Question About Howard Roark

Questions about Objectivism
1

I am currently re-reading the Fountainhead, and I was wondering if anybody knew the answer to this question which has always puzzled me.

Why does Roark remain unconcerned and disinterested in the efforts of so many of the other characters to destroy his work and his career?

How can he sleep with a woman who openly is trying to destroy him, or accept a job from a Wynand who has sought to destroy his other jobs with his paper?

I can understand why Roark wouldn’t care about Keating, because Keating poses no threat to him. But his calm and lack of concern about people like Dominique and Wynand seems unnatural and a bit strange. I am sure if someone was trying to destroy my career I would be likely be more than a bit irate at them, or at least concerned as to trying to counter or stop their efforts and save my career.

Is Roark’s reaction something inherent in a true objectivist or is it just a quirk of his personality?

2

Wynand and Dominique were not trying to stop him by force, thats a big thing. I am guessing Roark valued them for other reasons, and was able to overlook their shortcomings, Dominique being simply mistaken and not outright malevolent.

3

Why does Roark remain unconcerned and disinterested in the efforts of so many of the other characters to destroy his work and his career?

How can he sleep with a woman who openly is trying to destroy him, or accept a job from a Wynand who has sought to destroy his other jobs with his paper?

Is Roark’s reaction something inherent in a true [O]bjectivist or is it just a quirk of his personality?

Just a quick note . . . “Objectivism” and “Objectivist” are proper nouns so please capitalize.

These are interesting questions because they reveal fundamental premises of the various characters. Remember that The Fountainhead is firstly a work of fiction so a lot of things that the characters do are exaggerated for dramatic purposes; you may never encounter anyone in real life that would act the same way.

Anyway:

What makes you think that Roark was unconcerned and disinterested when Dominique was attempting to destroy him? It was the hardest thing of all for him to bear. She was the only person that actually had a chance of doing him in, because he loved her. No one else had the power to hurt him; they could only make his task more difficult.

Wynand didn’t actively tried to destroy Roark using his papers, it was simply his policy to pander to the lowest common denominator, making his papers a vehicle that others (like Toohey) could use to attack. Wynand’s sin was that he put his great spirit into the service of the worst among men. Wynand very briefly attempted to use his accumulated power against Roark, with highly comical consequences as Roark’s integrity handily defeated him. However, Wynand’s final capitulation hurt Roark as well . . . there was no longer the inconsistent part of Wynand that could be loved/admired. Wynand chose to be consistent . . . in evil, because he could not bear what it would cost him to be completely good.

It is an Objectivist trait to understand that it’s not desirable to control other people. If you can’t convince them that you’re right, you have to accept it. If you can’t get contracts, you go work in a granite quarry. If people denounce you from the rooftops, you still maintain your integrity. In real life you’re unlikely to be faced with a perfect heroine like Dominque that is so ruinously mistaken, or a great man, like Wynand, who has so completely perverted his greatness, so you’re unlikely to have to endure what Roark did. It is a “quirk” of sorts that he was so heroic that he could endure that much pain for the sake of what he loved most: architecture.

4

Why does Roark remain unconcerned and disinterested in the efforts of so many of the other characters to destroy his work and his career?

How can he sleep with a woman who openly is trying to destroy him, or accept a job from a Wynand who has sought to destroy his other jobs with his paper?

Another reason, I think, is that Roark was “arrogant” enough to know that his enimies were destined to fail. He knew reality was on his side, so denying himself the pleasure of a relationship with Dominique and Wynand would be unnecessary and self-sacrificial. But it did set up at least a couple of gut-wrenchingly tense scenes-- that seemed, for me, as a mere spectator, harder to bear than it was for Roark!

I think the main thing to keep in mind, besides the points Jenny brought up, is that Roark was looking at the big picture. He was in it for the long haul, and he was setting himself up for a complete victory-- or complete failure, depending on the final outcome, dramatized in the trial.

One thing, though. Although it is fiction, and it’s certainly true you may not encounter someone who would behave that way, Ayn Rand was a realist (a Romantic Realist), so there’s no reason at all why you couldn’t meet people who act the way her characters do. In fact, I have met people who, at least on specific occasions, have behaved like her characters-- villians and heroes. Is anyone as consistent as her heroes in real life? Well, in my judgment.. Yes. I think there are such people. Ayn Rand being, by all the evidence I’ve seen, one of them.

Is anyone as deeply mistaken as her tragic figures? I don’t think the world would be in the state it’s in now if that weren’t the case.

