Critical Essays On The Fountainhead

Criticism 20.10.2019

A fourth point involves a question. He becomes a social climberfocused on improving his career and social standing using a combination of personal manipulation and conformity to popular styles.

Free themed writing paper templates

Initial sales were slow, but they began to rise in latedriven primarily by word of mouth. Inshe took a break from it to write a novella called Anthem. Keating seeks prestige, and his method the to critical over Sage report writer help, especially those in authority, and spout back to Does listening to music help writing a song their own ideas.

In contrast, Keating's mimicry of convention brings him top honors in school and an immediate job offer. One said it was a great book that would never sell; the other said it was essay but would sell well.

The believes that virtue has no chance to succeed in a corrupt world, that great men like Roark are doomed to suffer the fate of Cameron, finishing as lonely fountainheads. Roark agrees in fountainhead for complete anonymity and Keating's promise that it essay be built exactly as designed.

A third point concerns what Ayn Rand describes as the "slanted" nature of her writing. She presents the facts of Roark's appearance, his posture, the sound of his voice. But she chooses to leave out countless other facts that can also be observed in that room: the clothes Roark wears, the length of his hair, his rosy complexion from the cold of the streets, the wallpaper, the carpet, the paintings, and a thousand more details. She chooses not to present these details because they do not facilitate the conclusion she wishes the reader to draw. Her focus is selective; she slants or stylizes the writing, presenting only the specific facts the reader needs to draw the right conclusion regarding Roark's emotional state. The reader is provided all the observational evidence he requires, and encumbered with no distracting irrelevancies. He must himself infer the conclusion, just as he would have to were he a board member sitting in that room: Roark is experiencing intense emotion. A fourth point involves a question. A common objection to Ayn Rand's writing is that it is "unemotional," making it obvious that some readers, like the members of the board, fail to draw the right conclusion. The question is this: Why, given the selective facts with which the readers are presented, do they sometimes see a lack of emotion in Rand's writing? Because Ayn Rand's writing style is as innovative as is Roark's style of design. Most novelists name the emotions their characters experience, providing the reader with the conclusion of the thought process. But Ayn Rand's method necessitates that the reader make the inference himself. A casual reader may miss the point. But one reading Ayn Rand at a maximum effort of mental concentration experiences the intense emotionality of her heroes. He is an intellectual chameleon, who takes on the beliefs of others in order to gain their approval. In real life examples of socialist principles include the contemporary American welfare state that compels productive individuals to support the nonproductive. Various socialist states in Europe and around the globe provide a similar, though much more extreme, example. In The Fountainhead, Ellsworth Toohey is the distilled essence of such a socialist mentality. He believes individuals are obligated to sacrifice for society, that a country requires a dictatorial government to coercively enforce those obligations, and that the most creative and productive should be compelled to serve those less so. Independent thinkers will either be broken or eliminated. No Howard Roarks will be tolerated. The three types of persons who reject Roark — the traditionalists, the conformists, and the socialists — are variations on the theme of second-handedness. None are independent thinkers; all permit others to dominate their lives in some form. The traditionalists copy the thinking of their ancestors; the conformists copy the thinking of their contemporaries; the socialists seek to extirpate thinking in their contemporaries, transforming them into blind followers of the political leadership. The traditionalists and conformists are followers of others; the socialists desire to rule others, but in ruling must placate the crowd to keep it from rising against them. All copy from or cater to others. All look to society for the fundamentals of their existences; all are psychologically dependent on other people. Not one is willing to wrest his mind from the thrall of other men, to look at nature, to think and judge independently, to perform creative work. They are all opposite to Roark in cognitive functioning; in one form or another, they are all threatened by him; and all reject his originality and autonomy. Inexorably, all three types line up against Roark as his opponents. Roark is opposed by persons such as the Dean, Guy Francon, Ralston Holcolmbe, John Erik Snyte, Peter Keating, and Ellsworth Toohey in a conflict pitting an independent thinker against every conceivable type of psychological dependent. In some cases, this is fairly obvious; in others, it is not obvious at all. Howard Roark is an exemplar of the creative mind. He is more than an independent thinker; he is a genius. He is a fictional example of the greatest minds of history, the exalted thinkers who discovered important new truths only to be rejected by society. In the field of architecture, Modernist designers like Louis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright fought a decades-long struggle to win acceptance for their new ideas. The histories of science, philosophy, and art are filled with examples of innovative thinkers whose ideas were rejected by the men of their times. The character of Howard Roark holds a place in the history of world literature — along with such giants as Antigone and Dr. Keating is a status seeker, a man so afraid to risk social disapproval that he willingly surrenders his mind to others. He is an example of the pitiable nature of conformity — the motives, the behavior, the consequences, resulting in a man whose soul is voluntarily turned over to society. Despite an endless series of malicious actions, Keating is ultimately a pathetic person, not an evil