I like the book, but I don't like it as a novel, but rather as philosophy, if that makes sense. Her character developments and personalities are very limited, and their behaviors are predictable. So as a novel, I think its a quite a big failure. However, I agree with her philosophy. I read/heard that Howard was based on Frank Loyd Wright. The first building Howard designed is in essence The Fallingwater. However Howard's philosophy on architecture to me is more based on Mies. In anycase I think without people like Howard, human civilization wouldn't advance. I also admire people whose passion exceeds above everything else in life. I've read many comments that Howard is just a jerk and selfish and arrogant, his ideals are too idealistic. I think he is all of that, but then again what great leader/inventer/designer isn't all of that.
I think you're actually pretty correct. I have a problem with Rand and the book because, while selfish, arrogant jerks often do provide valuable advancements to society, Rand openly holds those who dare to give a damn about anyone or anything other than themselves in contempt: they're the scourge of society; they're dangerous; they spread their mediocrity like a disease. Her relentless demonization of benevolence makes me sick. Also, the novel sucks. It's a thousand pages of Rand transparently ranting through totally unbelievable, unrelatable, contrived characters.
In some ways, I agree. The Unbearable Lightness of Being has come up a few times on hubski in the discussion of books and The Fountainhead reminds me of it for the reasons that you've mentioned, except instead of the concepts of "Lightness" vs. "Weight" we've got Rand's version of the modernist ideal as represented by Roark and her thoughts on what makes people weak, represented by almost all the other characters. If we take a look at the archetype you've mentioned, Steve Jobs comes to mind, at least for me. In broad strokes, Jobs seems less sympathetic to me, but I realize that that's unfair as Roark is a character (caricature?) and Jobs was an actual human being. Either way, there are certain parallels that can be drawn between the two. It's interesting to me that Roark is so widely derided, both within the text and in the real world, while Jobs is celebrated by millions, even though many people who have worked under him have commented on his ill-treatment of them. I also think that it's interesting that Mallory is the character that Roark shows the most kindness to, even if for him, picking Mallory back up has less to do with Mallory as a person than what Mallory can create. In the end, I think that what stood out to me was that Rand chose architecture as the medium through which her characters expressed Rand's ideas of the ideal. Buildings are essentially statues, inhabited by ordinary people, the kind which Rand somewhat justifiably (in my mind) shits on throughout the book. It's as if Rand wishes radical change to come from immovable and immutable objects, as if the river of human society should somehow flow around the monoliths of art and modernist ideals. To me, this is a problem. It seems like Rand is almost saying that art should be separate from humanity, which of course involves messy relationships and certainly the loss of integrity. This seems as wrong as thinking that humanity is separate from nature. Art, like nature is balanced dynamically, not statically and to paint art and humanity into these odd corners seems . . . funny. Then again, the book was written in a time and a place when and where Modernism was new and people hadn't had time to see how those grand ideas play out.
I think architecture is more than just art, and what Roark is after is more than just the form. He also emphasizes on he can make his buildings with more efficient use of space, which is why I think it is appropriate that Rand uses architecture as an medium to express her ideals. In other words, I think what I am trying to emphasize is that Roark's ideals will in fact advance and impact human civilization because his ideals are more than just self-expression. Architecture in Roark's case is the making of space, spaces that can radically change people's way of living. The building he burned down was a model of low-income housing, which would impact the fundamentals of human society and economics. Comfortable office buildings can increase productivity, sustainable buildings can decrease energy consumption. Buildings in fact impact human lives more than people realize. Steve Jobs came to my mind as well. Maybe Roark is more widely derided because the book/readers focus a lot on his character while people focus more on Steve Jobs' achievements?