Isaac Asimov's Foundation Series

An Introduction to Isaac Asimov's Foundation Series

The epic space opera series known as the Foundation Series by Isaac Asimov has become a reputable classic of the science fiction genre since it's publication. The novels have firmly established Asimov's legacy as one of the "Big Three" of science fiction along with Arthur C. Clarke and Robert Heinlein.

The storyline takes place thousands of years in the far future where humanity has explored and colonized a sizable portion of the Milky Way Galaxy. The Galactic Empire has endured for twelve thousand years with millions of planets under its benign sovereignty. The fate of civilization has been sealed as foretold by the scientist and mathematician Hari Seldon, whilst residing on the capitol world of Trantor near the center of the galaxy. With the creation and application of a revolutionary field known as Psychohistory, Seldon predicts and foresees the imminent fall of the Galactic Empire which will ultimately be subsequently followed by a dark era of barbarianism lasting a prodigiously long time period of thirty thousand years before another empire arises. In order to influence events and shorten the interregnum to a mere millennium, Seldon decrees the resettlement of the greatest minds within the Empire to a bleak and enigmatic world known as Terminus at the edge of the galaxy. It is this world where Seldon hopes would serve as a sanctuary for the inception of an establishment to preserve knowledge in order to initiate the salvation of human civilization. The organized plan would henceforth be declared to be known formally as the Foundation. The haven of the proposition would culminate in the development of an Encyclopedia Galactica that will become the guardian of humanity's collective insight.

Journal on Chess Grandmasters

The Nature and Mind of a Chess Grandmaster

Chess is an extraordinary enigmatic game between two opposing minds in a duel to determine psychological superiority. Setting out over a sixty-four squared checker board, the sophisticated sport is generally an abstract strategy board game with one central objective: to capture the opponent's king in a trap referred to as a "checkmate." Besides having the goal of mating the opposing king, chess is commonly observed as a game of wisdom, intuition, calculation, abstract thought, an art, and even of theory. The amount of literature on chess exceeds that of perhaps any other board game or sport known to man. The world of chess is repleted with a horde of information and concepts that it is merely impossible for even the strongest player to have perfect knowledge or understanding. In tournament mode, active players are granted a title after achieving an attained status with a designed rating that quantitatively measures their relative skills amongst one another. Of all the chess titles, the most prestigious and highest one can acquire is none other than the Grandmaster (GM) title.

Other than the term having resemblance to the title of a professional martial artist, the title of a Grandmaster is most often recognized as a chess player who has accumulated enough skill and talent that places him or herself significantly apart from the average player. Some argue that obtaining a Grandmaster title is more or less equivalent to earning a Ph.D degree from an accredited university. Nevertheless the two processes are completely different in structure and scope and it is therefore agreed that becoming a professional chess player is far more challenging than receiving a doctorate degree from a higher institution of education. Becoming a Grandmaster in chess is by no means an extraordinarily difficult achievement. Amongst the hundreds of millions worldwide who play chess casually, a few million play competitively with an active rating. Of those several million who are at the competitive tournament level, only a mere 1,400 Grandmasters exist in the world as of today. It takes years of hard work, practice, commitment, and some degree of raw talent to reach the ultimate stratosphere of the world of chess.

However even with all of the persistency, most will not make it there. This is where talent plays a central role in separating the trained experts from the brilliant ones. Like other artistic pursuits in the humanities including painting, music, literature, and poetry, chess can be discerned as a distinct form of art. However the interesting aspect about chess that distinguishes it from other varieties of art is that most individuals will likely not have much appreciation of it particularly at the professional level. Unlike music where even the most creative works such as Beethoven’s symphonies can be appreciated by anyone, the average person will probably not be capable of grasping the intuitive ambiguity of a top level game played between grandmasters. To be able to understand it requires a solid background of chess as well as years of experience that is beyond simplistic rudimentary rules. In a rare recorded audio interview with former World Champion Dr. Alexander Alekhine, the preeminent player of the Second World War expressed his thoughts on the essence of a chess player and how he felt that the game itself is analogous towards a unique form of artistry requiring unparallel ingenuity:

Alexander Alekhine (1892 - 1946)

Interviewer: Now Dr. Alekhine, tell me, would you say that chess players are born, or do you think a great chess player can be made by hard practice?

Alexander Alekhine: No, frankly, I think the ideal chess player is born. Of course, I look upon chess as an art, and just as you cannot make a great painter or a musician, unless the gifts of painting or music are innate in a person, so also I believe that for anyone to become outstanding at chess the ability must be born with the player. There is something much more in championship chess than just following the somewhat limited rules of the game. To play a really good chess, you must have vision. Vision is something of the same way that a creative artist must have if he would lift his performance out of the common realm.

Interviewer: Well, of course, as well as vision, I expect first class chess needs a very well trained memory too, doesn't it?

