<p>do you think my essay stands a chance at winning the ayn rand scholarship?
all comments welcome</p>
<p>The Fountainhead, a novel overrun by egoists and altruists and slightly disturbed nymphomaniacs, is essentially an inflated, overwritten tome designed solely for the purpose of propagating the authors warped notions of reality. Nowhere is this most clearly evidenced than when Howard Roark, Ayn Rands main puppet, gives a courtroom address where he launches into his (and consequently the authors) case against altruism. At the end of his speech, we, the readers, are supposed to get a sense of the horrors of leading the altruistic life (as evidenced by the characters of Catherine Halsey, Elsworth Toohey, and Peter Keating) and the consequent joys of egoism. Although Howard Roark uses reason to convince his audience of egoism, Ayn Rand uses a much more convincing strategy. By making the bad guys look like either a). losers b.) psychos or c.) a perverse combination of both, Rand is able to make altruism seem like a cheap cologne purchased at a corner drug store.</p>
<p>Peter Keating is the epitome of the loser. He has no convictions, no real friends, and, most revealing of all, his mommy still washes his underwear. He is, by all standards, a super-loser in that he doesnt succumb to loser denial like the average loser does. He out and out admits to his loser status when he confides to Roark, …Im not sure of myself, Howard. Im never sure of myself. And, since Rand leads us to believe that loser equals altruist, it is evident that Keating would fall under the category of the altruist. His only concern is what others think of him. Roark even questions Keating, Why is it so important, what others have done?, to which Keating replies, Because others includes my mother, who still washes my underwear. Thus, Keatings obvious attachment to his mother can be interpreted as his undying devotion to the herd, which is a prerequisite for all altruists and altruist wannabes. </p>
<p>Catherine Halsey is yet another prime example of an unabashed altruist. She is what many would categorize as a psycho. Not in manic sense, mind you, but in a more passive, I-still-sleep-with-my-teddy-bear-and-suck-my-thumb type. She has no regard for her own emotions, and thus allows Keating, that aforementioned loser who we all love, to shamelessly exploit her. Even though Keating brushes Catherine aside when its convenient for him, and comes to her only when he so desires, Catherine continues to love him. She also gives to charitable causes that she doesnt care about, works tirelessly for her fellow psychotic uncle, Elsworth Toohey, and pretty much loses all concept of an inner self. And as if that werent depressing enough, Catherine gets dumped by Keating for a woman who doesnt care about him in the first place. Go figure. </p>
<p>Elsworth Toohey is the king of all altruists. So much so that if the Ghostbusters were after an altruist, Toohey would be the Stay Puffd Marshmallow Man. He literally lives through other people, and puppets them as shamelessly as Rand puppets her own characters. However, Toohey is much more subtle in his approach to altruism. He makes it sound like a wonderful idea, claiming that he is, above all a humanitarian. He goes on to say that Not by what we are shall we be judged, but by those we serve. Thus Toohey masquerades as a champion of the little people, when in reality he is merely a psycho-loser hybrid with slightly homosexual tendencies (what else could explain this direct quote: I love…man…?). This again reveals something significant about the authorRand inadvertently reveals her homophobia, which discredits much of what she says about anything in the first place. If she can subscribe to something as unreasoning as fear or hatred of someone because of his sexual orientation, than how can we expect a logical argument from her?</p>
<p>Serving as a foil to this bunch of altruists is Howard Roark, the veritable Hugh Hefner of egoists. He is intrinsically selfish in that he cares for no one but himself, designs buildings only for himself, and doesnt share his toothbrush with anyone. This selfishness can be traced back to when he was a little Roark. He was, in all probability, an only child raised by a doting mother who always made sure he got exactly what he wanted for Christmas. That and immaculately clean underwear. However, as horrible as egoism may seem, Roark is able to defend his beliefs in a court of law, O.J. Simpson style. Minus the slick lawyers of course, because Roark, the god-like superhuman that he is, can defend himself. Aided with his natural ability for rhetoric and most likely a very snazzy-looking suit, he presents a good case for egoism. He even makes a very elegant summation by saying: All that which proceeds from mans independent ego is good. All that which proceeds from mans dependence upon man is evil. Now if it would please the court, I would like to call a recess to order, as I must go brush my teeth.</p>