5

What makes you think that Roark was unconcerned and disinterested when Dominique was attempting to destroy him? It was the hardest thing of all for him to bear. She was the only person that actually had a chance of doing him in, because he loved her. No one else had the power to hurt him; they could only make his task more difficult.

My take on it is a slight bit different. I don’t think that Dominique’s actual attempts to destroy Roark’s career especially bothered him as much as the reasons she felt that it was necessary for her to do so.

Roark realized that Dominique shared his rare spirit and his values and for that he loved her. He also understood, far better than Dominique did, that her attempts to destroy him were out of a fierce loyalty to that same spirit and those values albeit on the basis of profoundly mistaken premises.

Dominique’s premise was that the world is a malevolent place in which greatness is doomed to be crushed and destroyed by the mediocrity of the all-powerful mob. Dominique’s mistaken idea of integrity was that it was far better for Roark’s great talent to be still born than for it to suffer the indignity of being degraded at the hands of the mob and those who pander to it. Roark fully understood that loyalty to her values was the motive behind Dominique’s behavior.

As for Dominique’s actual attempts to destroy his career - he pretty much shrugged those off as one would an emotional tantrum of a small child. And he did so with good reason as he recognized that, while Dominique might cost him some business here and there in the short run, she was not in much of a position to destroy his career. How many of the clients that Dominique was able to schmooze with and send over to Peter Keating would have had the integrity to stand up to the controversy and firestorm of criticism they would have inevitably faced had they hired Roark? Most of those potential commissions would have evaporated anyway as soon as the client demanded that Roark compromise his work in the name of public opinion. And the sort of client who did understand Roark’s work and had the integrity to stand up for it - do you suppose that Dominique’s schmoozing and sales pitches for Peter Keating would have had much impact on such a person? The biggest problem that Roark faced in terms of his career was finding the sort of people who were capable of understanding and appreciating his work - not Dominique’s and Toohey’s attempts to dissuade to those who would have had little use for it in the first place.

What was painful for Roark was the fact that Dominique held such malevolent premises and the fact that, as long as she did, a relationship between them was impossible.

It is an Objectivist trait to understand that it’s not desirable to control other people. If you can’t convince them that you’re right, you have to accept it.

Exactly - and this is why Roark calmly accepted the fact that Dominique married Peter Keating and, later on, Gail Wynand, despite the great pain he felt as a result. He knew that a relationship between them would be impossible so long as she remained “afraid of the world” and that only she was able to correct her mistaken premises.

The key passages that make all of this very explicit are in the final 8 paragraphs or so of Chapter 14 in Part Two of the novel.

6

My take on it is a slight bit different. I don’t think that Dominique’s actual attempts to destroy Roark’s career especially bothered him as much as the reasons she felt that it was necessary for her to do so.

The whole point of the novel is that as long as Roark stuck absolutely with his own integrity no one could beat him. For him to lose, he would have had to give up. Dominique hurt Roark very badly when she asked him to quit architecture and marry her. In real life, that’d be the kind of knife-edge decision that might indeed have someone hovering on the brink of destruction. In the novel, though, it’s pretty obvious what Roark is going to choose. After all, he’s the monolith.

7

The whole point of the novel is that as long as Roark stuck absolutely with his own integrity no one could beat him. For him to lose, he would have had to give up. Dominique hurt Roark very badly when she asked him to quit architecture and marry her. In real life, that’d be the kind of knife-edge decision that might indeed have someone hovering on the brink of destruction. In the novel, though, it’s pretty obvious what Roark is going to choose. After all, he’s the monolith.

Agreed. My only departure from the previous posting was with the implication that Roark was concerned by Dominique’s attempts to destroy him. For the exact reasons you indicate, those attempts, per se, had no impact on him and he more or less brushed them off in the same way that he brushed off Toohey’s attempts to destroy him and Keating’s hostility towards him. What hurt Roark very badly was the fact that the world had such a strong hold over the lady he loved and that there was absolutely nothing he could do about it other than give her the time necessary for her to resolve her contradictions through her own first-hand experience and judgment - a process that Roark knew would take many years.

On a different note - another thing that would most likely be very different in “real life” is the fact that, in the overwhelming number of cases, it would NOT be a good idea at all for someone to be willing to wait many years for one’s love to resolve such contradictions. The odds of that happening with happy results are pretty slim and in most cases it would be little more than wishful thinking. If one is not able to deal with the other person’s existing “package deal” of mixed premises it is usually better to move on and try to find someone else rather than to hope that they will somehow change. Waiting for the other person to change would only make sense in the context of a person one knows to have a rock solid character and integrity and has full confidence that such character and integrity will eventually lead them down a path which will resolve the contradictions. In the very last paragraph of Part Two Chapter 14, Roark very explicitly states that he believes that this is the case with Dominique and that he has every reason to be confident that she will eventually resolve her contradictions and come back to him. However, one needs to be very cautious before trying such a thing at home!