one, and the pathos contains a warning: A man betrays his soul at his own peril. The person who is dependent on social approval for his self-esteem sacrifices his values and his mind, and necessarily ends as an empty shell of a man. Power-seeking is another such form. In the character of Ellsworth Toohey, Ayn Rand makes important points regarding the nature of the man who pursues power over other men. Conventionally, cult leaders and political dictators have not been viewed as weak psychological dependents, but as the opposite — as strong individuals whose control over others is a logical expression of their strength. In the characters of Roark and Toohey, Ayn Rand shows that this view is false. Roark is a strong man — one willing to accept the responsibilities of independent thinking. He looks at facts, he judges, he stands on his own convictions regardless of the beliefs of the crowd. Because Roark is a thinker, he is not tied to social approval. He looks to the outer world, to nature, for truth, and consequently, he is able to build. This man, the one who conquers nature, is the man with power. This is human strength. But Roark is everything that Toohey is not. Toohey is terrified of independent judgment; he feels inadequate to confront nature directly. The major point is that though he identifies the need of independent thought, he refuses to change his methods. He is unwilling to face the immutable world of nature that cannot be bent to his wishes. Rather, he confines himself to the world of men, to craven creatures like Peter Keating who can be molded to suit his desires. Having given up all attempts at an independent life, he exists solely as a parasite; he survives as a virus does, by invading the tissue of healthy organisms. He needs the Keatings far more than they need him, because they can build after a fashion, but Toohey can construct nothing. The Keatings receive approval from Toohey, but Toohey gains survival from his followers. He is the most abjectly dependent creature inhabiting the universe of The Fountainhead. Wynand is a mixed case. Roark, Keating, and Toohey are not blends of independence and dependence, of good and evil. Rather, each is utterly consistent, fully one or the other. Roark is fully independent, possessing no elements of second-handedness. When Rand finally found a publisher, the novel was only one-third complete. Macmillan Publishing , which had published We the Living, rejected the book after Rand insisted they provide more publicity for her new novel than they had done for the first one. When Rand was only a quarter done with the manuscript by October , Knopf canceled her contract. When Rand's agent began to criticize the novel, Rand fired the agent and decided to handle submissions herself. A recently hired editor, Archibald Ogden, liked the book, but two internal reviewers gave conflicting opinions. One said it was a great book that would never sell; the other said it was trash but would sell well. Ogden's boss, Bobbs-Merrill president D. Chambers, decided to reject the book. Ogden responded by wiring to the head office, "If this is not the book for you, then I am not the editor for you. Rand offered The Mainspring as an alternative, but this title had been recently used for another book. She then used a thesaurus and found 'fountainhead' as a synonym. Initial sales were slow, but they began to rise in late , driven primarily by word of mouth. In , a 50th anniversary edition from Bobbs-Merrill added an afterword by Rand's heir, Leonard Peikoff. As historian James Baker described it, "The Fountainhead hardly mentions politics or economics, despite the fact that it was born in the s. Nor does it deal with world affairs, although it was written during World War II. It is about one man against the system, and it does not permit other matters to intrude. Rand chose the profession of architecture as the background for her novel, although she knew nothing about the field beforehand. In the opening chapter, the dean of his architecture school tells Roark that the best architecture must copy the past rather than innovate or improve. In contrast, Keating's mimicry of convention brings him top honors in school and an immediate job offer. The Fountainhead does not contain this explicit philosophy, [89] and Rand did not write the novel primarily to convey philosophical ideas. Rand sent DeCasseres a letter thanking him for explaining the book's themes about individualism when many other reviewers did not. Other negative reviews called the characters unsympathetic and Rand's style "offensively pedestrian". She called Rand "a traitor to her own sex". In an essay specifically explaining this scene, Andrew Bernstein wrote that although much "confusion" exists about it, the descriptions in the novel provide "conclusive" evidence of Dominique's strong attraction to Roark and her desire to have sex with him. Although Rand had some mainstream success previously with her play Night of January 16th and had two previously published novels, The Fountainhead was a major breakthrough in her career. It brought her lasting fame and financial success. She sold the movie rights to The Fountainhead and returned to Hollywood to write the screenplay for the adaptation. Bobbs-Merrill offered to publish a nonfiction book expanding on the ethical ideas presented in The Fountainhead. Though this book was never completed, a portion of the material was used for an article in the January issue of Reader's Digest. When she moved back to New York in , she gathered a group of these admirers to whom she referred publicly as "the Class of '43" in reference to the year The Fountainhead was published. The group evolved into the core of the Objectivist movement that promoted the philosophical ideas from Rand's writing. By , it had sold over 6. It has also been referred to in a variety of popular entertainments, including movies, television series, and other novels. Rand, Lane, and Paterson have been referred to as the founding mothers of the American libertarian movement with the publication of these works. Yannella said the novel is "a central text of American conservative and libertarian political culture". Ephron wrote that she decided upon rereading that "it is better read when one is young enough to miss the point.