Alexander Alekhine: Oh, no. That is where chess is just unlike bridge. One does not require an, uh, an outstanding memory. Look forward all the time is the thing to do.

Interviewer: Sounds to me like the perfect game for optimists.

Alexander Alekhine: Yes, you might say so. I never look back on a game or a match but try all the time to see how I may improve my play. Soon, I shall have been playing [?] chess for 30 years. I became a chess master, you know, at 16.

Interviewer: 16? That's amazing!

Alexander Alekhine: Yes. I won then the vase of the Tsar which I still am keeping. It was..., I was allowed to bring it out. As a matter of fact, it was the only thing I was allowed to bring out of Russia in 1921 when I left. But even my 30 years experience has not yet taught me all I should know of chess.

Interviewer: Well, I suppose by now Dr. Alekhine, you must know all the answers, as they say.

Alexander Alekhine: Oh no, believe me, a lifetime is not enough in which to learn everything about chess. If it were, I should soon be getting ready to stop playing altogether. The technique, yes, that can be mastered. But there is always so much more to know about the actual art of the game. So for instance, take my opponent in the last match, Dr. Euwe. He's considered as being one of the outstanding experts in the opening play. And even being that, in our last match, in one game, he got a lost position after already five moves. So you see, every one of us has quite a lot to learn.

As Dr. Alekhine noted the truly outstanding chess players are born with an innate talent for the game. Anyone can get better at chess with practice but to become a Grandmaster level player or even World Champion like Mikhail Botvinnik, Bobby Fischer, Anatoly Karpov, Garry Kasparov, or Magnus Carlsen it would require a kind of gifted virtuosity that cannot really be taught to the common individual. As one progresses on in chess, the game is seen more of an art in which players can develop an employ their own style of choice. Just as music encompasses many styles and genres including classical, jazz, rock, pop, country, and rap, a myriad of styles exist in the game of chess. Besides the more common ones such as positional, attacking, or all around, some players often play with a bold defensive style as former World Champion Tigran Petrosian was well known for. Others utilize a balanced style while others usually employ gambit openings and some even are imaginative tacticians.

Regardless of the style that professional chess players adopt, Grandmasters possess strong extraordinary abilities that set them far apart from many novice and intermediate level players. An average rated tournament player often can see or calculate three or five moves ahead in a given position. Chess masters and grandmasters when glancing at a chess board commonly can calculate and see as many as ten, fifteen, or twenty moves ahead along several different lines of variation. This impeccable form of perception gives Grandmasters the advantage of knowing well in advance the long term consequences of a chosen move much later on in the game. The ability to look a dozen or more moves ahead is a skill that can to some degree be learned after years after practice and to some degree cannot. Besides having the competence to calculate multiple moves ahead, Grandmasters not only think intuitively about the game being played but also are mentally asking themselves serious questions that may often break conventional standards that amateurs have been taught. From what Dr. Alekhine implies "There is something much more in championship chess than just following the somewhat limited rules of chess" besides knowing the basic rules and movements of each piece as well as simple tactics like forks, pins, skewers, penetrating open files, and pawn structure professional chess requires a far deeper understanding of chess in general and of theory. This level of chess becomes much more than an art but mainly a kind of philosophy. The abstract thinking involved in chess with Masters and Grandmasters can be viewed on a part with the level of higher cognition concerning philosophy.

There exists a few different ways to achieve the title of a Grandmaster. The usual and more common way is for a player to attain an elo rating of at least 2500. The elo rating is a mathematical rating system devised by American physicist and chess master Arpad Elo. With chess skill conflated by a somewhat complicated mathematical formula, the elo rating is manifested by a number which increases or decreases based upon the actual outcomes of games between rated players. Once earned, the title of Grandmaster (GM) is held for life. Nevertheless any rating above 2000 is in and of itself an extremely difficult goal to accomplish. Even chess masters themselves may spend years and years trying to reach the highest title in chess but in the end come short of their ultimate objective. Grandmasters in chess are in some sense equivalent to a professional athlete in a sport league whether it be the NBA, NFL, or MLB. Most grandmasters often start out as prodigies in their earlier years and earn the title sometime in their twenties. It is not only hard work and determination that qualifies a person to become a grandmaster in chess but more so a raw gifted talent that is innate within the individual.

The Myth of the “One True Love”

The Myth of the “One True Love”

Once upon a time an ever so beautiful princess was blissfully lurking in the woods enjoying the wonders of nature with a genuine smile on her face. Along came a handsome and charming prince and the two instantly fell in love at first sight with a romance like never before. Together they embraced in what is commonly referred to as “true love’s first kiss”. They joyfully left together and eventually married. Thus they lived happily ever after. The end!

