Ayn Rand and Leonard (AFT) Peikoff - Fountainhead

I am prejudiced.
I really like the work of Ayn Rand. I?ve read all of her works repeatedly over the last 35 years. I have a large collection of Rand Memorabilia. I think she is an important person with a lot to say, a fascinating individual.
Unfortunately, she has become someone who is a polarizing individual. People seem to only have (and this is ironic for the mother of objectivism) only subjective views of Rand and her works.
Conversely, she herself was in many ways subjective. She frequently performed many mental stretches to accommodate momentary positions which suited whatever particular whim she was disposed of at the moment. This is not to downplay her value. This reverse side haunts both the good and the evil, and is a common theme among the great, near-great, and wannabees. Even Gandhi was a pervert in his private life.
There was a newspaper in Bavaria during the Hitler years, (can?t recall its name as I?m writing this) that took old Adolf?s rants literally and mirrored them back on the immaculate one. It seems that using Hitler?s own gauge of measurement, he resembled a Mongol nomad more than a Viking. Rand was no Hitler. She, in fact, would make horrors like Hitler, Stalin, and even a Bush or a Clinton impossible.
I?m sure Rand would not have liked me,(regardless of my objective admiration of her). My knees would have been too stiff to bend, and my lips would have refused to pucker up and kiss her ______. And even worse, in Rand?s real world personality (opposite of her written work), I would have refused to turn off my mind and without challenge accept everything she said.
Her non-fiction works, ?For the New Intellectual? and ?Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal? are I believe her best work. They present clear, concise challenges to the standard belief systems of Americans and West Europeans. I wish they were required reading for all school children. These are her two critical works that I believe will still be ?read? in 500 years.
Her fiction is bizarre. ?The Fountainhead? and ?Atlas Shrugged,? are burdened with having to put forward a story around her philosophical beliefs. She can?t master subtlety. Constantly, her characters march forward seeming more like a Soviet propaganda film than a true wordsmith. Now, understand, I agree with most of and admire Rand?s view.
But she was a product of her time. Having observed Lenin and Stalin as well as Hitler, and their propaganda machines, she seemed to mirror their style on the opposite side. And regardless of the soap being hawked, the same offensive whine is being shouted.
?The Fountainhead? is bizarre. I don?t understand why such a master of clear, forceful writing in non-fiction even bothered with novels.
As brilliant as her mind was, she lacked people skills. Her interpersonal relations froze at around age 3 and she simply never grew after that. And this shows in her fiction.
?The Fountainhead? reads best if you try to just look for the kernels of philosophy which she still brilliantly presents. The dialog is weird. Akin to the situations in the film ?The Truman Show? where various characters start talking like people in commercials (which they were). If poor Roark had really spoken like he?s written, the guy would have never made it to architecture school.
I do recommend reading her fiction. ?Atlas Shrugged? is her other well-known novel. Both are humorous (the robotic, preachy writing) and enlightening (the great mind view seeing things in an entirely different light). Sometimes, I take line lines from these books and try them on people in the real world. I?ve had some jeweled reactions.
Just relax and enjoy the awkwardness of her style. It is like nothing else you are likely to read. Then be sure to checkout her non-fiction books for a serious read. They could change your life for the better.
And to all those worshipful drones of Rand who may take offense at this review, I give a challenge. Go write some good novels that can effectively illustrate her points. Each novel should only take on one or two principles. Use subtlety. Make it entertaining and readable. I am sure that there are many objectivists readers who can outperform the master in this area. And they would be doing a great service to objectivism.
This is just an objective analysis, you see.