Peter Keating - Why Handsome?

[Julian]

Was there any particular reason why Ayn Rand chose to make Peter Keating the good-looking guy in The Fountainhead? I always found that interesting.

Edited October 11, 2007 by Julian

[Mammon]

In case you haven't notice, a lot of times "good-looking" guys are douchebags.

[aequalsa]

Was there any particular reason why Ayn Rand chose to make Peter Keating the good-looking guy in The Fountainhead? I always found that interesting.

I cannot speak as to her purpose, but in my view her choice does help to illustrate why it is a mistake to assume happiness on the part of others from the outside in. Peter has beauty, success, and many friends. Probably he laughs more often then Roark. Fortunately for Roark, true success, friends, laughter, happiness, and arguably beauty require a self. Peter being handsome helps to complete the picture of a guy who "has it all."

I say "arguably" about true beauty because I mean it in a particular way. The assessment of beauty is made by an assessor. If he or she is a person of good character, they will notice over time, that as they get to know Peter better, their opinion of his attractiveness is likely to change.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

I cannot speak as to her purpose, but in my view her choice does help to illustrate why it is a mistake to assume happiness on the part of others from the outside in. Peter has beauty, success, and many friends. Probably he laughs more often then Roark. Fortunately for Roark, true success, friends, laughter, happiness, and arguably beauty require a self. Peter being handsome helps to complete the picture of a guy who "has it all."

I say "arguably" about true beauty because I mean it in a particular way. The assessment of beauty is made by an assessor. If he or she is a person of good character, they will notice over time, that as they get to know Peter better, their opinion of his attractiveness is likely to change.

Their assessment will morph from "attractive" to either "shallow" or "slick" or both.

[intellectualammo]

Was there any particular reason why Ayn Rand chose to make Peter Keating the good-looking guy in The Fountainhead? I always found that interesting.

Well I found something interesting that Ayn Rand wrote about Roark:

As to Keating—no, he didn't love anybody. Catherine is the nearest he ever came to it—but even then it wasn't much, because—being actually selfless—he was not capable of any real and complete emotion.

You ask, what is Roark's attitude toward women. Apart from Dominique "is he cold and virginal otherwise"? Yes, he is. Most cold and totally virginal. Because he is too highly sexed. Just as Dominique is. The highly sexed person is extremely selective. He, or she, can respond only to a special and great attraction. The lesser ones will have no effect on him. It is a mistake to think that the promiscuous person is the highly sexed one. Quite the contrary. It is the person of a sexually lower order who will respond to anything and anybody. It is the same difference as between a gourmet and a glutton. Which one of the two has the higher sense of food?

What is interesting about this is her use of the word "sexed" as in masculine and feminine.

Roark is the sexed one...though "more liable to be considered homely than handsome" as Dr. Peikoff says in TF Afterword ...so maybe Keating is supposed to be the sexed one in the "looks department" sense of it?

Edited October 11, 2007 by intellectualammo

[DragonMaci]

I always thought of Roark as better looking that Keating. No doubt the fact I always considered Roark mentally more attractive has a lot to do with it. I have said ever since I was 15 that I am not interested in just mind or just body, that I am interested in both, so I think I can safetely say my interest in Roark's mind affected my interest in his appearance. That and the fact my distaste with Keating's mind no doubt made me think of him as less attractive. Right from the beginning I did not like Keating. Comments like, "How can you be so sure?" made me not like Keating. I have been a big fan of certainty about one's desires for as long as I can remember.

Rand done a very good job of chacterising both pof them - as well as the other character's - and of showing the validity or lack thereof with each of their views. I would say she meant for what I just said above to happen because I would say she was a skilled writer, one that did not let accidents happen in her writing. Everything that is in her books was planned.

[Alethiometry]

While Rand describes Wynand as "the man who could have been" in her notes, I think Keating could have "been" also, had he made different choices. She gave him all the tools to be a beautiful hero. He's reasonably intelligent and good-looking. But his philosophical errors are his downfall. This serves to further illustrate that men DO need philosophy in my mind.

[Mimpy]

Their assessment will morph from "attractive" to either "shallow" or "slick" or both.