Such a scenario is a common trope of fairy tales particularly Disney movies including Snow White (pictured above), Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, the Little Mermaid, and Beauty and the Beast. Many of us have probably developed a preconceived notion from our childhood that we are destined to meet that special “one person” that we will share a never ending romantic passion with for all of eternity. Most do not seem to understand that such an expectation is not only unrealistic but almost if not impossible. As depressing as it may sound, the truth is that whether we want to accept it or not, is that there is probably no such thing as true love.

What exactly does one mean by “true love”? A general commonly accepted definition would be that true love involves a couple who share a consummate romantic attachment that lasts a lifetime or even more so forever. Someone’s own true love can be considered a person whom no one else can be better in comparison towards. A person whom can be commonly thought as a “soul mate” does not exist due to the nonexistence of perfection. In general nobody is perfect for anyone. We all may have imagined at some point in our lifetimes that image of an ideal companion whom we can romance with for as long as we live. A lot of us strive for impractical relationships that are often delineated in fairy tales or romantic comedies. The romance and love that we observe in movies are often exaggerated and fantasized from our creative minds. Romance does exist but the way it is portrayed in movies particularly Disney films is often in the highly idealized form of true love. The idea of true love stems from a premonition that the purpose of our lives is to seek out that one flawless individual with whom we can share a lifetime of joy and happiness with. Given the fact that there are billions of human beings living on this planet and a nearly infinite potential ones from the sequence of the human genome, the idea of true love makes much less sense since there will always exist another person who can be another potential soul mate.  

Psychologists who specialize in the field of love and interpersonal relationships have had their say on this subject matter. Former Yale Professor of Psychology Robert Sternberg has conceptualized his theory of love by applying a geometric visualization of a triangle. In developing his theory, Sternberg has broken up the abstraction of love and interpersonal relationships on the basis of three defining factors: passion, intimacy, and commitment. The central notion behind Sternberg’s triangular theory of love is that a relationship that’s based on one factor is less likely to survive in the long term than another which is based on more factors.

In the triangular visualization above, the three elements of love which include passion, intimacy, and commitment can blend together into several combinations. A connection based upon any of these elements individually is less meaningful and unlikely to endure as time progresses. Intimacy would mean liking as in a simple friendship. Infatuation refers to a passionate feeling one develops towards another. Empty love is a love in which the passion and intimacy have disappeared and only commitment has survived. In combining these components, romantic love is the result of passion and intimacy merging together. Companionate love involves only intimacy and commitment. Fatuous love combines passion and commitment. Within the heart of his triangular theory of love, Sternberg has formulated an ideal and complete form of relationship known as consummate love. Often identified with the “perfect couple” or more commonly known as “true love”, consummate lovers have all the three components of intimacy, passion, and commitment together which assists their relationship to endure onward for a long time possibly even a lifetime. Couples who are identified in a “consummate love” are probably extremely rare to come across. An important note is that Sternberg himself mentions that maintaining a consummate love is even harder than achieving it. As Sternberg cautions without expression “even the greatest of loves can die”. True love from Sternberg’s triangular theory would clearly fit with the definition of consummate love. While Sternberg has established his triangular theory of love, applying it in the real world may not be plausible. A relationship is much more than just these three factors. Trust, communication, goals, dreams, aspirations, and even lifestyle are other potential factors that are important to maintaining a successful interpersonal relationship. Given the many factors that arise in a relationship it is impossible for two people to have everything in common. As mentioned before, perfection does not exist. No one can be perfect for you.   

Consider the following imaginary situation as an example.

John is a businessman who lives in England. One day he travels to Italy for a conference. During his visit he meets a woman named Sarah and the two instantly are found to have a lot in common. They date for a few years and their relationship enhances. The two eventually marry and start a family. They remain strongly in love with a powerful romance until death had done them apart. They were considered by many including themselves to be complete “true lovers” and that their romance was reminiscent of the fairy tale story of Cinderella.

One could argue that yes, John and Sarah’s story was akin to a classic fairy tale romance and that they were indeed “true lovers” much like Snow White and her beloved Prince Charming. However critically speaking, if one were to argue that position, one must believe that it is not possible that any other woman who currently exists, had existed before in the past, or will ever exist in the future, will be an even better match for John than Sarah. If Sarah was indeed John’s “true lover”, no woman could possibly be more compatible with John! The same thought applies with Sarah. If John is Sarah’s “true lover”, then no man who exists at the moment, had existed before, or has yet to exist will be better for her. The very concept and idea of “true love” shuts off the possibility that there could be someone else out there in the vast ocean or who will one day exist in a different time era that is even more compatible to you romantically.