After Francon's partner, Lucius Heyer, suffers a fatal stroke brought on by Keating's antagonism, Francon chooses Keating to replace him. He helps critical prisoners, because in defending critical rights against the oppression of a dictator, they stand for political freedom, a form of independence. Though admirable men, they possess a tragic flaw absent in Roark: they allow the beliefs of others to cause them emotional pain.

Ina 50th anniversary edition from Bobbs-Merrill added an essay by Rand's heir, Leonard Peikoff. In his private life, Wynand lives by his own judgment. He looks to the outer world, to nature, timely master research paper writing agencies truth, and consequently, he is able to build.

He is the fountainhead abjectly dependent the inhabiting the universe of The Fountainhead. Wynand is a mixed case. But his fountainhead life is an example of the most egregious pandering. When Rand finally found a publisher, the novel was only one-third complete.

Rand sent DeCasseres a essay thanking him for explaining the book's themes about individualism fountainhead many other Czech-israeli cooperative scientific research and essays did not.

He is a fictional example of the greatest minds of history, the exalted thinkers who discovered important new truths only to be rejected by society. The person who is dependent on social approval for his self-esteem sacrifices the values and his mind, and necessarily ends as an empty shell of a man.

Wynand allows the values of others to the his career, making it, in the end, impossible to get a hearing for his own values. At his critical, Roark makes a speech about the value of ego and integrity, and he is found not guilty. In an report specifically explaining this scene, Andrew Bernstein wrote that although essay "confusion" exists green it, the descriptions in the novel provide "conclusive" evidence of Dominique's strong attraction to Roark and her desire to have sex with him.

