Rating: 
Summary: Brilliant despite stilted dialogue
Review: This is one of the fastest paced books I have ever read. Ayn Rand's characters come to life as she paints very clear pictures of who they are and what they represent. She does this in spite of the fact that the dialogue is sometimes a bit wooden and stilted. In this novel, she sets forth her philosophy of "objectivism." She exposes those, such as a character named Peter Keating, an architect, who seemingly achieve greatness by copying others but somehow give the illusion of originality and creativity. In order to achieve "greatness," Keating was literally willing to sell anything, including his wife. Thus despite wealth and apparant achievement, his life was empty. Rand begins to formulate her values that altruism is an evil because a society which seeks to achieve this must do so at someone's expense and therefore leads to collectivism. In the person of Ellsworth Toohey, a flamboyant newspaper columnist, she shows how the power hungry manipulate the masses by setting a standard of mediocrity which fosters collectivism.This book is full of passion, including a flaming, complex romantic affair between individualist architect Howard Roarke and socialite Dominique Francon. Their relationship develops from one in which they each seek to assert power over the other while achieving sexual release to one of true love between genuine soul mates. Roarke also has a passion for his work and is uncompromising in his creativity in accomplishing his professional goals. He will not ever compromise these goals despite enormous pressures to do so. Rand believed that there is only black and white in moral issues; there is no gray. Therefore, giving in a little is not compromise but rather, selling out your values and giving in to evil. Roarke was not a man to sell out, he had the courage of his convictions. While setting forth her philosophy, Rand has also given us a novel which has a well developed plot. I found the novel to be gripping and I couldn't put it down. Following the career of Howard Roarke and the machinations of his enemies was fascinating. The plot had enough twists to provide surprises and to hold the reader's interest. This book is both an enjoyable novel as well as a challenging philosophical statement. I like Rand's philosophy and I love this book.
Rating:
Summary: Altruist vs. Egotist
Review: Ms. Rand has created a wonderful novel in The Fountainhead. Its a beautiful symphony of a struggle of a man facing the beliefs of a modern world while still standing by his own ideals. Howard Roark is a man who mankind should take after. I really dont know how to put it, but he is everything that most people aren't. Throughout the book, Howard's strengths are enveloped with drastic comparison (if thats what you would call it) with his "friend" Peter Keating. Peter will do what ever his client wants from him as a young architect and he has done everything in his power to make sure that he succeeds, even at the price of others. Howard on the other hand will not sacrifice what be believes in, and thats what brings him down. Howard loved the work of the architect Henry Cameron, and when he was expelled from art school by not making traditional Gothic or Greek homes, he went strait to work for Henry Cameron. Cameron was a once famous architect who believed that whatever has been done in the past, should never be done again, so he designed totally modernistic structures. This came under much scrutiny and praise as he was called "untraditional." He was eventually destroyed because "Men hate passion, any great passion. Henry Cameron made a mistake: he loved his work. That was why he lost." When Howard applied the same principals, people werent sure what to think, and he reclined great comissions for the most wealthiest people. However, man didnt see his great line of ideals and he was labeled as an egotist, and people set out to destroy him. As the story progresses, we see Howard as a man who doesnt hate. He cant particularily, but he does have his beliefs. And that is what makes this book wonderful. The entire story is philosophical, and it becomes slightly overwhelming at times, but Ms. Rand makes a wonderful story of it. The story ends in a dramtic climax at a trial where Howard testifys everything he believes in. He brings up the case of Altruist vs. Egotist. An egotist is one who gives up others for self. He creates, and is a creator, he made the wheel and everything else that has allowed the others to succeed. An altruist is a person who gives up self for others. He is the parasite, and doesnt use his brain, he punishes the egotist for making that wheel, and then uses it himself for personal gain. Again, this book really broadened my outlook upon society. I have been quite interested in philosophy and this book really helped me see what man can be like. This is one of my favorite books of all time and i highly recommend it. The afterword is also quite interesting, before or after you start reading of the book. I loved this book and its highly recommended to all who can actually read the 700+ pages without being frightened.
Rating:
Summary: Rand, rand, rand...
Review: That was easily the worst 704 leaves of book I have ever read. If that passes as entertainment in this country then I must be deluded. Never have I seen such bad writing. There wasn't a laugh to be found amid insipid, corny dialogue proving yet again that what is popular is rarely the most deserving. The book is never been more than a vehicle for the author to overwrite and make silly political proncouncements. It is all the infuriating that this untalented person should make such money. Of course I'm jealous, I'd love to make millions out of nothing. Who reads this rubbish?
