Rating: 
Summary: "Just the Facts"
Review: The hero of this book--Howard Roark--is a man who "sees through his own eyes"--and anyone who likes this book will be the same. I won't, therefore, tell you how much you're going to like this book or how much it's going to change your life after reading it (for, whether it does or not depends entirely upon your judgment of the book itself). Nevertheless, I will tell you some facts about the book so that you can decide if it's worth the investment both in time and in dollars to read the book at all. What, then, are the facts? What is the main character like? And who was this book written for? Well, I'm glad you asked. Let's take each question, one at a time. This book contrasts the difference between an individual and the collective. It's about a man who stands alone against the world--and wins. The plot is moved by this man, Howard Roark, and his struggle to achieve success while keeping his integrity. And, it is this man's dominant virtue that makes the plot suspenseful. To understand this, though, one must first understand Roark. So, we may now discuss his character, i.e., answer the second question. Roark's an arch-individualist--meaning his judgments are determined by an analysis of the facts and the facts alone (as opposed to other's feelings). His primary concern, in other words, is with himself. This does not mean he is without feeling, however. Roark is in love with both Dominique and architecture, for instance, yet (since he knows that the possession of either of them at the abandonment of his soul is without significance), he has to have them on his terms. Wondering whether Roark will succeed (and at what cost), of course, is what creates suspense. This ought to answer the second question leaving the last: Is this book written for you? In the spirit of Howard Roark, however, I'll let you answer for yourself--having enough info at hand to make a judgment. (As for me, my opinion has been included in the five stars above.)
Rating:
Summary: To anyone who wrote a review or is thinking about this book.
Review: For everyone who has written a review about this book, you surely must not have read the book, as anyone who reads these reviews to decide whether to read the book in the first place should wonder why he or she wants to read the book anyway. Perhaps I am conflicting with such ideology by writing this review in the first place, but I am no Roark. To all the second-handers out there, I strongly advise you to shell out some dough for this book which you will never understand.
Rating:
Summary: An American Classic
Review: If you haven't had the pleasure of listening to this absolutely classic novel, you are missing one of the great works of the mid twentieth century by rebel author Ayn Rand. As you listen to this tape, you realize that you are drawn into the lives of the characters, their beliefs, political views and individual motives. You can't avoid understanding and analyzing their actions, as the author intended you to do. This book is so well written, and did not come into it's own until well after the death of the author. Compelling listening that would be a terrifc addition to your library of classics.
Rating: 
Summary: A piece of solipsistic trash
Review: *The Fountainhead* is Scripture for Ayn Rand's cult of selfishness. Its proponents tend to be those overly frightened by and unaccepting of the prospect of an existence that is at best unpredictable and unknown--it gives false comfort in its upholding of universal "moral" priciples. This is the same kind of thinking that was behind the "White Man's Burden," "Manifest Destiny," and the eugenics movement of the 20s and 30s. "Fascist" is *not* an extreme epithet to tack to this piece of rubbish.
Rating: 
Summary: An entertaining work of fiction with some minor flaws
Review: This was an entertaining read. The characters were well developed and the story very engaging. I found Peter Keating the most interesting character of them all. This book does take some time to get going and the end was a letdown. I found it very predictable and preachy. Whether or not you subscribe to “Objectivism”, I think you’ll find this book both engaging and at the very least thought provoking. Forget all the arguments by supporters and detractors of “Objectivism” and just read it for the pleasure of a well-written story. This is not Noble Prize material but much better than any recommendation [...] could give you.
Rating:
Summary: Great read! But don't take it too seriously...
Review: I read this when I was 17 and fell in love with it instantly...mainly because it echoed so many things I had always felt, but no one else seemed to share. I had always felt I was much less emotional than everyone else around me. I had always hated that my mother seemed to believe that I owed her something simply because she cared about me. I had always hated, in fact, all those people who felt that they "deserved" things, that they'd been given a "raw deal," or felt the need to make excuses for themselves. So, in part, I found myself in this book, and I'll always remember it fondly for that. Unfortunately, the underlying philosophy just doesn't hold up. I don't know how Ayn Rand convinced herself that it did, nor do I understand why she called her philosophy Objectivism. Since its entire basis is upon the self, since right and wrong is whatever is best for ME, shouldn't it be called Subjectivism? Read it for what it is: a novel. A fable. A fairy tale. If you share her views, it will be an uplifting experience. But keep in mind that her philosophy is only one of the many lifestyle choices that you can make. It is NOT a moral code; it has no logical basis. Be inspired, but don't get carried away...
Rating:
Summary: ayn rand must be very impressed with herself
Review: ayn rand is dumb. objectivism is dumb. the fountainhead is dumb. i fail to understand, to empathize with the dimwitted people who fall for this crap. the lady obviously thinks she is moving a mountain with every worthless word that she writes. her characters are exaggerated, her dialogue is melodramatic. i couldn't find a plot. everything seemed to be leading to a point that she never really got to. this book can only appeal to weak spirits that are easily lead. shouldn't have even given her that one star. if anyone wants to challenge me on this...
Rating: 
Summary: Well, it has no philosophical merit...