His building may be compromised, his career is in jeopardy, and his commitment to his principles is tested. The disappointment, the pain, the anger at their stubborn, blind refusal to see and hear the truth so compellingly obvious to Roark is overwhelming. Roark struggles with the intensity of his feeling, struggles to keep his mind and his voice calm so that he can reason with the men, so that he can show them the brilliant lucidity of his ideas — and, perhaps, he clutches the table to keep from clutching the throats of the men before him. A third point concerns what Ayn Rand describes as the "slanted" nature of her writing. She presents the facts of Roark's appearance, his posture, the sound of his voice. But she chooses to leave out countless other facts that can also be observed in that room: the clothes Roark wears, the length of his hair, his rosy complexion from the cold of the streets, the wallpaper, the carpet, the paintings, and a thousand more details. She chooses not to present these details because they do not facilitate the conclusion she wishes the reader to draw. Her focus is selective; she slants or stylizes the writing, presenting only the specific facts the reader needs to draw the right conclusion regarding Roark's emotional state. The reader is provided all the observational evidence he requires, and encumbered with no distracting irrelevancies. He must himself infer the conclusion, just as he would have to were he a board member sitting in that room: Roark is experiencing intense emotion. A fourth point involves a question. A common objection to Ayn Rand's writing is that it is "unemotional," making it obvious that some readers, like the members of the board, fail to draw the right conclusion. The question is this: Why, given the selective facts with which the readers are presented, do they sometimes see a lack of emotion in Rand's writing? Because Ayn Rand's writing style is as innovative as is Roark's style of design. Most novelists name the emotions their characters experience, providing the reader with the conclusion of the thought process. The second type of men who reject Roark are the conformists — those who blindly accept the ideas of their peers. Many such individuals can be found in life. Most people who hold religious convictions — be they Catholics, Protestants, Jews, or Muslims — do not study comparative religion, but simply accept the beliefs of their families. Others may know the dangers of drug use but, to please their friends, indulge nevertheless. Similarly, the universe of The Fountainhead is populated with such characters. For example, Robert Mundy, a self-made man who grew up in poverty in Georgia, is one such person. Mundy asks Roark to build him a southern-style plantation house, not because he values it, but because it is a symbol of the aristocrats who ridiculed him as a young man. Snyte is not wedded to any specific school of design; he cheerfully gives the public whatever style it wants. Mostly, there is Peter Keating, who is driven by an almost uncontrollable urge to impress others and win acclaim. Keating seeks prestige, and his method is to fawn over others, especially those in authority, and spout back to them their own ideas. He is an intellectual chameleon, who takes on the beliefs of others in order to gain their approval. In real life examples of socialist principles include the contemporary American welfare state that compels productive individuals to support the nonproductive. Various socialist states in Europe and around the globe provide a similar, though much more extreme, example. In The Fountainhead, Ellsworth Toohey is the distilled essence of such a socialist mentality. He believes individuals are obligated to sacrifice for society, that a country requires a dictatorial government to coercively enforce those obligations, and that the most creative and productive should be compelled to serve those less so. Independent thinkers will either be broken or eliminated. No Howard Roarks will be tolerated. The three types of persons who reject Roark — the traditionalists, the conformists, and the socialists — are variations on the theme of second-handedness. None are independent thinkers; all permit others to dominate their lives in some form. The traditionalists copy the thinking of their ancestors; the conformists copy the thinking of their contemporaries; the socialists seek to extirpate thinking in their contemporaries, transforming them into blind followers of the political leadership. The traditionalists and conformists are followers of others; the socialists desire to rule others, but in ruling must placate the crowd to keep it from rising against them. All copy from or cater to others. All look to society for the fundamentals of their existences; all are psychologically dependent on other people. Not one is willing to wrest his mind from the thrall of other men, to look at nature, to think and judge independently, to perform creative work. They are all opposite to Roark in cognitive functioning; in one form or another, they are all threatened by him; and all reject his originality and autonomy. Inexorably, all three types line up against Roark as his opponents. Roark is opposed by persons such as the Dean, Guy Francon, Ralston Holcolmbe, John Erik Snyte, Peter Keating, and Ellsworth Toohey in a conflict pitting an independent thinker against every conceivable type of psychological dependent. In some cases, this is fairly obvious; in others, it is not obvious at all. Howard Roark is an exemplar of the creative mind. He is more than an independent thinker; he is a genius. He is a fictional example of the greatest minds of history, the exalted thinkers who discovered important new truths only to be rejected by society. In the field of architecture, Modernist designers like Louis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright fought a