Howard Roark's character in The Fountainhead is unwavering and transcends the effects of time, people, and mass opinion. Much of Roark's effectiveness and integrity are depicted in contrast to the ever-evolving beliefs of those around him. These differences and Roark's resolute character can be traced through the two trials of Howard Roark. The first trial, Stoddard's case against Roark, involves the same cast of characters as the second, when Roark is accused of blowing up Cortlandt. The differences in the testimonies of these characters, the different atmospheres of the courtroom, and the different nature of the trial illustrate Rand's main theme of the integrity and necessity of the egoist. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The differences show not only the changing mass opinion influenced by the powerful, but also the changes that Roark's philosophy brings to those he interacts with. The first experiment imitates in many ways, to a lesser extent, the philosophy highlighted in the second. The result is a greater success of Roark's testimony in the second trial, not towards the verdict, but towards the reader. Behind the existence of Stoddard v. Roark there is the influence of Ellsworth Toohey. Toohey, the anti-Roark, is the champion of altruism and collectivism. He opposes individualism to rule the masses: "Empty the soul of man---and the space will be yours to fill" (636). Toohey's influence spreads far and wide. He created every respectable committee in every respectable creative field, including architecture, literature, theater and the press - and through his influence on the people within these councils, along with his architecture column in the well-known newspaper The Banner , can control public opinion, tell the masses what to think, what to love and, in essence, destroy their souls. The only thing standing in the way of Toohey's goal is what he calls the thinking man. Explaining his philosophy to Keating, he pushes for the eradication of reason and rationality in man: "Tell him that there is something above sense. That here he must not try to think, he must feel... Suspend reason and play it's really crazy. Everything goes the way you want it whenever you need it to" (637). Toohey attempts to destroy every man's mental freedom and self-respect. Regarding Howard Roark's individualism, he says, "Can you rule a thinking man? We don't want any thinking man" (637). Therefore, Toohey sets out to destroy Roark, to turn the hatred of the masses he controls against him. He uses his influence with Hopton Stoddard to push him to give the commission for the Stoddard Temple to Howard Roark. Stoddard then goes on a journey while the Temple is being built. Once completed, Toohey criticizes the temple in his column as "a megalomaniac's cell" that exudes "arrogance, audacity, defiance, self-aggrandizement" (339). The most important aspect of Toohey's plan is the choice of the Stoddard Temple. The philosophy of Toohey (with the masses in tow) and Roark differ in the area of ​​man's place in the world. Toohey encourages humility and insignificance; Roark exemplifies the ego and greatness of man. Because of this difference, Toohey knows that Roark will build a temple of "self-exaltation," which he can easily discredit with the public sentiment of altruism and religious belief in self-sacrifice. He just as easily convinces Stoddard to sue Roark. Toohey and his influence on the masses are the driving force behind Howard Roark's first trial. The audience of this trial is obviously under the control ofToohey, both directly through his testimony and indirectly through his influence on public opinion. The crowd consists of all of Toohey's protégés and colleagues, "everyone knew almost everyone else." The atmosphere radiated a feeling of "'our gang,' 'our guys,' 'our show'" (348). Consequently, when Toohey testifies, his speech demonstrating that the Stoddard Temple is a "monument to a deep hatred of humanity" elicits a burst of applause from the audience (350). The effect of this atmosphere is also evident on the trial judge. Even though the lawyer objects to Dominique's testimony, the judge lets her continue because he "knew that the public was having fun, in the pure excitement of the scandal, despite their sympathies . were with Hopton Stoddard" (356). The public seems to orient the verdict towards Stoddard's victory. The two most important testimonies, besides Toohey, are those of Peter Keating and Dominique Francon. Keating is Rand's exemplary case of a "second-hander," throughout his life Peter had never created architectural works of his own, but he used history and Roark to construct his greatest buildings. At the beginning of his testimony, Keating is asked to list his great masterpieces, including the Cosmo-Slotnick Building, a building designed by Roark. A change comes to Peter as he testifies against Roark, the man responsible for his success. His behavior is marked by both guilt and a desire for public approval: “He kept his eyes on the audience…it seemed as if he were asking the crowd for support, as if he were on trial before them” (351 ). Keating uses this feeling, and his discomfort with Roark's integrity, to turn his testimony into a drunken rage against Roark. Keating does not understand that he is a second-hand man, but he understands that it is Roark who makes him feel inadequate and soulless. He blathers, “I don't see what's so wrong with trying to please people,” and later, speaking of Roark's respect for architecture and his true creative field, “What's so damn sacred about that? ...We're only human... .Why can't things be simple and easy? Why do we have to be some kind of damn heroes?” (352). It is only later, with Roark's help, that Keating realizes what he has become, what he actually always was. But at his first trial, Keating lashes out at his sense of inadequacy, made visible by Howard Roark. The plaintiff's case proceeds with a slew of architectural greats, men who have built their careers on copying the great buildings of history without a single new idea, and finally concludes with the testimony of Dominique Francon. Dominique is perhaps the most complex character in The Fountainhead. It is clear that he recognizes Roark's genius but does not believe that such genius can exist in this world of mass opinion and widespread collectivism. She loves Roark, but tries to destroy him. His testimony at the first trial illustrates his mixed feelings, feelings that will change when Roark's second trial begins. For starters, it looks like Dominique is testifying against Roark. She argues that Stoddard should have sued "'not for the costs of alteration, but for the costs of demolition'" (355). He says he agrees with all previous testimony against Roark and agrees that the Stoddard Temple is a threat to humanity. But he adds that the witnesses did not tell the whole truth. "The Stoddard Temple is a threat to many things. If it were allowed to exist, no one would dare look in the mirror... don't ask them to achieve self-respect. They will hate your soul" (356 ). Dominique understands why the masses hate Roark. Roark never