Roark vs. Rearden

Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years, 4 months ago to Books
6 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Roark and Rearden faced similar opposition from the establishments of their worlds. Rearden and his friends seemed to react with dread while Roark reacted with indifference.

All the producers in Atlas Shrugged, including Hank Rearden and Dagney Tagart seemed to be amazing successful in their industries but completely inept at dealing with politics. Unfair political opposition and restrictions on their business was like kryptonite to them. It made me wonder how they ever overcame all the other roadblocks and setbacks that come with building a large organization.

Roark seemed the opposite-- completely stoic. Things were happening that were threatening to ruin him, and remained impassive, maintaining the attitude that he was never after others' approval anyway.

Did Rand do this intentionally? What was she getting at? Why do the producers react with doom in Atlas Shrugged but indifference in The Fountainhead?


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Wonky 11 years, 4 months ago
    I thought I read somewhere that in both cases, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged were written to relay her Objectivist philosophy, and that the themes were well planned out in advance.

    That being the case, The Fountainhead was theoretically fiction intended to demonstrate how a single man with a solid, integrated, noncontradictory philosophy could survive/thrive in a post-Renaissance/post-Constitutional America.

    Atlas Shrugged, on the other hand was theoretically fiction intended to demonstrate that a post-Renaissance/post-Constitutional America is doomed to collapse while only men with a solid, integrated, noncontradictory philosophy will survive/thrive. I think she intended to convey that the collapse would be incredibly fast. Perhaps the political pull wasn't necessary at the time Hank & Dagny were growing in their industries.

    Don't really know, but I'd wager that it had everything to do with the difficult task of communicating Objectivism through fiction, and little to do with the characters' attitudes towards political institutions.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 11 years, 4 months ago
      "Perhaps the political pull wasn't necessary at the time Hank & Dagny were growing in their industries. "
      This is the only logical in-universe explanation.

      I was still struck as I read. These people were like supermen-- good at technology, good at business, good with people, good looking, philosophically incisive, but put their product on a gov't allocation plan, and they were stymied. Mfr-controlled allocation (i.e. not enough to go around; can't raise price long-term; mfr picks whom to sell to) is common in my industry. This was the gov't imposing it, which is certainly different, but I would think a top high-tech executive with the people skills to have built a high-tech mfg org would not be such a deer in the headlights when faced with gov't meddling

      I like the book, but it was clear she was communicating Objectivism, not going for believability. .
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by lmarrott 11 years, 4 months ago
    I don't know that I would say Roark was any better than the other at "politics" as you say. Granted he wasn't dealing with governments, but all the same he was so rigid that with him it was a simple question of yes or no. Which is great and true, but he had no statemen in him that could have tried to sway the opinion of those people to see his view. For example, the contract where he is so close to getting it, he's broke and needs it, and they accept, and then give him conditions. Here is a place where I think if Roark had any ability of dealing with politics, he could have maybe pulled out of that one, and still got what he wants, but made them understand.

    Not that I think the story would have been better that way, I think the story needed to be very black and white, very stiff and rigid, to portray the characters correctly.

    I also agree with Mike that there was a long time in Rand's life between the writing of the two and I'm sure her skill and philosophy understanding grew over time.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 11 years, 4 months ago
    Agreed on all points! The reason for the disparity is that these are works of fiction, not sociological essays. Fourteen years of the author's life separates them. The two images - and they are images, not persons - intend different projections of the ideal personality. And in the case of Rearden he is burdened with contradictions that he must resolve, but which are not lines in the drawing of Roark. Also, note that in the development of The Fountainhead, the character of VERA DUNNING (See "The Early Ayn Rand") was completely excised, though she represented a kind of Reardenesque contradiction that Roark needed to resolve early in life.

    "... amazing successful in their industries but completely inept at dealing with politics."

    We would cal them Nerds. I have written here under Movies about "Bones." The character of Dr. Temperance Brennan exemplifies the rational-empirical genius who fails at human relations. At some level, perhaps even ultimately, that is our own goal here. The world would be a better place if everyone applied reason and facts to every situation, instead of letting "human values" and "personal relationships" cloud their judgments of right and wrong.
    "Nerd Nation 4.5" on my blog here:
    http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2012/...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 11 years, 4 months ago
      Yes. All the characters are extreme to help make her point.
      The villains, esp in The Fountainhead, were chilling. Those people really exist. The characters are only slight exaggerations.

      I know what you mean about the Rearden and Dagney Taggart being nerds, but they just seemed to cool for that. They're supposed to be beautiful, on top of things, projecting competence. Rearden seems almost foolish in ignoring the political perils of his industry. I suppose he's a rare example of someone good business and technology. Politics is his Achilles heel.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo