Howard Roark, Edupunk
Mar. 2nd, 2012 09:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsPeople have told me that The Fountainhead is a far better book than Atlas Shrugged, so I decided to give the former a go, having bounced off the latter fairly hard about two-thirds of the way in. I'm one chapter in.
The one thing that impresses me most is that Roark, the hero of the story, is clearly an edupunk. His goal is to become an architect, and to see his impressive personal visions cast into steel, concrete, wood and stone. In this sense, he is like any other visionary architect. But his goal is not to "get a degree in architecture." So even though he goes from high school into one of the most prestigious architectural schools, he takes only those classes that will teach him those skills he needs, backtracking only when he learns he may have missed something in an earlier class. He works on construction sites in the summer, mastering the physicial strengths and characteristics of his chosen building materials, so that when he returns to class in the fall he can design with that knowledge in mind.
The conflict in the first chapter, if it can be called that, is between Roark and the dean of the school, who is in the process of expelling Roark. Roark is insubordinate and will not take the classes deemed necessary by tradition. Roark is calm and eager to have the interview done with, because his goals and the schools have gone orthagonal, and he wants to move on.
I don't find it hard to believe that Roark would have trouble finding a job in architecture without a degree, especially not in the 1920s. That's probably the crux of the rset of the book. What I do find hard to believe is that the dean would go so far as to label Roark "dangerous" and "possibly criminal" for having the characteristic constellation of brilliance, self-assuredness, and self-containment in the face of the pressure of Tradition. The dean is way too much of a mouthpiece for a "the world is a hivemind, and only the heroes escape" subtext for the book to be a pleasure to read. While I can understand the mindset, the writer's axe grinds loudly when it could have whispered subtly.
The one thing that impresses me most is that Roark, the hero of the story, is clearly an edupunk. His goal is to become an architect, and to see his impressive personal visions cast into steel, concrete, wood and stone. In this sense, he is like any other visionary architect. But his goal is not to "get a degree in architecture." So even though he goes from high school into one of the most prestigious architectural schools, he takes only those classes that will teach him those skills he needs, backtracking only when he learns he may have missed something in an earlier class. He works on construction sites in the summer, mastering the physicial strengths and characteristics of his chosen building materials, so that when he returns to class in the fall he can design with that knowledge in mind.
The conflict in the first chapter, if it can be called that, is between Roark and the dean of the school, who is in the process of expelling Roark. Roark is insubordinate and will not take the classes deemed necessary by tradition. Roark is calm and eager to have the interview done with, because his goals and the schools have gone orthagonal, and he wants to move on.
I don't find it hard to believe that Roark would have trouble finding a job in architecture without a degree, especially not in the 1920s. That's probably the crux of the rset of the book. What I do find hard to believe is that the dean would go so far as to label Roark "dangerous" and "possibly criminal" for having the characteristic constellation of brilliance, self-assuredness, and self-containment in the face of the pressure of Tradition. The dean is way too much of a mouthpiece for a "the world is a hivemind, and only the heroes escape" subtext for the book to be a pleasure to read. While I can understand the mindset, the writer's axe grinds loudly when it could have whispered subtly.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-03-03 06:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-03-03 07:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-03-03 06:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-03-03 01:53 pm (UTC)Perhaps some other writer could have whispered subtly. I'm not sure subtle is really in the Ayn Rand vocabulary.
It will be fascinating to see what you think of it
Date: 2012-03-03 03:24 pm (UTC)In such a time, place, and circumstance, reading about Roark's bootstrapping himself by merely the power of his own brain and inner drive was like crack. I had a brain, too. I had inner drive. Maybe I could also change the world, make it make sense, by force.
The bold caricatures of her writing are just like that, her way of forcing attention, like grabbing the reader's face with her hands and making them look to one particular side.
By the time I saw the movie, and how it was interpreted through Hollywood's lens as yet another way of subjugating women (and in that universe, women would LOVE being "taken by force" by the alpha males) - I was over it.
That issue of force, and who takes what by force, is the crux of Randism. In the dog-eat-dog world she proposes, force is the only asset that matters.
If you read Bruce Schnier's book, Liars and Outliers, or at even the very first paragraph of that book, you get a glimpse of his horror of that sort of society.
He tells (boasts?) of walking down the street that day, without ever being attacked by ANYONE, and of other feats of extreme cooperation that reflect pretty well what we do in our society.
Rand, poor bitch, was the child of a revolution. Her society did actually collapse before her eyes, people around her really did lose all protection of law and order, to the extent they had it around them in the precarious days of world war and the pre-revolutionary conditions of her native Russia.
It is hardly a surprise that she could tell the story of a society where trust was foolish and trolling was the only winning strategy. PTSD can do that to a person.
Anyone living in contemporary America who wishes to give up a civilization of cooperation that permits trust for that sort of world must be either a fool or a villain. And I am charitably betting on the former.
To remove all doubt: teenagers, who read this book and by the very nature of their circumstances are very likely to thrill to the possibility of having a shortcut out of being under the control of parents, schools, society, etc. That's normal. They grow out of it. The kind of fool I'm talking about has power over his life and some power over his circumstances, and hasn't grown out of Randism yet.
Re: It will be fascinating to see what you think of it
Date: 2012-03-03 06:14 pm (UTC)Re: It will be fascinating to see what you think of it
Date: 2012-03-03 06:27 pm (UTC)The things that still resonate for me aren't Rand's original thought. I don't dignify her with credit neither for the ideas nor for popularizing them - smart is good, independent thinking is good, and yeah, cigarettes are a pretty cool idea. Oh, and yeah, the concept of striking - withholding one's labor from those who do not sufficiently appreciate it. Worthwhile, good reporting - but they're not hers. :-)
Re: It will be fascinating to see what you think of it
Date: 2012-03-03 06:52 pm (UTC)Re: It will be fascinating to see what you think of it
Date: 2012-03-03 09:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-03-04 07:00 am (UTC)