I agree. A main theme of the novel is how pretentious people can be. Peter Keating exemplifies pretentiousness above any other character in the novel. His good looks serve just another pretension. When Peter was young and respected, he made an effort to look good. His physical beauty was not a reflection of his moral character, unlike Roark's. When Peter stops caring about his looks as he grows older, he looks awful. Even Catharine tells him this when they meet after many years.

My point is, Keating was not necessarily naturally good looking. He made an effort to be so while he was still pretending to be someone he was not. Towards the end of the novel, of course, he stops pretending and caring and just gives up. The climax of this occurs when he admits to the court that he really did take Roark's design for Cortland, not caring that everyone now knows he had always been a faliure.

Thus, I think AR made Keating "good looking" to delineate a point.

Edited October 11, 2007 by Mimpy

[intellectualammo]

While Rand describes Wynand as "the man who could have been" in her notes, I think Keating could have "been" also, had he made different choices. She gave him all the tools to be a beautiful hero.

I disagree. She gave him no such tools. She stripped him of self. Keating was, as Rand referred to him - "a man who never could be".

But his philosophical errors are his downfall. This serves to further illustrate that men DO need philosophy in my mind.

Yes, definately.

[Julian]

I agree. A main theme of the novel is how pretentious people can be. Peter Keating exemplifies pretentiousness above any other character in the novel. His good looks serve just another pretension. When Peter was young and respected, he made an effort to look good. His physical beauty was not a reflection of his moral character, unlike Roark's. When Peter stops caring about his looks as he grows older, he looks awful. Even Catharine tells him this when they meet after many years.

My point is, Keating was not necessarily naturally good looking. He made an effort to be so while he was still pretending to be someone he was not. Towards the end of the novel, of course, he stops pretending and caring and just gives up. The climax of this occurs when he admits to the court that he really did take Roark's design for Cortland, not caring that everyone now knows he had always been a faliure.

Thus, I think AR made Keating "good looking" to delineate a point.

Good way of putting it.

[intellectualammo]

Good way of putting it.

Julian, I'm happy that someone could respond to her. I was unable to reply to what Mimpy had said, because she had left me speechless with her analysis. I didn't know what to say in response...because I was too busy trying to find my inhaler in order to be able to catch my breath again!

I agree. A main theme of the novel is how pretentious people can be. Peter Keating exemplifies pretentiousness above any other character in the novel. His good looks serve just another pretension. When Peter was young and respected, he made an effort to look good. His physical beauty was not a reflection of his moral character, unlike Roark's.

Brilliant! Pretentiousness is very good friends with selflessness. They often are seen hand in hand together... Especially in this case.

Mimpy, thank you for yet another present for me to unwrap with my eyes here on the forum. I loved what I got out of it! as always!

[DarkWaters]

I was unable to reply to what Mimpy had said, because she had left me speechless with her analysis. I didn't know what to say in response...because I was too busy trying to find my inhaler in order to be able to catch my breath again!

:::: SNIP ::::

Mimpy, thank you for yet another present for me to unwrap with my eyes here on the forum. I loved what I got out of it! as always!

Perhaps I am overreacting, but this really looks like the kind of fawning language that might make forum members uncomfortable. Your intentions are probably benign. Nevertheless, please be more mindful of how your posts appear to others.

[intellectualammo]

Perhaps I am overreacting, but this really looks like the kind of fawning language that might make forum members uncomfortable. Your intentions are probably benign. Nevertheless, please be more mindful of how your posts appear to others.

Perhaps you are not overreacting. I never looked at it from that perspective, because I don't period. I am never mindful of how my posts appear to others, other than how they appear to the people/persons they are directed at, so this may be difficult for me. Putting a restriction on my words in this sense is something I never thought I'd have to do. I doubt I'd be able to...because I don't want to. Oh, and I most certainly will apologize if this has made the person whom my reply was directed at uncomfortable in anyway whatsoever. If it has, I don't just apologize to earn forgiveness by word alone but also by deed...I'll request those lines to be removed entirely. Until then...

Thank you for bringing it to my attention DW.

Edited October 12, 2007 by intellectualammo