The character Howard Roark is the ideal character, who in the book portrayed only one thing, that there is no comparison between any two man, in any thing in this world.
He thinks(of course Rand thinks) that one should have the independence to do anything as per one’s own thought process; because it is almost impossible to harmonise the thought process of various persons, without any compromises.

This is the ideal case, of a person like Howard Roark, but if you try to emulate that character in the real life, then only one thing would happen, either you will move the world or you will be ruined. These are the two extreme cases, which I believe what an ‘ideal’ symbolises.

Now, if you think practically, then one can only be in between these two extremes, and this depends upon an individual’s capability to deal with the nature and the things around, and this applies to each and every thing, that you can never achieve or reach any of the extreme, and in fact Ayn Rand in her after word about the book, also accepted that, the character of Howard Roark is the most ideal character that she can thought of.

Talking about interdependence and independence, both are important, because this world drives in one round cycle, like a ‘food chain’, and also each individual enjoys one’s independence, and because of this dependability, only that one can not reach the two extremes.

This is my view about the character ‘Roark’, just thought to share with you.

and once again thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Keep Smiling!!!

That’s Ayn Rand’s ‘religion’ (so to say). She ‘founded’ it, in a manner of saying.

AND.

Objectivism an atheistic philosophy. The same old laa-da-laa-da-da about no cause required for ‘existence’ and that we ‘simply exist’.

That doesn’t count in favor with me.

There is one other author who is so taken by this philosophy. The name is Terry Goodkind and he wrote the “Sword of Truth” epic fantasy series. The storyline and creativity, I admired and enjoyed reading (only up to 6 or 7 books. After that it became too ‘preachy’, and repetitive).

Some of the philosophical assertions, I can agree with. But mostly, it is just over-glorification of “human magnificence” and “human spirit” (whatever that is).

Unfortunately for Rand’s thesis, humans are a species which stayed alive and achieved dominance by the application of mind and societal organisation to overcome the inherited puny body structure in comparison to other animals. Any attempt to follow Ayn Rand’s worldview before the advent of the modern world would have resulted in a speedy extinction of the individual. Only the technological progress and highly evolved society of ours permits the old, the weak, the sick, the deformed and the nutcases like “Roark” to survive.

The highest form of existence is INTERDEPENDENCE and not INDEPENDENCE. INDEPENDENCE postulates an unwillingness or inability to cooperate while INTERDEPENDENCE does not exclude the possibility of INDEPENDENCE as a way of life.

In that sense, Ayn Rand’s philosophy may be tolerated as yet another flavour in a pluralistic democracy of ideas but should not be considered as the “Enlightened Path” or even a “Good Path” for mankind to emulate.

Fountainhead is one of my most favorite books of all time. And like Gyanban above has put it so well, its not just abook, but its a way of life.

@Pramatesh: 1. There are enough men who swear by the book, me included:)
2. I am so thankful Bollywood did not make a film out of it. They would have completely destroyed the soul of the book!

But i do agree that if you don’t like the first few chapters, and can’t relate to it, you won’t end up reading any further. Like all cult movies, the Fountainhead story is something you absolutely love, or dislike, and its hard to be neutral about it!

Cheers!
Vasu