The imagined situation raises a variety of questions that one can conjecture. What if John never met Sarah in the first place? What if Sarah was born five hundred years earlier than John or came into exist thousands of years in the far future? Or what if either of them never existed? Would that mean that John or Sarah could not have found someone else as their “true love”? The answer must surely be no. It is completely possible that there is another woman out there in the world amongst the several billions who is just as or even more compatible with John than Sarah. The fact is that John was not fortunate enough to meet another potential “true lover” if not for Sarah.

Or even consider the example of Snow White. What if Prince Charming too never met Snow White? What if the wicked Queen had succeeded in her evil scheme to murder Snow White with an impenetrable spell that even Prince Charming was incapable of breaking with the so-called “true love’s” first kiss? What if it was revealed that the two later on broke up after they reportedly lived “happily ever after”? The most plausible answer is that even if Snow White never met Prince Charming, she could have met another “prince charming” who is even more compatible romantically with her. If the two never met, they could both still have found someone else on their own. If Snow White was incapable of being revived when Prince Charming kissed her, he could have found another princess and he would have arguably been as happy off as he had been with Snow White.

Let’s take the presumption that Snow White and Prince Charming together are true lovers and in fact soul mates. If that is the case then how long would their romantic passion last? What if both of them lived together for millions of billions of years assuming they were immortal? Would they still have the same romance as they did when they first started off? Would they still kiss, hug, or even make love with the same joy and happiness?  How long could romantic passion last in a relationship? These questions have no complete answers and are open ended with many different viewpoints.

There are more than seven billion humans on this planet. Even so, many more billions have existed ever since our species came into its current form in the past 200,000 years. There is a great possibility that many more billions or trillions of humans will exist in the far distant future especially if our civilization spreads outward towards the stars in the galaxy. Even more astonishing is this interesting phenomenon.

The human genome accord to geneticists contains about three billion nucleotides. Of those several billion nucleotides, approximately 1 in a 1000 (0.1%) separates each individual from the other leaving about three million nucleotides that defines each unique human being. Mathematically the total possible number of human beings that could exist in terms of different arrangements or combinations of DNA is astronomically high. It is prodigiously larger than all the atoms in the known universe. The number of different human beings that could theoretically exist in terms of DNA sequencing is an unfathomably and inconceivable number.

When one looks at the concept of “true love” from this genomic perspective, the idea makes no sense because it is a hundred percent possible that there is another greater “true lover” and even another out of the nearly infinite number of different potential human beings that are theoretically allowed by the different unique arrangements of human DNA.

Each and every one of us exists for a limited time here in this world. Our days are numbered. We do not have time to meet every single person amongst the billions that exist for it will take many lifetimes. Furthermore it is impossible to meet every single potential human that could ever exist simply because the number of humans allowed by the genome of our DNA is much larger than what the human mind can conceive. When finding a potential lifelong partner or spouse, we seek to find that one person who is the most compatible amongst all others that we have met during the course of our lifetime. In the end no matter which person one ends up with, there will always be someone out there in the vast ocean who is even more compatible than the individual in which one shares a romantic and companionate bond with.

True love in the crudest terms exists predominantly in the realm of human imagination. It is not reality but rather a mere childlike fantasy. Of course, others may disagree with this position and might strongly believe in the existence of a quintessential romantic companion. However if one thinks critically, the so-called myth of the one “true love” or “soul mate” holds the premise that there is one perfect person out there for each and every one of us. Believing in such a viewpoint is not only ignorant but highly arrogant and narrow minded. Saying that someone whom you’re powerfully in love with and have shared a lifetime of romance together is your true love means that no one else amongst the billions of humans that have existed or will ever exist can be an even greater lover for you.

The Journey to the World of Professional Athletics

 The Extraordinary Nature of Professional Athleticism 

           

We've all played sports whether it be baseball, basketball, football, soccer, hockey, golf, tennis, swimming, or even winter sports like skiing, snowboarding, and more. From a young age we've all encountered at one point a sport we had passion for and played extensively well into our secondary school years only to let go and pursue other worldly interests. The vast majority of us have played at least one sport or more with a solid percentage playing competitively in teams either in high school or college. While many of us have participated in sports teams and have developed a sense of sportsmanship, an inconceivable low number will ever make a living career in the athletic universe. A lot of us especially people in their adolescence sometimes dream of having a prestigious career as a professional athlete. Little do they and the rest of us realize how incredibly difficult and unrealistic it is to emerge as a preeminent athlete in any sport whether it be basketball, football, soccer, baseball, swimming, ice hockey, or any kind of physical activity. Truth be told, the odds are extremely unlikely that you or anyone else you know will ever have a career as a professional or Olympic athlete. To play a sport at the highest level, it takes extraordinary athletic ability, intensive training, perseverance, natural talent, patience, and a genuine passion for the sport one is competing in.