8

Why does Roark remain unconcerned and disinterested in the efforts of so many of the other characters to destroy his work and his career?

It occurs to me that there is another way to answer your question - and by using you as the example.

Imagine that you someday find yourself in a situation where things such as the fact that you support capitalism and not socialism, hang around Objectivist forums, enjoy certain types of unpopular music, etc. are considered disadvantages or impediments towards other people giving you opportunities necessary in order for you to pursue your career. Imagine when you are on your first job with a firm and you have colleagues who either dislike you or wish to eliminate the potential competition you might become in the way of their ambitions and they start a campaign of making it known to the higher-ups that you read Ayn Rand, spend your weekends doing World War II reenacting and do not participate in rock music /pop culture type stuff - and, as a result, despite the fact that you do outstanding work, the higher ups have an impression of you as an oddball and regard you as being “too eccentric” to be trusted with a promotion.

Would you be angry at the behavior of your colleagues - or would you, instead, feel something more along the lines of contempt and disgust?

The situation I described is similar to Roark’s in that efforts to destroy Roark’s career did not involve things such as slander or libel or some other form of force. All they did was attack him and attempt to destroy his career on grounds that Roark built certain types of buildings and had certain attitudes towards other people - all of which was, in fact, true. Had someone tried to destroy Roark’s career by spreading a rumor that he was a child molester, I am sure he would have been very angry and probably would have taken legal action if possible.

In my example above, your colleagues are attempting to destroy your career on grounds that you have certain beliefs and values which you openly and proudly admit to having. Assuming that they don’t resort to fraud or force, your primary complaint against your colleagues would be that they reject and despise your values and make that fact loudly known. Granted, that can be annoying and disgusting - but is it grounds to become angry or upset?

How can he sleep with a woman who openly is trying to destroy him, or accept a job from a Wynand who has sought to destroy his other jobs with his paper?

Dominique and Wynand both have unique contexts which have been mentioned in other postings.

I am sure if someone was trying to destroy my career I would be likely be more than a bit irate at them, or at least concerned as to trying to counter or stop their efforts and save my career.

I have no doubt that Roark wished that people such as Toohey and Keating and others did not exist in the first place and would simply go away. But what would he accomplish by becoming irate at them? And exactly what could he do to stop or counter their efforts? Become Peter Keating? That would stop the attacks pretty quickly - but at what price?

To go back to the hypothetical example I gave about your own career - what on earth could you do to counter or stop such efforts on the part of your colleagues? Claim everything they are saying about you is a lie and pretend to be a socialist? Resolve to give up your hobbies and go out clubbing with your colleagues and pretend to enjoy the rock music? If you did that, you might get a promotion - but what would be left of you and what enjoyment would you ever again be able to get out of life? This hits on the major theme of the entire novel.

In such a situation, the only option to save your career that is open to you as a person of self-esteem and integrity is to do what Roark did: seek out the better sorts of people who will deal with you on your terms - which, in this context, would consist of finding an employer who will judge and reward you based on what matters, i.e. how well you do your job. If you could not find such people in positions of authority in your current firm, then you would need to look elsewhere. In the long run, what would be the point of spending the time and energy getting upset over the behavior of fools and idiots? It is a much more productive to focus on finding ways to minimize the need to have to deal with such people in the first place.

A key passage about Roark’s mindset is in the very famous scene where Toohey asks Roark to tell him what he thinks of him. Roark’s answer: “But I don’t think of you.”

9

A key passage about Roark’s mindset is in the very famous scene where Toohey asks Roark to tell him what he thinks of him. Roark’s answer: “But I don’t think of you.”

I understand your point, and I think your analogy makes a lot of sense. I still don’t understand that quote though. Why wouldn’t Roark think about Toohey at some point even if it was only to understand his actions or philosophy as a means of self-defense?

For instance, I have thought about people such as Diane Fienstein, Hillary Clinton and the like, even though in many ways they have less relevance to me than Toohey did to Roark. But ignoring such people seems pointless and dangerous. It seems important to try to understand your intellectual enemies as a means of defending yourself against their ideology or actions.

10

Why wouldn’t Roark think about Toohey at some point even if it was only to understand his actions or philosophy as a means of self-defense?

Toohey was an architecture critic who wrote nonsense and gibberish. How does one defend oneself against non-libelous gibberish? What would you propose Roark do?

