My goodness, what a hysterical little piece! I have to wonder if it's meant to be ironic, because it could easily have featured in one of Rand's books as an example of rampant emotionalism attacking rational action.

Fiction must distill complex ideas into characters and plots. Therefore, the characters and plots are often extreme. Roark's demolition of the housing project is a METAPHOR - get it? The whole plot construct is to express the idea that the individual owns his creation - which we honor today with the term "Intellectual Property." It doesn't mean she advocates dynamiting buildings!

Also, I must point out that her heroes are not full of self pity because "the masses" don't worship them. Roark, also a metaphor rather than meant to be a fully realized character, is pure in his lack of concern about the opinions of others. When the character who symbolizes the dark side of the influence of society and groupthink asks Roark "what do you think of me?" Roark replies, "but I don't think of you."

The reason to read and admire Ayn Rand is that she wrote of ideas rather than people. This is very rare in female authors, I'm afraid. It's good for your brain to read her hard, clean prose and pull out her ideas from the story. Unfortunately, she went off into the weeds in "Atlas Shrugged" and instead of allowing the reader to come to an understanding, she put lectures into the novel that make it difficult to read.

You don't have to agree with her, you of course don't have to like her, but don't blame her for what politicians attempt to do with her ideas. And do her the courtesy of attempting to analyze her ideas rationally, rather than read the story and react emotionally. The latter action, which is what you did here, is what she fought against her whole life.

It's a classic flaw of the Novel of Ideas" and a reason so many of them fail -- the creation of cardboard characters; that is, characters who "stand for" something or other, to the exclusion of recognizable humanity. And, by "humanity", I most emphatically do not mean that good novelistic characters must be "good" or "humanistic". Only that they be made whole, with rich enough detail -- including contradictions, quirks, and possibly growth -- for us to understand them as real people. This is where Rand most seriously failed as a novelist.

To give her credit, Rand did have a real knack for spinning out long, well-populated tales with plenty of plot turns. The problem is that all her characters are so totally a "type" -- down to their very names -- that they have no compelling reality. Rand needed to decide whether she was writing romance novels or political pamphlets because the mix of the two is just not a good formula, either for fiction or persuasive political discourse.

If we are to judge by the signs and slogans on display, today's teabaggers are the true spiritual heirs to Objectivism. Did anybody else notice the occasional "Who is John Galt?" sign at those rallies? Sure, Rand would've scorned the teabaggers as "rabble" (or "lice"?). And, sure, most of them would be appalled if they knew about her atheism or her adultery. But Rand's knee-jerk contempt for government -- even for ALL forms of shared social responsibility -- is of the same spirit as the teabaggers. As is her automatic rejection of all forms of "nuance" and her disdain for education.

Yes... But whether Roark is an idea or a character, he still doesn't embody anything pure (except maybe evil). The complete lack of regard for what others think or feel is the very definition of a sociopath - if Roark is just an idea, then that idea is sociopathy.

As I say, it's not necessary for a fictional character to be "good" to be a strong, compelling and believable individual. There are some pretty Evil characters in literature that we love. What's important is that they be recognizable to us as "real" people -- with the quirks and contradictions that make for actual humanity. For example, I was fascinated with the character Hannibal Lecture in "Silence of the Lambs". He is certainly evil, but he also has that keen intelligence about people -- this is almost certainly not realistic, in that most serial killers are probably rather stupid people -- but it made for a great villain. Roark is neither villain nor hero (unless, that is, you want to include cartoon characters in the "hero" category). He's just an abstract type.

Incidentally, Rand had very specific ideas about the "type" of man who'd make the right sort of hero for her books. She greatly admired Gary Cooper and specifically asked that he get the part in "The Fountainhead" (although, I believe she was disappointed in his intellect, once she'd met him). She firmly believed that any man sporting facial hair had "something to hide" and was therefore immoral. Her own husband -- apparently a reserved, unassuming man -- had that sort of thin face and steely gaze that Rand associated with "superior man" -- as did Nathaniel Brandon. And all the leading men in her novels were described with virtually identical physical attributes. So, perhaps, beneath all the "superior man" types, there lurks some unfulfilled romantic attachment of Rand's past.

EbenCooke:

She firmly believed that any man sporting facial hair had "something to hide"

That's certainly true in my case. The ugly features, the redundant chins...