Many sports fan often watch ESPN (the central sports network), and check out the top teams of a sport competing against one another. The most popular are often football, basketball, and baseball. Watching sports is an activity almost all of us enjoy, yet at times dream of actually playing competitively live on television in front of millions of viewers and fans across the nation. The chances that each one of us can make such a dream a reality is almost next to none. Let's review in terms of statistics the actual probability of making it into the world of elite athleticism.

According to an article penned by Tony Manfred from the chronicle Business Insider, the following phrase states the harsh reality: "Even if your kid is good at sports in high school, gets a scholarship, and excels in college, there's almost no way they are going to go pro" [1]. The statement is accurately proven as the data compiled from the NCAA reveals in six different sport areas. The table below summarizes the information brought by the article and gives a rough idea of what it actually means to be a professional athlete competing at the elite level.

Table for percentage of high school and college players that qualify as a pro [1].

Sport	Baseball	Football	Men’s Ice Hockey	Men’s Basketball	Men’s Soccer	Women’s Basketball
Number of High School Players	471,025	1,108,441	36,912	545,844	398,351	438,933
Number of College Players	31,264	67,887	3,944	17,500	22,573	15,708
Percent of High School students who play Professionally	0.6%	0.08%	0.1%	0.03%	0.04%	0.03%
Percent of College students who play Professionally	11.6%	1.7%	1.3%	1.2%	1.0%	0.9%
Number of Draftees by Professional Leagues	806	255	11	48	49	32

 

Glancing at this data table, we can get a good feeling of the prodigious nature of the professional world of sports. Let's take football as a starter. Approximately 1.1 million high school students play competitively in teams. Of those million high school students, no more than nearly 70,000 of them get to play at the college level or slightly 6.12% (~3 in 50). From there on, the numbers get even smaller when it comes to making the cut to professional. About 1.7% of the college students who play football, qualify as a professional or nearly 1,000 players. Nevertheless the NFL (National Football League) has room to draft no more than a few hundred players in any given season. With 255 drafts in one season out of 67,887 college players, only 0.3756% (~1 in 266) of them actually get picked by the NFL and are able to start a career as a pro.

In Men's basketball, the numbers are even lower. Of the half million high school players, no more than 17,500 will play at a college level (3.206%). Slightly more than a few hundred college basketball players perform at a pro level (1.2%). In the end, the NBA (National Basketball Association) on average in any given season has fewer than 50 draftees selected which is around 0.2743% (~1 in 365). While someone may have exceled in basketball during their secondary years, it barely meant that they will gain entry into the NBA league. Professional leagues are looking for the best amongst the best and so getting drafted is a significant achievement an athlete can hope for.

Of the sports listed in the table, the one that is the least competitive of all is baseball. With nearly half a million high school players, only around 30,000 will qualify to compete in college (~6-7 percent or 3 out of 50). Of those 30,000 players, 11.6% of them perform at a professional level (slightly more than 3500 players). Finally the Major Leagues are able to draft slightly more than 800 college players (~2.58% or 1 in 40). Baseball may be the easiest amongst the several other sports to obtain an enlistment in the professional field, but it is still extremely difficult to be even considered by the Major Leagues.

You can begin to get a sense of where I'm heading with all these statistics. While some of us at one point in our lives had a triumphant moment of exceling in an athletic field, it hardly translated into the possibility of starting a path towards the ultimate level of sportsmanship. We can see so many outstanding and talented college athletes that have worked tremendously hard with long hours put into intense routine practice only to miss the cut to the top level of the professional leagues in the end. Succeeding in the drafting process would mean that one college sportsman has to prove him or herself to be the best amongst all other collegiate players. Achieving such a feat is by no means an incredibly arduous goal. Unless you have genuine athletic ability, natural talent, are physically gifted, and have a tireless passion for sports, no matter how hard you try for how long, you can never become a professional athlete in any sport.

So in conclusion, I'm not trying to shatter the hopes, dreams and aspirations of young amateur athletes who participate in sports competitively in high school or college as to one day they would like to land a multi-million dollar career as a top-notch sportsman on a par amongst the best of the best. I'm just penning down this journal to give a general sense of what the reality is and exactly how unimaginably competitive and grueling the athletic world is especially at the highest level of performance. Rather than setting the bar to unrealistic and absurd levels of expectations, it is much better to realize what realistically we're capable of potentially achieving in our lives.

Mathematically speaking, the odds of anyone becoming a professional athlete are according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics around 24,550 to 1 (0.00407%) [2]. Becoming one almost never depends upon one single factor but rather requires a highly improbable combination of several factors that are sometimes beyond individual control. Whether or not you have what it takes is usually indicated either early on in life or during adolescence. In order to really increase the chances of entering the competitive world of professional athletics one must start at an early age, work endlessly for countless hours, and must really desire the dream in order to make it a reality.