Roark did know who Toohey was so he had, in fact, given him previous thought to at least that degree. But once he identified and understood Toohey’s nature, what on earth would there be for Roark to gain by giving him any further consideration?

For instance, I have thought about people such as Diane Fienstein, Hillary Clinton and the like, even though in many ways they have less relevance to me than Toohey did to Roark. But ignoring such people seems pointless and dangerous.

Yes, it would be dangerous because the two people you mention have political power - i.e. they have influence over guns that they propose to point at you in any number of ways. As such, they represent a threat to your well being and your ability to achieve your values. Therefore, it is crucial that such people are opposed and defeated on grounds of self-preservation. Toohey did not have such power.

Imagine that you are an artist of some sort. How would you respond to your critics? If the critics were people you respected, you might very well decide to either give their criticism consideration if it struck you as rational or, at the very least, you might clarify your position on the basis of your respect for a particular critic or his audience. But what if your critic was someone you had utter contempt for and did nothing but spew nonsense in order to plug a variety of wicked hidden agendas? In the context of executing your next artistic project, would you give that person’s opinions and views a moment’s worth of consideration? Why would you?

It seems important to try to understand your intellectual enemies as a means of defending yourself against their ideology or actions.

Absolutely. Context is everything. Roark’s passion was building - and in the context of designing his next building and going about his life, he had no reason whatsoever to give any thought to a piss ant such as Toohey. However, let’s say that as a recreational activity Roark also wrote and published cultural and architectural analysis. In that context, yes, it might very well have been necessary to have taken cognizance of Toohey - but only to the degree and for the purpose of exposing and defeating the ideas that Toohey spews and stands for. But when Roark is busy at work designing his next skyscraper, why on earth would he waste a moment’s worth of time thinking “gee, I wonder how Ellsworth Toohey will react to this really cool entry way I have just devised”?

11

In real life, that’d be the kind of knife-edge decision that might indeed have someone hovering on the brink of destruction. In the novel, though, it’s pretty obvious what Roark is going to choose. After all, he’s the monolith.

Ah, I dunno. Sure, that kind of question from the person one loves might have someone hovering on the brink of destruction, but not someone like Roark. And in this sense, I’d say there are undeniably people who would have made the same decision Roark made.

Imagine if Frank O’Connor had asked AR to give up writing. Do you really think she would have considered it for a second? Would George Washington have given up fighting the British if Mrs. Washington threatened to leave him otherwise? For someone whos ambition and ego is their life’s calling-- ie, their career, love is always a secondary consideration. Because, for these people, it’s obvious that they couldn’t have the latter without the former. I don’t think anyone has ever risen to greatness without relegating painful alternatives like this into the realm of the mundane. The reason a situation like this results in psychological destruction in weaker type personalities, is that they keep looking for some hidden solution where they can have their cake and eat it too. They might say, “Well, if I give up architecture for now, and marry Dominique, maybe I can convince her to let me do a little architecture now and then,” or something, and when it doesn’t work out, they’re dissapointed. But for people who really think about their life and take it seriously, even though a decision like that would be painful, I think they’d have to do what Roark did-- bear it and move forward regardless.

On a different note - another thing that would most likely be very different in “real life” is the fact that, in the overwhelming number of cases, it would NOT be a good idea at all for someone to be willing to wait many years for one’s love to resolve such contradictions.

My impression is that Roark really had no choice but to wait; there was no one else he could love the way he loved Dominique-- just as there was no one she could love as she loved him. I don’t see any evidence from the novel suggesting that if he did happen to meet someone, he would have abstained from a relationship on account of Dominique. That would be a different story, of course, but I mean based on his character as I understand it. And Ayn Rand said somewhere she liked the idea of fans asking themselves “I wonder what Roark would do” in various situations, because he was a moral ideal, besides being “just” a character in a novel.

I understand your point, and I think your analogy makes a lot of sense. I still don’t understand that quote though. Why wouldn’t Roark think about Toohey at some point even if it was only to understand his actions or philosophy as a means of self-defense?

My take on it is that Roark didn’t have to think about Toohey because he already understood him, as much as he needed to. On a certain level, people like Toohey are obvious-- ie there’s something wrong with them, that makes them behave in a predictably dispicable way. Why take part in their mental illness? Roark didn’t want to spend his time in a chess match with Elsworth Toohey, he wanted to spend it designing architecture. There is another theme that AR was relying on here, that she also quotes frequently: “You can’t cheat an honest man.” Roark knew that his integrity would be his best defense, against Toohey, or Wynand, or anyone who would oppose him. So he didn’t have to understand them to protect himself, he only had to understand himself, and his own goals and values.