The Fountainhead, much like all of Rand’s books, is delightfully scintillating and entertaining, keeping you on the edge of your seat so to speak, all the while messaging the underlying tones of capitalism and conservatism. They make you think, however if you aren’t fully able to comprehend the philosophical depth of the material, you may not be quite sure what to draw out of her literature. As I see it, The Fountainhead is about the oppression of free thinkers. It’s about the way totalitarians try to crush any who could push the boundaries of common knowledge and even improve upon principles accepted as common practice. It is about penalizing one for daring to imply that what governing parties build up and what society accepts is somehow imperfect.
Though certain political aspects such as Marxism, Fascism and Socialism are personified through the characters, this books underlying theme is far less political than that of her masterpiece, Atlas Shrugged. To me the book expresses a view of the domination of the public and the persecution of those in any way against it or who would question it. It demonstrates the social oppression set upon free-thinkers by the blind conformists of our world in both society and its corporate and governing bodies.
This book as a whole challenges people to lead, not follow, because while the path is not the easiest to walk, the goal is attainable. The goal here, I believe, is self-gratification through putting yourself and your system of beliefs above the common beliefs of others to stand for what you know is true. This is, in a way, selfishness. Not the Webster defined selfishness but a far more philosophical definition given to the word by Ayn Rand who uses it to characterize a far more broadminded theory that selfishness is a trait causing man to be so consumed with his own love, beliefs and convictions that even things he does that appear selfless are, in actuality, in his own best interest.
Rand uses perfectly molded characters in each of her novels to try and impress upon the mind various things she held to be true. Things such as that selfishness is perfect, capitalism must prevail but government as it is must die for it to do so and that man is imperfect and doomed to repeat horrible mistakes of the past if he does not learn these things and take them to heart. It is in these brilliant reflections of her own mind that I find the one lingering question. Why does she personify women the way she does?
I have come to the conclusion that Ayn Rand was, in fact, deep down, a feminist. She seems to always, in every novel, characterize women as whorish creatures that have sex indiscriminately with whoever and wherever they please with multiple men justifying her actions by saying that she is in love with each man. She objectifies women as powerful, giving them careers and titles only held by women of great stature, all the while making them promiscuous and ‘free’ to do as they wish. They also always seem to toss men to the wayside and the men do not seem to care that its been done to them, a very feministic hope for the nature of men.
Sadly, I abhor this aspect of her books as I believe in true love and one love, (yes I am talking about you Robert), and I could never fathom hurting one I love in the ways Rand allows her characters to hurt those they love. And yes I truly believe Rand believed these things because the poster child for my theory was Dagny Taggart, the character that was supposedly the fictional embodiment of Rand herself. Where it is not mine to say it is definite, I do believe my thesis on Rand would prove correct. Rand was, perhaps not openly or even self-admitted, a feminist.
|