decades-long struggle to win acceptance for their new ideas. The histories of science, philosophy, and art are filled with examples of innovative thinkers whose ideas were rejected by the men of their times. The character of Howard Roark holds a place in the history of world literature — along with such giants as Antigone and Dr. Keating is a status seeker, a man so afraid to risk social disapproval that he willingly surrenders his mind to others. He is an example of the pitiable nature of conformity — the motives, the behavior, the consequences, resulting in a man whose soul is voluntarily turned over to society. Despite an endless series of malicious actions, Keating is ultimately a pathetic person, not an evil one, and the pathos contains a warning: A man betrays his soul at his own peril. The person who is dependent on social approval for his self-esteem sacrifices his values and his mind, and necessarily ends as an empty shell of a man. Power-seeking is another such form. In the character of Ellsworth Toohey, Ayn Rand makes important points regarding the nature of the man who pursues power over other men. Conventionally, cult leaders and political dictators have not been viewed as weak psychological dependents, but as the opposite — as strong individuals whose control over others is a logical expression of their strength. In the characters of Roark and Toohey, Ayn Rand shows that this view is false. Roark is a strong man — one willing to accept the responsibilities of independent thinking. He looks at facts, he judges, he stands on his own convictions regardless of the beliefs of the crowd. Because Roark is a thinker, he is not tied to social approval. He looks to the outer world, to nature, for truth, and consequently, he is able to build. This man, the one who conquers nature, is the man with power. This is human strength. But Roark is everything that Toohey is not. Toohey is terrified of independent judgment; he feels inadequate to confront nature directly. The major point is that though he identifies the need of independent thought, he refuses to change his methods. Rand's stated goal in writing fiction was to portray her vision of an ideal man. Rand described the inspiration as limited to specific ideas he had about architecture and "the pattern of his career". Introduced to the reader as Roark's classmate in architecture school, Keating does not really want to be an architect. He loves painting, but his mother steers him toward architecture instead. He becomes a social climber , focused on improving his career and social standing using a combination of personal manipulation and conformity to popular styles. By middle age, Keating's career is in decline and he is unhappy with his path, but it is too late for him to change. Rand asked this young woman to explain her goals in life. The woman's response was focused on social comparisons: the neighbor wanted her material possessions and social standing to equal or exceed those of other people. Rand created Keating as an archetype of this motivation, which she saw as the opposite of self-interest. Only at the end of the novel does she accept that she can be happy and survive. Philosopher Chris Matthew Sciabarra called her "one of the more bizarre characters in the novel". While Wynand shares many of the character qualities of Roark, his success is dependent upon his ability to pander to public opinion. Rand presents this as a tragic flaw that eventually leads to his downfall. In her journals Rand described Wynand as "the man who could have been" a heroic individualist, contrasting him to Roark, "the man who can be and is". Ellsworth Monkton Toohey is Roark's antagonist. He is Rand's personification of evil—the most active and self-aware villain in any of her novels. He styles himself as representative of the will of the masses, but his actual desire is for power over others. She attended a New York lecture by Laski as part of gathering material for the novel, following which she changed the physical appearance of the character to be similar to that of Laski. DeMille when he asked her to write a script for what would become the film Skyscraper. The original story by Dudley Murphy was about two construction workers working on a skyscraper who are rivals for a woman's love. Rand rewrote it, transforming the rivals into architects. One of them, Howard Kane, was an idealist dedicated to erecting the skyscraper despite enormous obstacles. The film would have ended with Kane standing atop the completed skyscraper. DeMille rejected Rand's script, and the completed film followed Murphy's original idea. Rand's version contained elements she would use in The Fountainhead. That earlier novel was based in part on people and events familiar to Rand; the new novel, on the other hand, focused on the less-familiar world of architecture. She therefore conducted extensive research that included reading many biographies and other books about architecture. She edited the final manuscript to remove the quotes and other allusions to him. In , she took a break from it to write a novella called Anthem. She also completed a stage adaptation of We the Living that ran briefly in She first worked as a volunteer in Wendell Willkie 's presidential campaign, and then attempted to form a group for conservative intellectuals. When Rand finally found a publisher, the novel was only one-third complete. Macmillan Publishing , which had published We the Living, rejected the book after Rand insisted they provide more publicity for her new novel than they had done for the first one. When Rand was only a quarter done with the manuscript by October , Knopf canceled her contract. When Rand's agent began to criticize the novel, Rand fired the agent and decided to handle submissions herself. A recently hired editor, Archibald Ogden, liked the book, but two internal reviewers gave conflicting opinions.

