In defense of Howard Roark...

“…truth above all things and against all men.”

Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead

“For a city the finest adornment is a good citizenry, for a body beauty, for a soul wisdom, for an action arête, and for a speech truth…”

Gorgias, Encomium of Helen

-------------------------------------------------

Published in 1943, The Fountainhead positions author Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism in a fictional world, following the trials of architect Howard Roark – Rand’s “ideal” man” - as he battles against those who seek to usurp and manipulate the products of his own creation and willpower. Although it was originally rejected by a handful of publishers, The Fountainhead succeeded in becoming a literary bestseller, and continues to this day to be a site of battle in the discourse between the struggle of the individual’s right to create and do as they see fit for themselves against the benefits of the collective whole. The film adaptation, released in 1949, is unique for its inclusion of the one of the longest filmed speech in cinema history, an oratory justification given by Roark to a courtroom after he has destroyed a building project from which his original design was altered without his consent. Even at over six minutes on film, it still does not rival the full speech as written in the book at close to 4,000 words.

                                                                                                                                      

The fact that the delivery of the speech is given in a courtroom in front of Roark’s peers and critics gives some credence to the idea that his speech would fall under Aristotle’s forensic rhetoric, where rhetoric is used to provide logical defense while flirting with the pathos of the listener. However, the case can be made that it appears to be closer to the demonstrative (epideictic) form of rhetoric, as the main point of the speech surrounds the “exclusively epideictic subject of virtue and vice” (Gibbs 2). Roark is speaking candidly and pointedly to those who would judge him for his destructive actions against society, but he is doing it in a way that is both persuasion and performance, much in the style that Gorgias employed throughout his writings like Encomium of Helen. Even the substance is strikingly similar; compare:

“For by nature the stronger is not restrained by the weaker but the weaker is ruled and led by the stronger; the stronger leads, the weaker follows.” to

“The creator stands on his own judgment. The parasite follows the opinions of others. The creator thinks. The parasite copies.” (KameradKonrad 2:28-2:39)

Often the consensus in the rhetoric community is that the “epideictic [form] does not seem to have [a] viable, legitimizing purpose” like the forensic or deliberative forms have (Carter 209), for the content and style of the epideictic is looser and more speculation than fact, employing spectacle and style rather than hard logic. Additionally, epideictic is considered to be the “entertaining” line of rhetoric, used most often in funeral orations and other public ceremonies in which speech or writing is needed, by giving praise or lying blame. Although both Gorgias and Rand are presenting pointed antitheses and following a more-or-less rigid line of reasoning to provide defenses for an individual -

– Gorgias absolving Helen’s blame for her arrangement in history and Rand giving her idyllic Roark his ideal allocution – the two authors are doing so in a manner that unveils the “radiance or luminosity of noble acts and thoughts” (Carter 210).

Alas, one can only envision Gorgias giving potential Sophists his defense of Helen on the streets of Greece. However, happily, the modern age’s penchant for technology and visual representations give us Roark’s speech in the cinematic medium in order to converse and improved our understanding of the power of rhetoric.  

-------------------------------------------------

(569)

Carter, Michael F. “The Ritual Functions of Epideictic Rhetoric: The Case of Socrates’ Funeral Oration. Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric 9.3 (Summer 1991): 209-210. JSTOR. Web. 14 Feb. 2011.

“The Fountainhead.” The Ayn Rand Institute. AynRand.org, n.d. Web. 14 Feb. 2011.

“The Fountainhead – Roark’s Courtroom Speech.” Youtube.com. KameradKonrad. 21 April 2008. Web. 14 Feb. 2011. < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkAz8rw8kqY>

Gibbs, Tori E. “Epideictic Oratory in Ayn Rand’s ‘The Fountainhead’.” Student Pulse: Online Academic Student Journal 2.04. 11 April 2010. Web. 14 Feb. 2011.

The Power of Persuasion

"Shall we, then, casually allow our children to listen to any old stories, made up by just anyone, and to take into their minds views which, on the whole, contradict those we'll want them to have as adults?"

"No, we won't allow that at all."

Plato, Republic Book II

-------------------------------------------------

Truth be told, upon seeing that Gorgias's "Encomium of Helen" and Plato's Republic were assigned readings for this week, I felt my head spin. I was afraid: What if I didn't understand anything? Made a fool of myself in class? Would it be a similar experience to when I tried taking Spanish in high school, where I couldn't comprehend anything because it was in a foreign language? All these large, looming frustrations and worries clouded my conscious. I guess I assumed, by signing up for a class titled "Major Critical Theories," that I'd instantly pour myself into all the -isms I've heard so much about (i.e. Feminism, Structuralism, Postmodernism, etc.), not try to slog my way through understanding Plato and the Socratic method. However, I am pleasantly surprised that I now understand why these readings were assigned, and didn't have too much of an issue relating them to the study of critical theory (although that cave video is still making me feel like I should be taking a shot each time the narrator says "and now suppose...")

"Encomium of Helen" turned out to actually be very easy to read and understand. I knew the story of Helen, and how she was the start of the Trojan war, but I’m surprised that it took so long in class for somebody to talk about the larger part of the myth, about Aphrodite’s promise to Paris that he would have the most beautiful woman in the world if he gave her the golden apple, as opposed to Hera or Athena, who promised him, respectively, a great king-ship or military prowess in battle(Atsma 1). Surely it seems strange to others beside myself that a great figure in Greek history would succumb so easily to the whims of the “fairer sex” rather than desiring great authority or unrivaled intellect? I know several students in the class protested that Helen knew what she was doing, but perhaps they cannot see past the stereotype that her beauty has oppressed her by, and cannot believe that she may not have gone willingly. Certainly there were forces at work who were stronger than one single individual; in Helen’s case, the will of blood-thirsty, libidinous men and vexation of cold-hearted gods drove her to her fate. For Gorgias to take up Helen’s honor, and defend her succinctly with powerful rhetoric was quite an accomplishment.

And as for Republic? Truthfully, it made my blood go cold. Some of my favorite books include dystopian fiction such as 1984 and Fahrenheit 451, and to read the actions that are fictionally portrayed in those novels argued so with such subtle precision and abounding passion by Plato’s fictionalized Socrates made me shudder. Now I understand why reading such texts will assist in the study of critical theory when applied to literature. If one knows the tools in which to distinctly and accurately argue one’s position, then it works to strengthen one’s assessment and analysis of literature, as well as the means in which to debate one’s interpretation.

Atsma, Aaron J. “Judgement of Paris.” Theoi.com. Theoi Greek Mythology. 2000-2008. Web. 7 February 2011.