom."

"In what way?"

"Well, look at it. Every piece of it is there because the house needs it - and for no other reason. You see it from here as it is inside. The rooms in which you'll live made the shape. The relation of masses was determined by the distribution of space within. The ornament was determined by the method of construction, an emphasis of the principle that makes it stand. You can see each stress, each support that meets it. Your own eyes go through a structural process when you look at the house, you can follow each step, you see it rise, you know what made it and why it stands. But you've seen buildings with columns that support nothing, with purposeless cornices, with pilasters, moldings, false arches, false windows. You've seen buildings that look as if they contained a single large hall, they have solid columns and single, solid windows six floors high. But you enter and find six stories inside. Or buildings that contain a single hall, but with a facade cut up into floor lines, band courses, tiers or windows. Do you understand the difference? Your house is made by its own needs. Those others are made by the need to impress. The determining motive of your house is in the house. The determining motive of the others is in the audience."

The house on the sketches had been designed not by Roark, but by the cliff on which it stood. It was as if the cliff had grown and completed itself and proclaimed the purpose for which it had been waiting. The house was broken into many levels, following the ledge of the rock, rising as it rose, in gradual masses, in planes flowing together up into one consummate harmony. The walls, of the same granite as the rock, continued its vertical lines upward; the wide, projecting terraces of concrete, silver as the sea, followed the line of the waves, of the straight horizon.

The building stood on the shore of the East River, a structure rapt as raised arms. The rock crystal forms mounted in such eloquent steps that the building did not seem stationary, but moving upward in a continuous flow - until one realized that it was only the movement of one's glance and that one's glance was forced to move in that particular rhythm. The walls of pale gray limestone looked silver against the sky, with the clean, dulled luster of metal, but a metal that had become a warm, living substance, carved by the most cutting of all instruments - a purposeful human will. It made the house alive in a strange, personal way of its own, so that in the minds of spectators five words ran dimly, without object or clear connection: "...in His image and likeness..."

A young photographer from the Banner noticed Howard Roark standing alone across the street, at the parapet of the river. He was leaning back, his hands closed over the parapet, hatless, looking up at the building. It was an accidental, unconscious moment. The young photgrapher glanced at Roark's face - and thought of something that had puzzled him for a long time: he had always wondered why the sensations one felt in dreams were so much more intense than anything one could experience in waking reality - why the horror was so total and the ecstasy so complete - and what was that extra quality which could never be recaptured afterward; the quality of what he felt when he walked down a path through tangled green leaves in a dream, in an air full of expectation, of causeless, utter rapture - and when he awakened he could not explain it, it had been just a path through some woods. He thought of that because he saw that extra quality for the first time in waking existence, he saw it in Roark's face lifted to the building. The photographer was a young boy, new to his job; he did not know much about it; but he loved his work; he had been an amateur photographer since childhood. So he snapped a picture of Roark in that one moment.

Later the Art Editor of the Banner saw the picture and barked: "What the hell's that?" "Howard Roark," said the photographer. "Who's Howard Roark?" "The architect." "Who the hell wants a picture of the architect?" "Well, I only thought..." "Besides, it's crazy. What's the matter with the man?" So the picture was thrown into the morgue.

"He’s paying the price and wondering for what sin and telling himself that he’s been too selfish. In what act or thought of his has there ever been a self? What was his aim in life? Greatness – in other people’s eyes. Fame, admiration, envy – all that which comes from others. Others dictated his convictions, which he did not hold, but he was satisfied that others believed he held them. Others were his motive power and his prime concern. He didn’t want to be great, but to be thought great. He didn’t want to build, but to be admired as a builder. He borrowed from others in order to make an impression on others. There’s your actual selflessness. It’s his ego he’s betrayed and given up. But everybody calls him selfish.”

“That’s the pattern most people follow.”

“Yes! And isn’t that the root of every despicable action? Not selfishness, but precisely the absence of a self. Look at them. The man who cheats and lies, but preserves a respectable front. He knows himself to be dishonest, but others think he’s honest and he derives his self-respect from that, second-hand. The man who takes credit for an achievement which is not his own. He knows himself to be mediocre, but he’s great in the eyes of others. The frustrated wretch who professes love for the inferior and clings to those less endowed, in order to establish his own superiority by comparison.”

The egoist in the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices others. He is the man who stands above the need of using others in any manner. He does not function through them. He is not concerned with them in any primary matter. Not in his aim, not in his motive, not in his thinking, not in his desires, not in the source of his energy. He does not exist for any other man - and he asks no other man to exist for him. This is the only form of brotherhood and mutual respect possible between men.

Degrees of ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same: the degree of a man's independence, initiative and personal love for his work determines his talent as a worker and his worth as a man. Independence is the only gauge of human virtue and value. What a man is and makes of himself; not what he has or hasn't done for others. There is no substitute for personal dignity. There is no standard of personal dignity except independence.

