In defense of egoistical architect

The following is the expanded comment I started to write in answer to this blog' post, but realised I have more to say than comment section will allow me. I would love to hear opinions of the audience on the subject (if there are anybody reading this, of course).


I understand your overall concept, but in this particular case, I'm afraid, you failed to build a convincing argument. Your fallacies:

1. You assume Wiki (which, by definition, is not objective, not a voice of informed consensus) is an unquestionable authority in assigning F.L.Wright as a prototype for Howard Roark; I tend to believe Rand herself who denied that. Would you take her word about inspiration for other characters in the novel or prefer various rumors and speculations? A week ago I took an architectural walking tour around the city (NY) with an expert on E.J Kahn, a very sucessful Art deco architect in whose office Rand worked for 6 months, doing research for the book; it's been said details of E.J.Kahn's biography found their place in the novel. But nobody, as far as I heard, equates him and Guy Prescott, f.ex. or other architecs in the novel: the character is obviously not a photographic portrait of a specific person. I hope we agree on that. Than why do you chose to follow misconception of some critic about Roark and don't trust Rand herself? There was no real Roark, as far as I'm concerned. It's a fictional character, a fantasy of the ideal.

2. Your premise of F.Khan being the real-life antagonist-to Roark-innovator, who without much fanfare single-handedly, from scratch, turned construction industry upside-down, is simply not true. He didn't invented clean modern (as in Modernism), honesty in construction style of contemporary skyscrapers, Bauhaus school in general and Mies van der Rohe in particular did - and they too didn't come to an empty place. What's more, it's incorrect to use him for comparison at all, since he was not an architect, but a structural engineer, his job was different form an architect's. Sear's tower architect was Bruce Graham, from SOM , who built J. Hancock's tower as well, not Dr.F.Khan.

3. But the most fundamental error of all is that you mistake egoIsm for egoTism, and then posit the question Rand already answered, in that famous Roark' court speech in the novel. In certain sense, these 2 categories are opposite. Egotist uses product of others' labor for his own benefit. Egoist creates to realise his outstanding abilities - abilities he's fully aware of, benefiting everybody around him in the process. Only egoist pushes history forward. He is not arrogant, he's simply excellent in his field, and he doesn't let false dependance theories, bowing to social niceties or PR "humanistic" platitudes (as that Khan's quote you liked so much) interfere with his expertise. He innovates because he loves himself as creator. It doesn't follow, however, that I mistake a commonly known figure of "starchitect" with this ideal.
That's the answer to your question. No mystic forces at work.

I'm sorry to say, now that I've came across the topic I know a thing or two about and found your construction falling apart under scrutiny, I have my doubts about the rest of the alphabet series.To my deepest regret.