There is much to find reprehensible about The Fountainhead, but the book is not entirely without merit. Maintaining one’s integrity, working hard and never allowing oneself to be mediocre about one’s passion are all good ideas. Breaking from tradition when your ideas are better, ignoring the judgment of others and walking your own path are great ideas. My problem with Rand is not so much her elevation of the individual, but her degradation of the collective, altruism and selflessness.
In the character of Ellsworth M. Toohey, she portrays a person beloved by all who appears to be saintly in his actions, but is devilish in his intentions. It’s obvious that her message with this character is that the only reason we believe in doing altruistic actions is because forces similar to Toohey have convinced us these actions are good, though the true intent is to control and subjugate us. As a person grows older and wiser, he or she realizes this is simply not true. Can anyone objectively feel that feeding a hungry person, helping a person move or babysitting for a friend is a waste of time? Is the satisfaction one feels from helping others a manipulated emotion? Rand misses a key element of the advancement of human civilization: helping others is helping ourselves. Ancient humans banded together to kill big game so that everyone could eat. We take care of others because one day we will have to be taken care of (no matter how “great” and “selfish” you are, those feelings won’t sustain you in old age or illness).
Howard Roark represents an ideal man who sticks to his guns when it comes to his art, but how do you apply that type of uncompromising attitude toward other professions? How do you maintain integrity when you drive a cab, push a mop on the floor or give haircuts? Not everyone can be great. There’s also something deeply disturbing about the characters who are like Roark. Dominique Francon’s insistence on punishing herself because she lives in a world where Roark is not appreciated is just odd, especially considering how intelligent she seemed before she ever met Roark. Gail Wynand’s desire to make people stew in their own sleaziness and control men of lesser caliber than himself is revolting. Stephen Mallory tries to shoot Toohey early in the novel. If anything, Rand seems to be showing how easily when one can go wrong in trying to be an ideal human.
And yet, despite the inconsistencies and flaws, Rand got some things right, though I’m sure it was unintentional. In Toohey’s speech near the end of the book, he describes the things he did in his diabolical plan to take power. For instance, he talks of making people unable to recognize greatness by enshrining mediocrity. You don’t have to flip many channels to see how the rise of Paris Hiltons, Kim Kardashians and other reality stars have basically turned everyone into celebrities, taking attention away from people who might actually be talented. The same goes for the crappy movies, books and other media we are exposed to these days. Another thing Toohey says he did to gain power was help destroy reason by replacing it with something higher, like morality or religion. I don’t think I can think of better modern examples than “bringing democracy” to Iraq or the debate of including creationism and intelligent design in school curricula. I don’t for a second think there is a single person behind these real life examples of Toohey’s methods, but I don’t think anyone can deny that they are real-life analogues designed to distract and discourage people from paying attention. And when people aren’t paying attention, people with power get away with murder.
So Rand isn’t wrong about encouraging people to strive for integrity and greatness, though she is greatly mistaken in her condemnation of altruism, which ultimately benefits all people. And frighteningly, she’s kind of right about the structures and methods that are in place that keep people from using their reason, like religion and popular culture.