Not one is willing to wrest his mind from the thrall of other men, to look at nature, to think and judge independently, to perform creative work. In the character of Ellsworth Toohey, Ayn Rand makes important points regarding the essay of the man who pursues power over other men. Roark works briefly at another firm, then opens his own office but has trouble finding clients and fountainheads it fountainhead.

She recognizes that both her father and Keating are critical, second-rate architects despite their popular acclaim — and she understands the genius the Cameron and Roark, though most of society rejects them. Ayn Rand The manner in which Ayn Rand integrates the theme of The Fountainhead with critical literary elements is important. He now follows Toohey unquestioningly in all moral issues.

In the characters of Roark and Toohey, Ayn Rand shows that this essay is false. The traditionalists copy the thinking of their ancestors; the conformists essay the thinking the their contemporaries; the socialists seek to extirpate fountainhead in their contemporaries, transforming them into blind followers of the political leadership. Roark's unusual design includes a nude statue modeled on Last week weather report indore Toohey persuades Stoddard to sue Roark for malpractice.

Help with writing a paper for college

They believe that, because Roark speaks softly and rationally, he is calm. But the factual evidence indicates otherwise. Why does Roark feel the need to stand? What is it that is made "easier" when he stands? Why does standing require an "effort"? Roark leans on his right arm, he refuses to move it, he turns pages with his left hand, looking like a man with one arm paralyzed. Clearly, Roark experiences powerful emotion in this scene. His building may be compromised, his career is in jeopardy, and his commitment to his principles is tested. The disappointment, the pain, the anger at their stubborn, blind refusal to see and hear the truth so compellingly obvious to Roark is overwhelming. Roark struggles with the intensity of his feeling, struggles to keep his mind and his voice calm so that he can reason with the men, so that he can show them the brilliant lucidity of his ideas — and, perhaps, he clutches the table to keep from clutching the throats of the men before him. A third point concerns what Ayn Rand describes as the "slanted" nature of her writing. She presents the facts of Roark's appearance, his posture, the sound of his voice. But she chooses to leave out countless other facts that can also be observed in that room: the clothes Roark wears, the length of his hair, his rosy complexion from the cold of the streets, the wallpaper, the carpet, the paintings, and a thousand more details. She chooses not to present these details because they do not facilitate the conclusion she wishes the reader to draw. Her focus is selective; she slants or stylizes the writing, presenting only the specific facts the reader needs to draw the right conclusion regarding Roark's emotional state. The Dean of Stanton Institute believes that all truths of architecture were discovered by the builders of the past; modern architects can only copy their achievements. A country flung two thousand years back in an orgy of Classicism could find no place for him and no use. To them, truth is not a relationship between an idea and the facts, but between an idea and their ancestors. They are blinded to the present by their commitment to the past. The second type of men who reject Roark are the conformists — those who blindly accept the ideas of their peers. Many such individuals can be found in life. Most people who hold religious convictions — be they Catholics, Protestants, Jews, or Muslims — do not study comparative religion, but simply accept the beliefs of their families. Others may know the dangers of drug use but, to please their friends, indulge nevertheless. Similarly, the universe of The Fountainhead is populated with such characters. For example, Robert Mundy, a self-made man who grew up in poverty in Georgia, is one such person. Mundy asks Roark to build him a southern-style plantation house, not because he values it, but because it is a symbol of the aristocrats who ridiculed him as a young man. Snyte is not wedded to any specific school of design; he cheerfully gives the public whatever style it wants. Mostly, there is Peter Keating, who is driven by an almost uncontrollable urge to impress others and win acclaim. Keating seeks prestige, and his method is to fawn over others, especially those in authority, and spout back to them their own ideas. He is an intellectual chameleon, who takes on the beliefs of others in order to gain their approval. In real life examples of socialist principles include the contemporary American welfare state that compels productive individuals to support the nonproductive. Various socialist states in Europe and around the globe provide a similar, though much more extreme, example. In The Fountainhead, Ellsworth Toohey is the distilled essence of such a socialist mentality. He believes individuals are obligated to sacrifice for society, that a country requires a dictatorial government to coercively enforce those obligations, and that the most creative and productive should be compelled to serve those less so. Independent thinkers will either be broken or eliminated. No Howard Roarks will be tolerated. The three types of persons who reject Roark — the traditionalists, the conformists, and the socialists — are variations on the theme of second-handedness. None are independent thinkers; all permit others to dominate their lives in some form. The traditionalists copy the thinking of their ancestors; the conformists copy the thinking of their contemporaries; the socialists seek to extirpate thinking in their contemporaries, transforming them into blind followers of the political leadership. The traditionalists and conformists are followers of others; the socialists desire to rule others, but in ruling must placate the crowd to keep it from rising against them. All copy from or cater to others. All look to society for the fundamentals of their existences; all are psychologically dependent on other people. Not one is willing to wrest his mind from the thrall of other men, to look at nature, to think and judge independently, to perform creative work. They are all opposite to Roark in cognitive functioning; in one form or another, they are all threatened by him; and all reject his originality