Rating: 
Summary: Very good story, but remain skeptical
Review: If you look further, you will find good reviews that outline the plot of The Fountainhead, so I will not offer my own summary. I will not comment about its merits as a novel either, other than saying that I read the whole damn thing in a day and a half, so it is obvious that I liked it.
What I really want to talk about is its philosophical and ethical content, which in my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt.
For starters, according to Ayn Rand compassion is nothing but a hypocritical lie, invented by totalitarian governments to control and degrade humans. While I can understand the emotional response of a woman that fled communist Russia, and later observed the excesses committed in her former country, that view is absolutely wrong.
Setting aside the fact that I feel very bad for the people that do not believe in compassion and altruism (what could possibly have led them to that conclusion?), you don't even have to "defend" cooperation and compassion on ethical grounds.
There is an enormous amount of biological evidence that shows that humans' behaviour (and of other social species) is determined by complex emotions, that combine both competitive and altruistic urges, to maximize reproduction potential.
On another hand, and this will get me in trouble with other reviewers, Ayn Rand cheats while pleading her case. How is that? Well, basically she attributes a bunch of desirable characteristics on the good guys, and all kind of defects on the bad guys. That way, her philosophical beliefs are reinforced by the emotional response generated by prototypical characters (Roarke = intelligent, good looking, brave, independent = good; Toohey = intelligent, but devious and cruel, and bad looking = bad). If her story was told in a less biased way, her philosophical views would probably feel less "evident".
Such manipulation is not unlike the one displayed in bad action films, in which the bad guy kills in some horrible manner the family of the good guy during the first few minutes of the movie. That way, the writer can feel safe of not disappointing us in the end even though all we'll see is a totally simplistic and predictable final showdown, in which the good guy avenges his family.
On another subject, please, never say things like: "this is the best book ever written, and people who can't see that are imbeciles". That only shows that you have totalitarian tendencies and that most likely you haven't read too many books.
I wonder if Ayn Rand ever stopped to think how dogmatic and totalitarian her own views sounded?
In the end, in my opinion this book deserves 3 stars (the average of four stars for the story and two for its philosophy).
Rating: 
Summary: Living for your passion
Review: First off, I am completely different than any of these characters in the Fountainhead. It is one of the reasons why I like this book so much. It challenged me to see another side of human nature and how we are in control of our fate and lives. It uplifts the perfect captilistic society, and challenges those who wants everyone to be treated exactly the same. It is book that should be read in these times, when socialistic ideas is flooding the media and our culture. Freewill is overlooked and we are in a sense forced to be what society deems "best" for everyone. This book is first and foremost about passion. Peter has none, Roark is consumed with it, and will never give in to those who want to take it from him. Passion is lost today, and I believe will even become even more stiffled in the future. It is ignored, hidden, and buried, because it frightens us to find it in ourselves and it frightens us to see it in other people. It challenges us to lead, but usually we decide to follow our logic rather than our truth. True passionate people in our society often are outsiders and freaks, just like Roark appeared to the characters in the Fountainhead. He believed in individual freedom and ideas, he lived for it and would have let it destroy him. Thats true passion. This book gives me the outlet to wonder what would happen if one day, I did completely what I wanted to do with my life, instead of conforming to what everyone else does, the 9 to 5, come home, living like a robot lifestyle.
Although I don't always agree with Rands philosophy, I respect it. I believe we as humans are capable of so much more than what we give in our daily lives. The enemy in this book isn't a person but an idea, its conformity. Conformity verses individual freedom.
The Fountainhead is one of my favorite books, not because of the writing or story, but because of its ideas and characters. Even if you don't like Rands philosophy, you can't forget her characters, and that makes a great book.