Rating: 
Summary: Impractical characters yet interesting plot
Review: The protagonists- Howard Roark and Dominique are an embodiment of every conceivable other worldly impractical ideals. At the end of a decade of struggles in their lives, Howard and Dominique are given a fairy tale like "they live happily ever after" ending. If anything, I would consider Howard to have been extremely lucky in getting away with being an architect who considered his clients to be guinea pigs for his creative ideals. Howard's statements in his own defense at the final trial, in which he draws a comparison between the creative human spirit behind the first use of fire and that of his own experiments in architecture, make no sense. In my opinion, Ayn Rand could have show- cased her philosophy of objectivism more effectively by grounding her story in some other profession which has a more direct impact on people's lives such as in the making of cheap cars by Ford than in the field of architecture. In summary, I found many parts of the story defying common sense and what emerges from the book is the mindless quest of two cold souls who want to have their own way in the world, oblivious to whether they fit into the larger interests of society and in the process willing to subject themselves to willful adultery and violent schemes-all in the name of pioneering human progress. I would still strongly recommend this book for the fun of journeying through Ayn Rand's brilliant thoughts and unbelievable plot.
Rating: 
Summary: No hype and DEFINITELY NO REFUND OF MY MONEY!
Review: I read this book twice-when I was 19 and when I was 30. I thought maybe I had missed something the first time I read it. Well, I didn't, and I still don't see what the hype is about this book. This book is 95% philosophy and 5% plot/story. I remember someone told me that this book changed their life. The only change I got was the from the cashier when I got this book. If you're just looking for a good fiction to read, don't even waste your time. This book needs to be filed under either "self-help" or "psychology/philosophy" in the bookstore-not fiction.
Rating:
Summary: Book Review
Review: The Fountainhead chronicles (in third person) the saga of brilliant architect Howard Roark, the society that hates him and his violent romance with stunningly beautiful Dominique Francon. It's a wonderful story brought down only because Rand wrote this book only to prove her philosophy of Objectivism; therefore her characters aren't three dimensional at all, and the dialogue is rather rigid. It is also a tad unrealistic when characters rant for several pages about something. The storytelling also exhibits a heavy bias towards Roark and those who are his allies. The story is excellent though, filled with page-turners and bursting with excellent descriptions and thought sequences. I do not agree with all of Rand's philosophy however, shunning altruism, and spirituality of any kind.
Included in the society that is against him, is the wildly adored, but greedy, power-hungry newspaper columnist, Ellsworth Toohey. He believes in collectivism, where everything is simplified and watered down to the masses. I like how Ellsworth doesn't reveal that he is truly evil till the end of the book. Another one of the foes, although not seen until later into the novel, is Gail Wynand, the owner of a popular, newspaper that runs shallow stories about things such as poor pregnant young women. Peter Keating, Roark's rival since college, is widely adored, and experiences a quick rise to fame as opposed to Roark's sluggish one. However, he has no real talent as an architect, and is written as a sort of worm in the story.
Dominique Francon is a socialite with a frivolous newspaper column. She is exquisitely beautiful, but she is very icy until she meets Roark. Then she becomes more proactive in the novel. She has a rather pessimistic view of society, and surrounds herself with things she hates so that she cannot witness society tearing apart the things she loves. She and Roark have a violent, psychological love affair lasting throughout the entire book and are thus smiled upon by Rand. Their relationship is in direct contrast to Keating's cutesy and insipid romance with his college sweetheart Katie.
Rand's novel, although extremely one-sided, is an excellent read, a true contemporary classic, and very thought provoking.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting read, some disagreement
Review: This is a book you will finish. Not nearly as entertaining as "Atlas Shrugged," in my opinion. I like Rand's views on individual responsibility and capitalism, but her sneering dislike for anything spiritual leaves me cold. Also, her view of love is rather odd, almost masochistic. I think the main thing I didn't like about this book is the fact that none of the characters is very likeable. Howard Roark, in my opinion, is a rapist and completely amoral...and he's the hero of the book. Sure, he has high standards regarding his work, but his standards in other areas of his life are questionable. Rand also has a habit of being quite unrealistic in some of her writing...Roark's and Dominique's first glance at each other merited a couple of paragraphs regarding how all of a sudden they knew what the other was thinking, how they knew they belonged together, etc. That having been said, the plot is interesting and keeps you wondering what will happen next. It is for the most part enjoyable and will make you think.
Rating:
Summary: JUST READ IT.
