The Tao of Roark

by Peter Saint-Andre

1996-05-24

I'm thinking of writing a book entitled >The Tao of Roark, on the model (perhaps? -- I've never read it) of The Tao of Pooh. This would be an investigation of Rand's ethical philosophy (or my humanistic interpretation thereof) from the perspective of The Fountainhead. I also want to write a book entitled A Philosophy for Living on Earth: Ayn Rand and the Pursuit of Happiness, but I think that The Tao of Roark could be a good warm-up for that book and also be more accessible to a general audience (esp. since The Fountainhead is Rand's most popular novel, I believe). Also The Fountainhead deals with important issues but on a personal level, unlike Atlas Shrugged. And I think it is the better novel of the two.

Writing this book would also enable me to address some disagreements I have with Rand -- not with Rand's philosophy so much as with her sense of life -- for example in the sexual psychology of her characters (including the infamous "rape scene").

Other issues I'd like to address include:

• Roark's violence. Blowing up the building was perhaps symbolically correct but in reality wrong, since he destroyed the material investment that others made in the building, even though they destroyed the spiritual investment he made -- there's something of a mind-body dichotomy here lurking in the background, and Rand comes out a spiritualist! There is a connection between Roark's blowing up Cortland and his ravishing of Dominique -- there is a violence that Rand presents as acceptable, and I strongly disagree.
• Roark's active disinterest in others. When Roark says that he is such a good friend to Heller because fundamentally Heller does not matter to him, I think this is wrong and mis-states the basis of friendship. I'm sure you'd feel strange if I said I'm such a good friend to you because really you don't matter that much to me!
• Roark's setting others on edge all the time. I think one can be focused on reality and still be a ray of sunshine in the lives of others (as Keating is portrayed).
• Roark's culpability in the destruction of Peter Keating. He should not have helped Keating in school or afterward -- he aided and abetted Keating's second-handedness and spiritual dependency, and this was wrong.

Of course there is a great deal of positive material and I'd get to bring out Roark's spontaneity/serenity (not tension) and such, which tend to get glossed over because of the overall tension of Rand's writing. And of course there is all the positive moral content about integrity, individualism, passion, etc. -- as well as glimmers of what I take to be the true moral theory of Objectivism in regard to cardinal values and essential human powers (thought, choice, action, feeling) -- see Roark's speech.

Peter Saint-Andre > Journal