In all proper relationships there is no sacrifice of anyone to anyone. An architect needs clients, but he does not subordinate his work to their wishes. They need him, but they do not order a house just to give him a commission. Men exchange their work by free, mutual consent to mutual advantage when their personal interests agree and they both desire the exchange. If they do not desire it, they are not forced to deal with each other. They seek further. This is the only possible form of relationship between equals. Anything else is a relation of slave to master, or victim to executioner.

[lhaughlhann]

As far as i know, Ayn did have issues with relationships (vague memory from somewhere) but i havent read anything else of hers for years, having read Anthem and Atlas Shrugged. I guess i should read the Fountainhead i do have it lying around here somewhere, then i could atleast comment intelligently on all this.

[The Leper Fairy]

As far as i know, Ayn did have issues with relationships (vague memory from somewhere)

I think my teacher said something about her being in a relationship with a guy who pretended to be the world's greatest Objectivist but it turned out he was faking

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Now -that's- a unique problem.

[Fist and Faith]

Right? What were the chances of finding a guy who would lie to a woman in order to get her into bed?

[Variol Farseer]

The chances of that? About 1000%. The chances that a guy would come up with that particular lie? Probably a bit less, I should think.

I mean, bloody 'ell, I wouldn't think of something like that. Not that I've ever lied to a woman in order to get her into bed; which is probably part of the reason why I'm so hopelessly bad at getting women into bed.

<shrug>

[The Leper Fairy]

Right? What were the chances of finding a guy who would lie to a woman in order to get her into bed?

But why THAT woman? Have you seen any pictures of her?

As the other english teacher so delicately put it: You'd have to sneak up on a glass of water with a face like that.

[Fist and Faith]

I haven't had the pleasure of seeing her picture.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Now I've gotta go find one...

[Edge]

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

oh my god...
I don't mean to be rude, but she doesn't exactly read the forum. And I'm no prize myself.
But...I can see why it would be confusing for someone to fake objectivism... maybe he was after her money?

[The Leper Fairy]

Just had to share this. My friend Kelley made it today.

[Fist and Faith]

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

That is so funny that I don't know what to do about it.

[The Leper Messiah]

I thought I would ressurect this thread from the other page, as we have been talking about Ayn Rand lately. Just wanted to add something from the whole 'Ayn's love life' question.

Ayn Rand did have a somewhat troubled love life. She wanted a man like the ones she wrote about. A HERO. She did have a husband, but the man that you were referring to, was Nathaniel Brandon (who today works alot with self-esteem and has a few books out there somewhere) He was also married at the time. Ayn's ideas about romantic love, were idealistic and bascally involved the idea that anyone of a high intellect would naturally, just because of their advanced intelligence, love someone of the same or similar intellect. (no matter what they looked like) The brain would be attracted to the brain. So it was natural to her thinking that Nathaniel would love her and want to be with her because she was more intelligent than his wife and that Ayn's husband would agree to it also, for the same reason. So that is what happened. Nathaniel became her lover and his wife had to make that sacrifice due to their superior intellect. Nathaniels wife was also into objectivism. (which is why she went along with it. I think Ayn's husband just wanted a quiet life )

In the end Nathaniels first wife divorced him, Nathaniel himself, while still upholding the ideas of objectivism, could not maintain this aspect of his beliefs as he 'fell in love' with a women of lower intellect and wanted to marry her. Ayn felt betrayed and denounced him. I think he truely believed in objectivism, but just not enough to sleep with Ayn for the rest of his life. And as any lover scorned would, Ayn retaliated by hurting him in every way she could. Nathaniel Branden did marry the women he fell in love with, but she died early in the marriage of a drowning accident.

Just in case there was anyone out there who wanted to know some of the useless facts running around in my head from my Ayn Rand days. Shines some light on the woman behind the fountainhead.

- I got this information from a book written about Ayn, by the first wife of Nathaniel Branden.

[hierachy]

Yeah, The Leper Messiah's accoutn is far more accurate than "a relationship with a guy who pretended to be the world's greatest Objectivist but it turned out he was faking".

Oh and I would recommend the writing of Nathanial Branden. It's all non-fiction... as is Rand's most valuable work, IMO.

[Tjol]

When I hear a Rand fan describe her views, I appreciate them. But the one time I picked up Fountianhead, I really had a rolleyes feeling and a general animosity with Rourke, and put it down after five chapters.

You see, many of the less impressive design professors in college probably imagined that they were Rourke, eventhough, they really weren't very talented. See, Rourke for whatever reason, is arrogant first, as if arrogance alone is a quality higher than whatever other quality one might be arrogant about. And that's a bit empty. Too many design professors thought their arrogance alone would make them talented, but it didn't hold up to the examination of the minds of the more talented and thoughtful students. (ooooh I'm being arrogant... or maybe I'm mocking the inherent problem with a world filled with arrogant people, but of different abilities heh)

Now I haven't read the rest of the book, so maybe we eventually find out that Rourke is actually as talented as his arrogance suggests. But it seems like Rourke as a character is kind of the opposite of objectivism in a way, because he is arrogant first, and talented later (if that's the way the story plays out). It would seem that objectivism would say that you were rightly arrogant if you were talented....but not talented as a consequence of arrogance. Does that make sense?

[Fist and Faith]

The first two quotes below show Roark's feelings for architecture; his reasons for designing buildings the way he did. The second two show the results.

I don't know the first thing about architecture. I mean really, not the first thing. I imagine it's possible to be a genius in the field in ways other than the ways Roark was. But I believe he was. He had a vision of the way things should be. He didn't try to impose his view on the world; rather, he drew his view from the world. He believed the world was telling him how things were supposed to be, and he did not believe he had the right to change what the world was telling him. That's where his arrogance came from. It wasn't that he thought his abilities made him a genius; it's that he thought the world was an absolute authority in these matters. In Chariots of Fire Eric argued from a similar position. Powerful people, including the Prince of Wales, were pressuring him into running the race on Sunday. But God's law told him that you didn't do such things. No matter what those people said to him, he did what the true power required of him. It wasn't arrogant of him to tell the prince No; it was simply unthinkable to tell God No. Same with Roark and the world.

But I can't blame anyone for not being too enthusiastic about The Fountainhead. I've got lots of problems with it. Characters - the "good" ones - who I think are idiots, and who contradict themselves terribly. If I hadn't read Atlas Shrugged first, I'm not sure I would have gotten through Fountainhead. Atlas is much better, although much longer. But I did read Atlas first, so I knew the good stuff in Fountainhead when I saw it, and just ignored the crap.

"A house can have integrity, just like a person," said Roark, "and just as seldom."

"In what way?"

"Well, look at it. Every piece of it is there because the house needs it - and for no other reason. You see it from here as it is inside. The rooms in which you'll live made the shape. The relation of masses was determined by the distribution of space within. The ornament was determined by the method of construction, an emphasis of the principle that makes it stand. You can see each stress, each support that meets it. Your own eyes go through a structural process when you look at the house, you can follow each step, you see it rise, you know what made it and why it stands. But you've seen buildings with columns that support nothing, with purposeless cornices, with pilasters, moldings, false arches, false windows. You've seen buildings that look as if they contained a single large hall, they have solid columns and single, solid windows six floors high. But you enter and find six stories inside. Or buildings that contain a single hall, but with a facade cut up into floor lines, band courses, tiers or windows. Do you understand the difference? Your house is made by its own needs. Those others are made by the need to impress. The determining motive of your house is in the house. The determining motive of the others is in the audience."

"Mr. Janss, when you buy an automobile, you don't want it to have rose garland about the windows, a lion on each fender and an angel sitting on the roof. Why don't you?"

"That would be silly," stated Mr. Janss.

"Why would it be silly? Now I think it would be beautiful. Besides, Louis the Fourteenth had a carriage like that and what was good enough for Louis is good enough for us. We shouldn't go in for rash innovation and we shouldn't break with tradition."

"Now you know damn well you don't believe anything of the sort!"

"I know I don't. But that's what you believe, isn't it? Now take a human body. Why wouldn't you like to see a human body with a curling tail with a crest of ostrich feathers at the end? And with ears shaped like acanthus leaves? It would be ornamental, you know, instead of the stark, bare ugliness we have now. Well, why don't you like the idea? Because it would be useless and pointless. Because the beauty of the human body is that it hasn't a single muscle which doesn't serve its purpose; that there's not a line wasted; that every detail of it fits one idea, the idea of a man and the life of a man. Will you tell me why, when it comes to a building, you don't want it to look as if it had any sense or purpose, you want to choke it with trimmings, you want to sacrifice its purpose to its envelope - not knowing even why you want that kind of an envelope? You want it to look like a hybrid beast produced by crossing the bastards of ten different species until you get a creature without guts, without heart or brain, a creature all pelt, tail, claws and feather? Why? You must tell me because I've never been able to understand it."

The house on the sketches had been designed not by Roark, but by the cliff on which it stood. It was as if the cliff had grown and completed itself and proclaimed the purpose for which it had been waiting. The house was broken into many levels, following the ledge of the rock, rising as it rose, in gradual masses, in planes flowing together up into one consummate harmony. The walls, of the same granite as the rock, continued its vertical lines upward; the wide, projecting terraces of concrete, silver as the sea, followed the line of the waves, of the straight horizon.

The building stood on the shore of the East River, a structure rapt as raised arms. The rock crystal forms mounted in such eloquent steps that the building did not seem stationary, but moving upward in a continuous flow - until one realized that it was only the movement of one's glance and that one's glance was forced to move in that particular rhythm. The walls of pale gray limestone looked silver against the sky, with the clean, dulled luster of metal, but a metal that had become a warm, living substance, carved by the most cutting of all instruments - a purposeful human will. It made the house alive in a strange, personal way of its own, so that in the minds of spectators five words ran dimly, without object or clear connection: "...in His image and likeness..."