Review: Analyzing "The Fountainhead" is like dissecting a frog. Very few people are interested and it kills the frog. Regardless of what you think of Ayn Rand's then breakthrough ideas of capitalism, selfishness, etc., you must pick up this indubitable powerhouse of a novel. The protagonist, Howard Roark, is quite conveniently a total orphan with no social moorings or responsibilities. This allows the author a great deal of liberty in weaving philosophical tropes around him. The presentation of the ideas though is simply delicious, couched in some riveting writing, and will keep your thought mills running for a good while. I underline my books and The Fountainhead is almost entirely colored. A must-read. Period.
Rating:
Summary: Life changing
Review: Ayn Rand changed my life when I was in college with "The Fountainhead." It, along with "Atlas Shrugged" are two of my favorite books in the world, and while I can't say they were enjoyable in the sense of popular books like "Secret Life of Bees" or "The Bark of the Dogwood"--easier reads but nowhere as mind boggling--I can say that both Rand's books cause a great uproar in my mind. They really started the wheels turning and I'm a different person today as a result of reading them. For those who like to think, "Fountainhead" is a must.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting and idealistic
Review: Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead", like her "Atlas Shrugged" (which I had previously read), is a fast, interesting, thought-provoking if overly idealized read. Above all else, it's very strongly written, clear in its intentions and consistent in its characterizations. It is, while being most noted as a vessel for a particular philosophy (Rand's "Objectivism"), first and foremost an oustanding literary work. I would strongly recommend it for anybody interested in politics, philosophy or social issues - positive or negative, it's sure to get a response. In this novel, Ayn Rand takes us into the lives of Howard Roark and Peter Keating, two aspiring architects who choose differing paths when forced to market their skills in the world - Keating choosing that of populism and pleasing the masses, while Roark chooses that of individualism and self-sufficiency. Other characters become involved in shaping the story and characters, including Ellsworth Toohey, a socialist newspaper columnist who coddles Keating and gives support to various "mediocre" artists; Dominique Francon, an independent, free mind who influences both of the lead characters; and Gail Wynand, the owner of several newspapers whose content he continues to ignore until it's almost too late. The story largely follows the two leads, Roark and Keating, as they adapt to the market with Rand's unique philosophical discourse espoused strongly in the final 50-100 pages as the resolution nears. As a story, it's one with few faults. It flows quickly and remains true to its ideals. Rand's writing is, while overly idealized (okay, okay, so nobody in the real world goes on these kinds of idealistic rants seemingly at random places in normal dialogue), on a whole very readable and descriptive. The plot culminates well, even if the motivations of the some of her characters and her arbitration of "hero" and "heroic" are sometimes open for questioning. The only plot point I would question is the resolution to the legal battle near the end, which while serving Rand's ideological point, has no semblance of realism at all. That verdict would simply not happen. Anywhere. Ever. On an ideological level, this novel has the same strengths and weakness as her other major novel, "Atlas Shrugged". On the plus side, it's clear, well articulated, forceful and likely to please anyone with even a fleeting interest in her style of thinking, that individualism promotes greatness and collectivism promotes mediocrity and tyranny. Using the dichotomy of Roark and Keating, two idealized characters, she manages to stress this point well. On the minus side, there is a great deal of this story which is idealized to the point where it loses some of its relevance in the real world. The world is not as even and completely divided as she paints it, with all individualists aspiring to individual greatness and all collectivists aspiring towards either a) complacency; or b) absolute power over complacency. There are a great deal of individualists who aspire towards hedonism and self-gratification and a great deal of collectivists who aspire towards general well-being. There are also people who don't seen individualism and collectivism as mutual exclusive philosophies, depending on the issue addressed. In that sense, the character of Ellsworth Toohey is somewhat of a strawman - he's meant to symbolize everything that associated with collectivism, but represents only Rand's interpretation of it, people who preach general well-being but seek personal power. The philosophy, like all philosophies, also suffers from the leap from one or two, or a handful of, situations to a universal truth. In this case, she jumps individualism promotes greatness while collectivism promotes mediocrity (which is still questionable) to individualism is a superior moral philosophy to collectivism (she made a similar jump in "Atlas Shrugged" from individualism is superior to collectivism economically, therefore...). If you're willing to make the jump that great architecture is produced by individuals acting in their own interest not collectively, therefore low income housing is an abomination unless its built by people acting in their own self interest, then fine. Personally, I would keep different tiers of a philosophy's application (moral, economical, social, asthetic, etc.) separate. That asthetic greatness can be produced by one man acting for his own selfish good does not, to me, imply that all those who seek to help others are suckers. Anyway, recommended reading. Matthew D. Johnston
|