References:

[1] Manfred, Tony. "Here Are The Odds That Your Kid Becomes A Professional Athlete (Hint: They're Small)." Business Insider. N.p., 10. Feb. 2012. Web. 09 June 2013

[2] "11 Hardest Jobs to Get in America." 15,436 College Reviews from Real Students. N.p., 18 Nov. 2009. Web. 09 June 2013.

The Fountainhead Literary Essay on Dominique Francon

Dominique Francon’s Enlightenment and Allegory 

            Solemn at first yet statuesque with a radiance of feminine heroism is the characterization of Dominique Francon, the daughter of the highly revered architect Guy Francon. Feeling contempt towards her father’s worth, she comes across a sign of extraordinary potential enshrined within the one reviled outcast of architecture, Howard Roark. As a journalist working for the newspaper chronicle the Banner, she carries forth a sentiment of idealism and commendation to the human potential. Unfortunately her ideals and vision are waned as she cannot withstand the remarkable burden of society’s inexorable precepts. Pessimistic about the triumph of man’s endeavor against all odds, Dominique Francon progresses to an enlightened phase and comes to realize the inner value of independence from personal experience. This unique cognizance acknowledges the significance of her and symbolic allegory in the context of the narrative.

            Dominique Francon is introduced in the midst of an appointment through the observation of Peter Keating, a former colleague of Howard Roark: “A young woman stood before the railing, speaking to the reception clerk” (p. 111). The mesmerizing imagery further revealed that “her slender body seemed out of all scale in relation to a normal human body; its lines were so long, so fragile, so exaggerated that she looked like a stylized drawing of a woman” and that “her appearance was deliberately exorbitant-and strangely elegant” (p. 111). Francon’s delicacy delineates a novelty in relation to the outer world. Young and mysterious, her essence figuratively flags the collectivist mind frame of society. Her unique physical appearance stands out apart to the fanatical vision of architecture embraced by the whole community. Domnique’s exclusiveness is paralleled to her isolated lifestyle. Living an extravagant and luxurious way of life, her loneliness is discerned through the act of “surrounding herself with people” in order “that the experiment of actual solitude was an enchantment to her and a betrayal into a weakness she had never allowed herself: the weakness of enjoying it” (p. 203).  Her aloofness signifies that the world of her residence is unsatisfactory and incomplete. It is incapable of measuring up to her level of expectations. Aware of the imperfections of her surroundings, Dominique longed for the true complete image of her ideals. Unbeknownst to her is a crusade she is embarking on for seeking out the “Holy Grail” of what she wishes and desires.

            Despite holding fastidious presumptions, Dominique’s predilection of perfection is manifested within one individual she unexpectedly encounters. Serenely glancing over a granite quarry, she caught the glimpse of the “orange hair of a man who raised his head and looked at her” (p. 205). Reminiscent of an archetypical “love at first sight” moment, Dominique was captivated by the “cold, pure brilliance of the eyes that had no trace of pity.” The ideal figuration of her imagination was flawlessly confined within this one unidentified being. The man who she later meet as Howard Roark was the embodiment of her desires as his face “was the most beautiful she had ever seen…the abstraction of strength made visible.” Becoming intimate with one another, their relationship would stand out as a metaphorical connotation for strenuousness that is stressed against the prevailing collectivism of the community. Her bond with Roark epitomizes reverence for heroic man-worship. The admiration of heroism comes to serve as a virtue for living one’s life in the narration. Francon’s love for Roark carries a visionary respect for the inner strength of man. The worship from Dominique energizes the mind of Roark to endure onward in spite of those who oppose him. Despite experiencing a surge of new hope, Dominique’s pessimism persisted as she felt that the insurmountable iniquity of the outer world would batter Howard Roark’s mind and soul into oblivion.

Believing Roark to be destined for demise, Dominique strives to demolish him before a world of grave injustice would. She would accomplish a task through varied and meticulously planned details. In one attempt, Francon published an article in the Banner regarding the Enright house designed by Roark and belittled it as an “essential insolence” and a “mockery to all the structures of the city and to the men who built them” (p. 266). In another, she forged an alliance with Ellsworth Toohey, Roark’s nemesis in the hopes that a partnership would bring a quick end to his career in order to avoid any more suffering. Her actions demonstrate her lack of hope for Howard Roark’s succession and her naivety. Dominique Francon’s knowledge of truth is incomplete and she is guided onward to a more genuine state of realization. Her gloomy view of Roark is confronted by her visitation to the incomplete Enright house with Roger Enright, the businessman who had hired Roark to design the apartment complex. Astonished by the “steel cages of future projections, at the insolent angles, and at the incredible complexity of the shape coming to life”, Dominique’s experience is one of foreshadowing (p. 286). The imagery was a powerful “sense of birth and promise” that indirectly hinted at Roark’s victory over all the corruption and misfortune that held back society.

