Roark's soliloquy

[ggdwill]

This is something that just occured to me that I thought deserved some attention. Why, when Roark stands and offers his climactic defense, why did he primarily speak of independence in terms of intellectual independence? Certainly this is very important and was worth including not only for his defense but for the sake of the reader. I know he does elucidate on political independce, but from my recollection he never explicitly denounces public housing. I know he does it eariler in private to Keating, but wouldn't it have been reasonable of him to do so while pleading his case?

Also, since he does not denounce it what cause - legally or even logically given the anti-intellectuality and conformity of his peers - would the jury have to find him innocent? I realize that his act, as well as the jury's verdict were implicit denunciations - but in the absence of an explicit denunciation, they were only symbolic. Obviously, since the government had crossed the line and become a violator of individual rights by stealing money to build public housing, it was the right of Roark or a juror or any other citizen to do whatever they could to protect freedom, but I'm surprised that Rand didn't address this. Perhaps she thought that the reader would do just what I have done and infer the jury's reason for their decision, but it just seems unrealistic. Or perhaps the entire episode was symbolic. Perhaps Roark should have simply filed a lawsuit when his design was changed and merely protested or lobbied against public housing. Where the circumstances in Howard Roark's New York as dire as they were in John Galt's?

I understand that she was probably going after dramatic affect and that the setting was only secondary to what she wanted to communicate through Roark (the entire theme of the novel for god's sake!), but this is the only instance that I can remember in the entire novel where comments that are philosophical in nature aren't tied explicitly, at least momentarily, to the plot. I find that interesting. Any thoughts?

- Grant

Ok, that's pretty damn embarrasing - spelling "Roark" "Hoark". Forgive me - I promise to live in shame forever from this point on!

Edited June 22, 2006 by ggdwill

[Bold Standard]

[spoilers for fountainhead, atlas, and anthem]

This is something that just occurred to me that I thought deserved some attention. Why, when Roark stands and offers his climactic defense, why did he primarily speak of independence in terms of intellectual independence?

I think it's because intellectual independence is the foundation for every other kind of independence. It implies political independence. Also, remember in jury selection, Roark picked men that had some integrity, rather than sympathetic emotionalist types-- and the prosecution didn't stop him from picking the ones with the most integrity, because (they reasoned) normally those would be the last people that the defense would want in a case like this.

In Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, though the societies are headed in a bad direction, they are still civilized, which means people are still thinking-- and keeping everything going. They're thinking enough to understand Roark and Galt's speeches.

Notice that in Anthem, that wasn't the case. Society wasn't persuaded. Prometheus had to escape.

[edit: That's funny about the "H." Because "H" kind of looks like an "R," and it also kind of looks like an "A." If you're to live in shame, mabye we should have it written on your forehead. ]

Edited June 22, 2006 by Bold Standard