Review: Ayn Rand was, at one point, a novelist; I'm convinced that she was half decent at it, too. However, at some point in her life, Rand decided that she was the most important philosopher in history. This came after her first novel, We the Living. Now, I would say that you should read Rand because she's a half-decent novelist, and in addition her philosophy is a fascinating view into the Narcissistic Personality Disorder she suffered from (Howard Roark, in this book, is a Narcissist and a sociopath to boot). Fountainhead is interesting in that it does try to work in architectural ideas, and when Rand's not busy slamming you with her aesthetic tastes (or her philosophy) it does have a point about originality, and how a work should really be composed as a whole. Now, Rand never finished her thought, and Roark really just seems to do it through sheer instinct, but it's a good thought nonetheless. The characters of the Fountainhead are what set it above Atlas Shrugged. Howard Roark and Dominique Francon are party line Objectivists, whose ideas flow from the mouth of Rand. However, there's more of a spread in the rest: Peter Keating is really just a man with no self-worth (Rand's Narcissism stopped her from seeing a middle between no self-worth and selfishness), Gail Wynand is a failed idealist (more interesting than Roark), and Ellsworth Monkton Toohey is a standard Objectivist villain (he would get the award for worst name in English literature if not for Balph Eubank in Atlas Shrugged; yes, BALPH). Since the non-Roark/Toohey characters don't just spout Randisms (Roark is Objectivist; Toohey is the evil Anti-Objectivist that Rand set up as a strawman to knock down), they get to have some philosophical doubts and worries, and are just more interesting than the Producers and Looters of Atlas Shrugged. Don't get suckered in by Rand's philosophy. It's not that good, especially when you consider that it doesn't reflect upon reality. Egoism is a false and evil ethics. Don't believe me? Okay...one, Rand's defense is based in the false assumption that rational people have no conflict of interest. This is obviously not true--if you and I are each trying to sell a car to a potential buyer, who will not buy more than one car, isn't it in both of our interests to sell him the car? So don't our interests conflict, even if we're rational people? Two, one is incapable of ensuring the survival of the human race. Ever notice that Rand isn't concerned with kids, of which she had none? Well, under an egoist ethics, there's no reason to have them. Indeed, it may be considered "irrational" to desire children in the first place, and hence evil. Three, selfishness is considered bad because it is too much concern for the self with no regard to others. There is nothing wrong with caring for one's own needs, but this does not have to be at the expense of caring about other human beings as well. It's one of the things that makes a society possible. Rand, because of her psychological disorders, saw only hard dichotomies and was a master of the false dilemma. Self-sacrifice is not the giving up of a greater value for a lesser one, it is the giving up of a lesser value for a greater one. Unlike in Rand-world, other people and society DO matter. Her altruism is a false strawman made so that her evil egoism could seem rational by comparison. I suggest the Christian ethic: LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF. Think about the two things that this implies: one, love your neighbor; two, love yourself. The command is not one or the other. It is both. This is the error Rand makes in her ethics, and which is perpetuated by her followers (I was in an introductory philosophy course taught by Allan Gotthelf, who wrote a book called On Ayn Rand, and he specifically used these false dichotomies to argue in favor of Rand's position on almost all accounts). Ultimately false is Rand's account of love. There is no such thing as real conditional love. That is a projection of certain values one has upon another person, and the idealization of those values, never of the actual person "loved." Real love is unconditional, stemming from emotional bonds that Rand herself was incapable of growing. That's why Rand's romance seems depressingly...unromantic. (The way it happens in the Fountainhead is called rape.) As I said at the beginning, I'm convinced that Ayn Rand was a half-decent novelist. I'm giving this book 2 stars because its philosophy, not its story or characters, is bad. If this seems contradictory to my prior post, it's because I've reconsidered Rand as an author since. I think a bit better of her, but without accepting her philosophy. If you read this book, be sure to ask yourself not only: does this follow logically? but also: does this reflect on the world I live in, or simply on a fantasy world created by the author? I think that the answer, frankly, is the latter.
Rating:
Summary: Almost everything anyone has said about this book is true.
Review: Both its detractors and its glorifiers. Everyone should read this book. I've lost track of how many times I've read it now. Even now, after having outgrown Objectivism and even libertarianism (thanks to Nozick, ironically, but let's not get side-tracked), and with the life experience and emotional development to see the pathetic incompleteness and immaturity of Rand's world view, I still find it an enthralling and engaging read. This is a book of idealism on an epic scale and whether the ideals are right or wrong is almost beside the point. A reverence for the miraculous potential of humanity - a fierce passion for the importance of philosophy in every person's life - a sense of pure joy from the simple facts of existence and life - all of these pure and bright things pervade all of Rand's work and, for me at least, practically leap from the pages into the hearts of her readers. Those who idealize her unhealthily now will, if they're lucky, take these things away with them when they finally outgrow her and they'll be a better person for having read her writings. And they'll be better off, in the long run, than those who could find no virtue in The Fountainhead at all.
Rating:
Summary: ingenious, profound mind provoking
Review: after finishing my M.A in Political Science and reading philosophycal essays by renowned Men (and Women) of wisdom from Plato to Rolles, from Checov to Kafka, I have never met such a well written, profound challenge to my point of view over a wide array of issues both on a global level and a personal one. The Main character, Ruark, is an unprecedented both in the character bulidup (amazing writing) and the encounters follwed by relationship he has with many of the other characters in the book. Moreover, he is THE symbol of individualism and makes you think twice of the negative manner withwhich the word "selfish" is often viewd by. In conclusion, the questions aroused by this brilliant novel are to be taken seriosly. Hence, read the book carefully and pay attention to every detail. I promise that if you'll do so, your name will be on the site as one of this books finest critiques, as it happened to me. P.S, this "nutshell" review can not even begin to describe the immense power of the Novel
|