Rating: 
Summary: No lessons,but clearer thought
Review: As far as the philosophy in this book is concerned I don't think it teaches us anything we didn't know already but it does so very well and entertainingly.I found the book very sad at times because,all the way through it,I was reminded of life and the people and situations I've experienced at work and socially.I would find it hard to understand a reader who ,while reading,was not put in mind of many people in their own lives.I even thought of the LLoyds building in London which got a slating from the critics but I thought is fantastic.It's a compulsive read.I've a couple of gripes-one with the romantic side which just didn't do it for me and the didactisisms liberally spread through the book.I found also that the only character I really cared about in the end was G.Wynand.I read another review on this site by a reader slagging the book off and he reminded me of E.Toohey!I've given the book four stars because all the way through the book little things are striking a cord with me again and again.
Rating: 
Summary: A hero?!?
Review: Ayn Rand cracks me up a bit. I am a Senior studying philosophy and yet I have never heard her mentioned as an important philosopher, never seen her mentioned in contemporary philosophy or even seen any professor feel a need to respond to her. And yet she, and her followers claim they being the true gospel, the gospel of egoism. They claim to be a very influential philosophy.
Howard Roark, the hero of the book (which is very well written and enjoyable as literature) is a sad, overly independent man who we are suppossed to love because of his fierce authenticity. But his unlikable independence comes across as an unrealistic, overly ascetic and uncaring egoist. He doesn't depend on anyone and feels only strongly when forcing himself on the world. He is the epitomie of Heidegger's technologically minded man, and as such an example of a most undesirable and dangerous mindset.
Niezsche portrays a better ubermensch.
Either way, this ignorance to the needs of others and the lack of any ethical duty (see Levinas) towards the other, results in the greedy (...)caste that run around screaming for less government intervention so they don't have to help anybody but themselves. As Pearl Jam would say: That's evolution baby!
So feel free to read the book, enjoy it. But please don't think "objectivism" is coherent. And don't go around raping people because you think you are a Roark.
Rating:
Summary: Good or bad? It all comes down to ideology
Review: My dislike for the book is based on her message. It was well written and to-the-point. The dividing line between loving the book and not is far simpler, however. Capitalists love it; socialists do not. One-size-fits-all folks like it; the compassionate do not. Competitive enjoy it; the communal/cooperative do not. And for many, particularly Americans, both Rand and the reader will often confuse socialism for communism. Vaguely 'speaking,' socialism is the Marxist-Lenin system between capitalism and communism. Whereas capitalism is primarily an economic construct and democracy a political one, socialism is somewhat of a mix. Each of these constructs can be mutually exclusive as Sweden is a social democracy. Rand touts the virtues of capitalism, which it surely has. On the other hand, we can travel to countries like Sweden and The Netherlands and see a well-off culture with plenty of freedoms... and no homeless to be found. There's still a range of not-so-well-off and wealthy, but not billionaires in the face of the homeless. If we allow ourselves to look at our fellow country folk as we do our family - us, perhaps we can have more compassion and understand that medical coverage for all, for example, is for the best for the society at large. Similarly, thanks to taxes, we share lots of common pleasantries like roads. What American capitalists fail to realize is that pure capitalism doesn't work around the world the way it does for the U.S. For the U.S. to maintain its power and standard of living, we change the rules and subsidize our farmers when we compete with New Zealand. We impose tariffs on countries like New Zealand that can produce our same goods for a fraction. These actions admit capitalism's faults. What's more, a successful capitalist democracy requires that value be invented upon. Value is based on demand instead of actual cost to produce. Not only is value based on demand, but also on availability - even if a good's availability if artificially controlled as are diamonds. Communism, on the other hand, while fraught with other issues, requires that value reflect the cost to produce. As if this isn't enough, capitalism turns us into consumer addicts. How many times have we heard Bush suggest we go out and spend to support our economy? With an affluent European Union touting a larger population than the U.S., it's imperative that we out-spend them, so we're advertised to, over fed, and are encouraged to assume far larger sums of debt. Americans have become consuming robots and they're taught it will make them happy all for the sake of remaining the most powerful. This is the kind of competition and beastliness capitalism breeds. We're not talking about the controlled society of the former Soviet Union. The controlled society was a victim of communism. If socialists are at the mercy of government, capitalists are at the mercy of CEOs they didn't even elect. CEOs that when their businesses make large profits, do not have to pass it on, but can get together w/ the competition and keep prices where they like. