The Fountainhead
In continuation of the previous post……
Going ahead with the novel at the place where I had stopped….I have come to the conclusion that reading a novel doesn’t always mean that I have to believe it.
Firstly a look at Ayn Rand’s biography helps immensely in understanding her outlook. Her transition from the communist dictatorship of the soviet union to the capitalist land of America had a major influence on her thinking…as far as I can remember it was due to some rather unpleasant incidents during her days in the soviet union that made her develop a strong bitter disliking for socialism..and made her embrace capitalism. The sort of freedom made her believe that America was the fairest nations of all….
Secondly coming to the character of Howard Roark…his character was rather not human like…never in my not so long life have I heard of, seen or encountered who is so self-assured, who doesn’t ever feel insecure, who has not a trace of malice in his heart, who has no contempt having faced literal ostracism and denunciation from that very society. In her attempts to present her ideal man…, ayn rand, the very miss rand who had shunned religion and taken to atheism, in howard roark, has created a character that is so unworldly that it almost seems God like……in creating a man so heroic, she created a character that is not even human..
Next coming to the character of Ellsworth Toohey….who is basically lacking in genuine creativity or talent and so he cannot see anyone else rise above his mediocrity due to his desire for superiority. But the character is shown to be an extraordinary speaker…one who can sway the people with him…to me that counts for genuine skill. He had the ability to make people think the way he wanted them to….he had a remarkable influence but a lack of idealism…now the author has underestimated the power of words here. Ellsworth toohey uses words just as the author did in writing…
The author states that it was the lack of ideals that made toohey such a degraded being.
People in life acquire certain beliefs and notions, to which they remain strongly bound either by faith or reason, whichever they may choose. As a result, we are all rigid in our thinking and beliefs….I mean...the end we all think that we are right in believing or doing something….but the greatest contradiction is that a person with totally antagonistic views is just as much rigid about his views as we are….that person thinks with the same amount of certainty that he /she is right. So we cannot state that we are right in criticizing someone else’s views when the other’s belief is as strong as our own.....because we really don’t have a validation......and so as much the author would like us to believe that man’s ego is the fountainhead of progress.....I really don’t support the idea. How else can the author justify her thoughts and notions, her picture of an ideal man except that they are her beliefs which can vary from person to person.
Its amazing to see that how strongly she believes that her perception is so right and the contrary so wrong. Considering how she justifies man’s ego and if people start to think that way....every idiot who thinks himself a genius would go about thinking that the world is his. The author has failed to distinguish selfishness from ego and ego from self respect. A tremendous sense of self in a person or ego would in fact breed insecurity for it is then one would not be able to see someone rising above us......Someone with a deeper understanding would rather stay away from propounding any sort of idealism.......its already there in abundance....
So with due respect to the late author....I would not let this book make me question my life long beliefs ( I almost did).....guess, I am way too egotistical to yield to someone else’s philosophy....
( I really wished I hadn’t taken this book so seriously)
4 comments:
how cool na.....make a blog n dont tell ur frnds bout it....wait 4 them 2 chck out ur orkut profile, n spot da web address there....
In early 17th century Japan,influential Buddhist prince Shotoku,credited for Japan's first step of gradual development towards democracy, commented on the essence of dialogue and communication,-" ..Nor let us be resentful when others differ from us. For all men have hearts and each heart has its own leanings.Their right is our wrong and our right is their wrong." After reading the blog about Ayn Rand's fountainhead and indirectly her philosophy, I'm wondering whether it is a critical analysis of the novel or a diatribe against the poor author, who is unfortunately dead to argue back. The blogger accpets that she made a mistake in believing the novel. Well, by any stretch of evaluation, I m unable to account Rand responsible for that silly mistake of the blogger. She claims that Ayn Rand developed her strong and influential belief about individualism because of circumstances and therefore the belief is not worthy of a following( i apologise if the blogger doesn't imply this).I think that apart from the set of inborne and natural predilections, a human being's belief and ideology is very much framed by the kind of society he or she lives in and by the behavior the society has meted to him/her. So, if 'poor miss Rand', was influenced by the society then I think she behaved like a very normal social animal which we human beings undoubtedly and proudly proclaim ousrselves to be. So, why the blogger seems to be so irritated by the normalcy exhibited by Rand. I have nothing against the blogger and I don't have any proclavity for Rand. It is just the way our favorite blogger has attempted to critisice the novel, irks me. Everyone has the right to argue, criticise and dissent. The celebration of this argumentative instinct is primarily responsible for the intellectual progress of mankind(including womankind as well). But the right to argue is not equivalent to the right to criticise someone for having a particular belief. I feel that our blogger didn't intend to rebuke the book in person but in her zeal to refute the ideology she tresspassed and ended up saying-"I really wished I hadn’t taken this book so seriously". It is this inference which is a blunder in my eyes.A book,like many other creative works, is a reflection of a society's intellect. Each of them teaches or insinuates at some or the other message. An individual's ability to learn from these mute masters depends upon the seriousness he/she displays while relishing that piece of art. So, I feel the blogger is commiting a monumental error by thinking that she should take these works lightly. I don't ask her to accept everything written in it. Infact it is her will and wish to endorse everything or reject everything. But before doing so the idea should be given an opportunity to defend itself. It should be given a fair trial in the court of reasonable argument and contemmplation. So, I hope the blogger will understand my view and will definitely not stop taking books seriously. My sincere suggestion(which she can rightfully ignore)is to try to feel the message of a book even if she is ready to discard that message completely.
u get me wrong on that, its not that i have criticised the author for having an ideology that is not like mine. it is for the very fact that she portrays those who didnt think like she was, as idiots in the world. so, if she could criticise those who she didnt think were right by writing a novel, i think i have atleast the right to express my opinion or dissent, rather( this is not to say that the novel was entirely based on the criticism)
As for taking it seriously, in order to take to any new idea, I have this tendency to believe it all or none.so i chose to believe none. the way you have quoted the Buddhist prince Shotoku, all men have different opinions, their right can be our wrong and our right can be their wrong. thats the thing about Ms. Rand that is the object of my censure, her belief that she was so right and the others so wrong, that what she thought was right and the contrary totally wrong. And if she had the right to express her censure of mankind in a full fledged novel, i think i m entitled to put forth my views on her, whether good or bad, in this little blog of mine.
and nowhere have i held the author responsible for myself believing the novel. and even if i had, i think it would be more of praise for being so convincing. its the same way that i dont hold anyone responsible for my decision of not believing it.
sorry...i m a bit late to respond..
well, there i feel lies the importance of communication. people tend to develop misconceptions and misinterpretations due to lack of proper communication..I m happy that I communicated my understanding of your blog and i m happier to find that i was wrong. Neways i wud like to say that you should try to change your approach towards great( or not so great) pieces of literature...they are the intellectual reflection of a person...Your present way, which is more like a confrontation,of taking or dumping everything, is something which i don't approve...u shud try to look at every work of art(including literature) as an opportunity when we can introspect and chisel our own beliefs...believe what you feel is right...dont give a damn to what you feel is damned...Even Fountainhead, at numerous places is worthy of an honest admiration...Aprreciate the aprreciable...In my opinion,by following such an approach we can do justice to the time spend by both, writer as well as writer...neways, its just my opinion..following it will depend upon urs !!
Post a Comment