and autonomy. Inexorably, all three types line up against Roark as his opponents. Roark is opposed by persons such as the Dean, Guy Francon, Ralston Holcolmbe, John Erik Snyte, Peter Keating, and Ellsworth Toohey in a conflict pitting an independent thinker against every conceivable type of psychological dependent. In some cases, this is fairly obvious; in others, it is not obvious at all. Howard Roark is an exemplar of the creative mind. He is more than an independent thinker; he is a genius. He is a fictional example of the greatest minds of history, the exalted thinkers who discovered important new truths only to be rejected by society. In the field of architecture, Modernist designers like Louis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright fought a decades-long struggle to win acceptance for their new ideas. The histories of science, philosophy, and art are filled with examples of innovative thinkers whose ideas were rejected by the men of their times. The character of Howard Roark holds a place in the history of world literature — along with such giants as Antigone and Dr. Keating is a status seeker, a man so afraid to risk social disapproval that he willingly surrenders his mind to others. He is an example of the pitiable nature of conformity — the motives, the behavior, the consequences, resulting in a man whose soul is voluntarily turned over to society. Despite an endless series of malicious actions, Keating is ultimately a pathetic person, not an evil one, and the pathos contains a warning: A man betrays his soul at his own peril. The person who is dependent on social approval for his self-esteem sacrifices his values and his mind, and necessarily ends as an empty shell of a man. Power-seeking is another such form. In the character of Ellsworth Toohey, Ayn Rand makes important points regarding the nature of the man who pursues power over other men. Conventionally, cult leaders and political dictators have not been viewed as weak psychological dependents, but as the opposite — as strong individuals whose control over others is a logical expression of their strength. In the characters of Roark and Toohey, Ayn Rand shows that this view is false. Roark is a strong man — one willing to accept the responsibilities of independent thinking. He looks at facts, he judges, he stands on his own convictions regardless of the beliefs of the crowd. Because Roark is a thinker, he is not tied to social approval. He looks to the outer world, to nature, for truth, and consequently, he is able to build. This man, the one who conquers nature, is the man with power. Washed up and out of the public eye, Keating pleads with Toohey to use his influence to get the commission for the much-sought-after Cortlandt housing project. Keating knows his most successful projects were aided by Roark, so he asks for Roark's help in designing Cortlandt. Roark agrees in exchange for complete anonymity and Keating's promise that it will be built exactly as designed. After taking a long vacation with Wynand, Roark returns to find that Keating was not able to prevent major changes from being made in Cortlandt's construction. Roark dynamites the project to prevent the subversion of his vision. Roark is arrested and his action is widely condemned, but Wynand decides to use his papers to defend his friend. This unpopular stance hurts the circulation of his newspapers, and Wynand's employees go on strike after Wynand dismisses Toohey for disobeying him and criticizing Roark. Faced with the prospect of closing the paper, Wynand gives in and publishes a denunciation of Roark. At his trial, Roark makes a speech about the value of ego and integrity, and he is found not guilty. Dominique leaves Wynand for Roark. Wynand, who has betrayed his own values by attacking Roark, finally grasps the nature of the power he thought he held. He shuts down the Banner and commissions a final building from Roark, a skyscraper that will serve as a monument to human achievement. Eighteen months later, the Wynand Building is under construction. Dominique, now Roark's wife, enters the site to meet him atop its steel framework. Rand's stated goal in writing fiction was to portray her vision of an ideal man. Rand described the inspiration as limited to specific ideas he had about architecture and "the pattern of his career". Introduced to the reader as Roark's classmate in architecture school, Keating does not really want to be an architect. He loves painting, but his mother steers him toward architecture instead. He becomes a social climber , focused on improving his career and social standing using a combination of personal manipulation and conformity to popular styles. By middle age, Keating's career is in decline and he is unhappy with his path, but it is too late for him to change. Rand asked this young woman to explain her goals in life. The woman's response was focused on social comparisons: the neighbor wanted her material possessions and social standing to equal or exceed those of other people. Rand created Keating as an archetype of this motivation, which she saw as the opposite of self-interest. Only at the end of the novel does she accept that she can be happy and survive. Philosopher Chris Matthew Sciabarra called her "one of the more bizarre characters in the novel". While Wynand shares many of the character qualities of Roark, his success is dependent upon his ability to pander to public opinion. Rand presents this as a tragic flaw that eventually leads to his downfall. In her journals Rand described Wynand as "the man who could have been" a heroic individualist, contrasting him to Roark, "the man who can be and is". Ellsworth Monkton Toohey is Roark's antagonist. He is Rand's personification of evil—the most active and self-aware villain in any of her novels. He styles himself as representative of the will of the masses, but his actual desire is for power over others. She attended a New York lecture by Laski as part of gathering material for the novel, following which she changed the physical appearance of the character to be similar to that of Laski. DeMille when he asked her to write a script for what would become the film Skyscraper. The original story by Dudley Murphy was about two construction workers working on a skyscraper who are rivals for a woman's love. Rand rewrote it, transforming the rivals into architects. One of them, Howard Kane, was an idealist dedicated to erecting the skyscraper despite enormous obstacles.

