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.