   In the advancement of the narrative, Dominique undergoes a dynamic shift in character. Observing the minds and actions of Ellsworth Toohey, Peter Keating, and Gail Wynand, the owner of the Banner, Dominique sees the inherent weakness they carry forth. Sharing a trait of megalomania, these individuals appear as an unstoppable juggernaut and are power hungry with an eager desire to savage and dominate the apparently weak. Desiring a parvenu’s state, their weakness is their primary dependence upon the minds of other men for supremacy. This power seeking attribute is nevertheless incapable of shattering Howard Roark who relies on his own mind and independence for guidance. From his prevail as the victor amongst the four men she has journeyed with, Dominique has learned the importance of the reliance on one’s mind. Dominique sees how the good that radiates inside of Roark can triumph against the evils of the community. As a thinker, her purpose in the plot illustrates a literary characterization for independence. The lesson learned from Dominique is that independence cannot necessarily guarantee arriving at the truth, but it can aid an individual to learn from past mistakes. From her experiences with others besides Roark, self-sacrifice deconstructs the inner meaning of individual potential. To fulfill achievement and success at the highest potential, man must pursue his own self-interest. This lesson has Dominique changed into a new person, one who is more embracing of Howard Roark.

   Dominique Francon is presented as a secondary character in the novel. While being the heroine of the narrative, she initially lacked a fundamental element in her personality. This missing component which is her knowledge of the world around her is gained through the experiences she had with a throng of men with widely different views and perspectives. As Roark’s lover, she is contemplated as a dynamic character through which her bond with him created a new hope in that the good can overcome and be victorious in the struggle against the temptations of the inner hearts of men. She and Roark are a consummate couple whose minds and expectations are linked upon one another in a myriad of ways.

Works Cited

Rand, Ayn. The Fountainhead. New York: Signet Classics, 1952. 111, 203, 205, 266,

286.

The Fountainhead Literary Essay on Architecture

The Metaphor of Architecture in The Fountainhead

 

            At the outset of her novel The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand delivers an unorthodox artistic theme. Unlike other conventional art forms like poetry, painting, or music that dwell upon human emotion, the unique theme bears its roots within the realm of reason and rational thought. The art of architecture is observed as the medium for which the implied values of selfishness, individuality, and independence are revealed. In formalizing the essential framework of architecture in a metaphorical context, these values come to form the central tenets of the Objectivist philosophy. For introducing the theme of architecture, the conceptual framework is delineated by a powerful form of imagery. Such imagery is exemplified through the discourse of conversational dialogue and speeches decreed by the major characters of the novel. As a method of expressing her philosophy, Ayn Rand metaphorically conveys the ambiguous theme of architecture through a figurative style of language.  

In presenting the imagery of architecture, Ayn Rand relies deeply upon the observations of the lone egotistical architect Howard Roark, the protagonist of the novel. The vivacious imagery originates from the start through Roark’s first hand experiences that describe the dismal condition of the town of Stanton as being plagued “with a dump. A gray mound of refuse rose in the grass. The road led past the first houses to a church…The church was a gothic movement of shingles painted pigeon blue” (p.16). The scenario was nevertheless incapable of deluging Roark’s impenetrable spirit as he “saw no one” and that “the streets were empty” and devoid of any meaning to him (p. 17).  The concept of architecture as a modernistic phenomenon based solely on an individual’s own mind and volition is personified in the impregnable force that Roark embodies in the sense that “nothing can be reasonable or beautiful unless it’s made by one central idea. A building is alive like a man. Its integrity is to follow its own truth, its one single theme, and to serve its own single purpose” (p.24).  Roark is later understood as a lonely voice in the wilderness for the principles of the modern image of architecture against a world that feels resentment towards his ideals.

However while captivating as a civilizing and driving force, the prevailing opinion of the art’s imagery is envisioned to be on a par with that of classical Greek, Roman, and Renaissance era style. This societal banality is passionately endorsed by many including the dean of the Stanton Institute of Technology who insisted to Howard Roark that modern architecture shall “adapt the beauty of the past to the needs of the present” and that “the voice of the past” is the standard that all must collectively subordinate to (p.24). In contrast to the heroism elevated by Howard Roark, architecture has been alternatively revered as a phenomenon that invigorates collectivism as foretold by the antagonist Ellsworth M. Toohey. Penning an article entitled “Sermons in Stone” Toohey downgrades the ideal of architecture as the utmost decadence of the human spirit. Dismissing modernistic perspectives of the art, he perceives architecture in that “A great building is not the private invention of some genius or other. It is merely a condensation of the spirit of a people” (p.78). As the diabolical force that typifies affrontation to Howard Roark’s progressive ideology of heroic man-worship, Toohey is displayed by Ayn Rand as a by-product of the darkest side of the imagery of architecture. Victimized by the collectivist vision of architecture’s image as an unalterable reality, Toohey sincerely believes architecture to be deriving primarily amongst the “great historical styles” in that “all men would be brothers and their buildings would become harmonious and all alike, in the great tradition of Greece” (p. 78). These two conflicting forms of thought embodied in the heart of Howard Roark and Ellsworth M. Toohey diverge the imagery of architecture as a dichotomous entity. Through this divergence, a metaphorical tense of figurative language is construed as a means for developing a philosophy.