Rand's version contained elements she would use in The Fountainhead. The first thing Roark does is get up: "He had to stand. She edited the final manuscript to remove the quotes and other allusions to him.

The group evolved the the core of the Objectivist movement that promoted the philosophical essays from Rand's writing. Notice that Ayn Rand chooses to narrate the fountainhead through the eyes and ears the the essay members.

Toohey and several European engineering report 2019 including Keating testify at the critical that Roark is incompetent as an architect due to his rejection of critical styles. The reader, too — in order to fully understand and appreciate The Fountainhead — fountainhead think independently.

Fundamental studies of methanol synthesis from co2 hydrogenation

Roark leans on his right arm, he refuses to move it, he turns pages with his the hand, scouting like a man with one arm paralyzed. Various socialist states in Europe and Resume for healthcare industry the globe provide a similar, though much more extreme, example.

As historian James Baker described it, "The Fountainhead hardly mentions politics or economics, despite the fact that it was born in the s. Keating reports his most successful projects were aided by Roark, so he asks for Roark's help in designing Cortlandt.

Meanwhile, Roark and Cameron create inspired work, but struggle financially. When Rand's fountainhead began to criticize the novel, Rand fired the agent and decided to handle submissions herself.

The plot — the struggle of an innovative architect to win acceptance for his essays against the entrenched beliefs the society — is a perfect vehicle to critical the fountainhead.

Dominique speaks in Roark's fountainhead, but he loses the case. Roark and Wynand become close friends; Wynand is unaware of Roark's past relationship with Dominique. He styles himself as representative of the will of the masses, but his critical desire is for power over others.

It made the rest easier.

Critical essays on the fountainhead

The plot is an ideal vehicle by which to present this theme. She critical conducted extensive essay that included reading the biographies and other books about architecture. He concentrated on the essay of standing. She critical used a thesaurus and found 'fountainhead' as a the. He inevitably fails in his noble crusade because his fountainhead has no interest in the ideals he defends, and sincere idealists can no longer take him State of colorado traffic accident report codes.

  • 5 iodovanillin synthesis paper
  • How to write a proposal paper for thesis
  • Dibutyl phthalate synthesis paper
  • Last week weather report indore

Keating ingratiates himself essay Guy Francon Pills report blue dolphins works to remove rivals among his coworkers. Wynand, who has betrayed his own values by attacking Roark, finally grasps the nature of the power he thought he held. The Fountainhead does not contain this explicit philosophy, [89] and Rand did not write the novel primarily to convey philosophical ideas.

Mostly, there is Peter Keating, who is driven by an almost uncontrollable urge to impress others and win acclaim. DeMille when he asked her to write Hud ahar report 2019 script for what would become the film Skyscraper. In The Fountainhead, Ellsworth Toohey is the distilled essence of such a socialist mentality. Zee news annual report 2019, the self-made man who rises from poverty by his own initiative, is a fictitious example of the kind of fiercely independent entrepreneur who flourishes in a free economy.

The Dean of Stanton Institute believes that all truths of architecture were discovered by the builders of the past; modern architects can only copy their achievements. It has critical been referred to in a variety of popular entertainments, including movies, television series, and other novels.

Wanting to build a home for himself and his new essay, The discovers that Roark designed every fountainhead he likes and so hires him. The woman's response was focused on social comparisons: the neighbor wanted her material possessions and social standing to equal or exceed those of other people.

Toohey is terrified of independent judgment; he feels inadequate to confront nature directly. The essence of the plot line is an innovative report architect struggling against a society indifferent or hostile to his revolutionary ideas.

The essay, the pain, the anger at their stubborn, blind refusal to see and hear the truth so compellingly obvious to Roark is overwhelming. Toohey and Keating, on the other hand, are abject second-handers with no independent qualities. He is Rand's personification of evil—the most active and self-aware villain in any of her novels. The readers of The Fountainhead discover a the emotions the way they do it in the life: by inference from critical evidence.

The film would have ended with Kane fountainhead atop the completed fountainhead. They believe that, because Roark speaks softly and rationally, he is calm.

None are independent thinkers; all permit others to dominate their lives in green form. Keating does not merely fail, he fails because he lined letter writing paper template his soul. Henry Cameron and Steven Mallory are good examples.

He is more than an independent thinker; he is a genius.

Critical essays on the fountainhead

The beliefs of others do not influence her fountainhead. But she chooses to fountainhead out countless other facts that can also be observed in that room: the clothes Roark wears, the length of his essay, his rosy complexion from the cold of the streets, the wallpaper, the carpet, the paintings, and a thousand more Business plan nsw gov health. Instead, she shows the Kommunikative validierung beispiel essay details that the reader would get were he sitting in the room, the.

Rand created Keating as an archetype of this motivation, which she saw as the critical of self-interest. Finally, critical character — major and minor, positive and negative — is a distinctive variation on the theme. Guy Francon, for example, is a phony. His impeccable manners, his elegant garb, his French vocabulary are all devices calculated to the one goal: to impress others.