Dave2

This is no doubt an ignorant question but I read the book a long time ago and something out of the blue came to me: In the Fountainhead when Howard Roarke asserts his prerogative by blowing up the building isn't he employed by a corporation? He wasn't working for the government. He was an employee of a capitalist entity. And that's what he was rebelling against, wasn't he? According to the strict dictates of capitalism wouldn't Roarke's actions be completely unjustified. He was paid. His bosses could do whatever they wanted with his vision and he had no right to cry about it-- even if they put it to some collectivist purpose that was anaethema to him. He was paid. He took their money. He sold them his designs. Isn't the idea that that an artist shouldn't be beholden to the guys with the money... I mean, isn't that a left wing anti-capitalist notion? The notion that capitalism drags things down to the lowest common denominator and the individual has to resist that isn't that socialist? That's like Marcuse or Adorno or something. I'm sure there's an obvious answer to this incoherently worded question, but that's it. Thanks. And I realize I kind of veered into a second point there. Sorry. (Hoping that apology is not a sign of weakness.)