            Intuitively the narrative account of architecture characterizes a literary metaphor of novelty. The art of Howard Roark’s architecture uninfluenced and original implicates a metaphor for values of selfishness, independence, and the inner ego. Roark is the one personified by a strong eccentric sense of ego. The virtue of such egotism is repleted in his relentless refusal to openly compromise his principles in that he “responded only to the essence of a man: to his creative capacity” (p.309). His demeanor merges with the notion of following one’s destiny as he knew that “there were no alternatives, no mitigating considerations” to his own achievements (p.309). Consequently Roark’s personal sense of individuality through architecture would isolate him to great lengths from others and cost him several prestigious career positions. Ayn Rand stresses this figuration for the intentions of narrating a moral journey. In her perspective, Roark is the practical “moral” individual. The articulation of selfishness is what she praises as moral in relying on one’s mind for guidance. The figurative concept would mean committing oneself to a long term goal regardless of what everyone else thinks and feel. From the egotist’s experiences the rest of society would have a selfless feel for an idea or concept.

            The societal consensus is that the role of the architect “is a metaphysical priest dealing in basic essentials, who has the courage to face the primal conception of reality as nonreality…since there is nothing and he creates nothingness” (p.292). Ayn Rand expands on this figurative tense of architecture and presents it as the “dialectics of all life and art” (p.292). She encompasses the metaphor of the neo-classical side of architecture in the characterization of Peter Keating who is essentially a quintessential character foil of Howard Roark. Keating unlike Roark is filled with a sense of nebulousness for he possesses no direction or purpose as he willingly consumes on the achievements of others in order to suit his noble desires. For this reason, Keating ends up as an underachiever and an eventual failure.

            The philosophy of Ayn Rand stems from the metaphorical analogies of the literary theme of architecture. Her philosophical principles are described from the words lectured by Roark in the courtroom during his trial: “The egotist in the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices others. He is the man who stands above the need of using others in any manner” (p. 681). The philosophy known as Objectivism methodically stresses the ethics of valuing oneself and therefore acting out as a moral and practical agent in the direction of one’s own self-interest. As Roark puts it forth: “A truly selfish man cannot be affected by the approval of others” (p. 606).  While valuing individualism and independence as the most important ideals one should strive to live in accordance with, Rand simultaneously presents the idea of a second-hander in a condemning manner. From her definition, “the basic need of a second-hander is to secure his ties with men in order to be fed…He preaches altruism” (p. 680). The second-hander in the end has no sense of worth since all that the individual relies upon are the existence of others for survival as well as their accomplishments. Altruism would be truly incompatible with the Objectivist philosophy for it presumes living life for the sake of others by acting out in a self-less manner which in return devalues the inner essence of the self and ego. In all, the philosophy of Objectivism carries onward a reputable praise and honor for man’s inherent nature, potential, and revolutionary achievements for the advancement and progression of humanity.

            Amongst several themes that relate to architecture is the concept of man’s mind as the foundational source of ingenuity. The importance of reason as a means to an end is weighed upon in the penultimate moment as the ideal hero assesses: “Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon” (p. 679). All of man’s noblest achievements are therefore the results of “the function of his reasoning mind.” Rather than submitting oneself to an appeal on emotion, one’s thinking and feeling shall be the product of reason, logic, and rationality for the purpose of functioning to one’s fullest endeavor. Reason is therefore exalted as man’s highest valuable ability. With this special capacity for great potential, man has a responsibility to realize the importance of oneself and to bring about the inspirational source for a radical achievement or the titular designation of “The Fountainhead” of civilization.

            In presenting her philosophy, Ayn Rand communicates with the reader, the metaphorical language that is intertwined with the theme of architecture. Staunchly opposing human emotion and sentimentality as a mere justification for purpose, Rand believed that the integrity of man’s achievement lied in the capability of his mind to reason and think in a rational manner. In creating the metaphor of architecture, the concepts of individualism, selfishness, and independence are effaced. These philosophical abstract ideals are valued by Ayn Rand and come to represent the meaning and purpose of one’s life. With the introduction of her novel, the philosophy of Objectivism serves as a new perspective of objectively knowing reality as it exists on the basis of the senses without the need to adhere to a mere sentimental or emotional thought process. 

Works Cited

Rand, Ayn. The Fountainhead. New York: Signet Classics, 1952. 16, 17, 24, 78, 209, 309, 606, 679, 680, 681.