gave in to the opinion of others,he always supported his beliefs and ideas. He blames Roark not for building Stoddard's Temple incorrectly, but for building something that most of the world will never understand or appreciate. He asks, "What's the point of building for a world that doesn't exist?" and later adds, purporting to prove the lawyer's point, "The Temple of Stoddard must be destroyed. Not to save men from it, but to save it from men" (356-357). After Dominique's testimony, the plaintiff rests. During the plaintiff's case, Roark refuses to question witnesses. After each witness, he sayscalmly, without fail: "No questions." Roark doesn't offer a defense because he feels he doesn't need one. His attitude, like the Stoddard Temple described by Dominique, unleashes the hatred of the masses. Before the trial begins, the audience stares at Roark, alone at the defense table, and notes angrily that "he didn't seem overwhelmed and he didn't seem defiant. He seemed impersonal and calm." The crowd could not accept this reaction to a public scandal and could not accept that Roark was not influenced by public opinion about him. As a result, the entire audience "hated him after the first few minutes" (349). A similar theme presents itself on the witness stand. Every witness presented by the plaintiff offers an opinion about Roark's temple, and Roark doesn't care about the opinion. Roark's independence of opinion is evident throughout the novel. For example, when Toohey is finally alone with Roark and asks him what he thinks of him, Roark simply replies, "But I don't think of you." Roark is completely independent and the Tooheys of the world have no power over him. As a result, when asked to cross-examine witnesses who expressed only opinions about him, Roark refuses. It also does not call its own witnesses. He simply puts the photos of the Stoddard Temple in front of the judge to see. This reaction is very different from that of his second trial. But it is not because Roark has changed over the course of the novel, but because of the very nature of the second trial. Since the second trial is fundamentally different from the first, Roark is allowed to testify. For now, however, public opinion wins, and Hopton Stoddard wins the case against Howard Roark. Many years later, Howard Roark is put on trial again, for destroying a low-rent housing project called Cortlandt. Peter Keating, whose business is failing, asks Roark to help him design Cortlandt to revive his company. Roark agrees as long as the buildings are not altered in any way. Cortlandt is Roark's masterpiece, a problem he had been working on for years and a building he could never build due to public opinion against him. However, Keating breaks the deal and, partly due to Toohey's agenda, the buildings are altered by "second-hand twos" that Toohey is trying to glorify. However the trial does not exist because of Toohey, as in the Stoddard Temple trial. The process exists because of the ideals of Howard Roark. Toohey, although he knew that Roark had planned the housing project, had not planned that Roark would go to the extreme of destroying Cortlandt. Roark himself is behind the trial because Roark needed to destroy the building. The nature of the second trial against Howard Roark is substantially different from that of the first. In the first, Roark was asked to justify his work to others, which he felt no need to do. In the second, he must justify the destruction not simply of Cortlandt Homes, but of what the modified Cortlandt Homes represented. The atmosphere of the trial has changed. Toohey's entourage is still in tow, but many others are present at the trial, "the human mass" whose "faces stood out, separated,solitary, none the same" (674). Although they had come to witness the thrill of the trial, this audience is very different from Toohey's celebrities of the first trial. These people "had each known a moment when, in solitary, naked honesty, he felt the need for an answer” (675). crowd is not under Ellsworth Toohey's total control. True, the crowd is referred to as the "human mass" and the reasons for coming are not sympathy on both sides But everyone they are looking for an answer, an answer that Roark can provide them. Another difference in this second trial is that the jury that Roark, as the defense, helped choose is no longer there in the hands of a judge who simply wants to please the crowd or his own whims. Roark also chose a "tough-looking jury," made up of variety of occupations (675). compassion. The jury is consistent with Roark's philosophy. Roark makes no appeal to pity: he sees pity not as a virtue but as a vice. In choosing such a jury, Roark chooses a fair judgment, free from the altruism he objects to. Therefore, with this jury's decision and with the masses seeking "an answer" at the trial, Rand acknowledges that the masses are capable of understanding Roark's philosophy and states that the reader can understand as well. unlike the plaintiff's, it exists not as a set of opinions about Roark, but only as a set of evidence showing that Roark was in fact the builder who blew up Cortlandt. On the second day of the trial, the prosecutor's only sensational witness is a much-changed Peter Keating. Although the testimony was supposed to be that of "a famous architect publicly confessing his incompetence," Keating bored the public with his admission of guilt. Unlike the first trial, when Peter shouts at Roark, Keating now knows that it is too late for him, that he is second-hand. Previously, he goes to Roark for approval, but this time for the paintings he had always wanted to paint, but had forgotten due to his motivation for the lucrative profession of architecture. Roark just had to say it was too late. Now Keating knows he has lost his soul. His testimony is described as having the tone of “sole indifference” (676). The audience also notices Keating's surrender to the loss: "When Keating left the stand, the audience had the strange impression that no change had taken place in the act of a man's exit; as if no person had exited" (677) . Keating realizes that he has lost his soul to collectivism under Toohey's leadership. He can't do anything to save him. Dominique, despite being directly involved in the case, is not called to testify. She now understands Roark and is able to love him fully. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Finally, after Keating's testimony, Roark makes his case. Now he can testify, because he does not need to defend what he created, but to explain what he destroyed and why he destroyed it. He has destroyed the evils of collectivism represented by Cortlandt Homes and is championing the destruction of collectivism that is sweeping the United States. Roark's testimony describes the persecution of the thinking man, the selfish man, throughout the centuries of history. It also describes a choice, not between altruism and dominance, but between dependence and independence. Independence is “the only indicator of human virtue and worth” (681). Describes second-handers, who only use the creations of others and depend on what others think of.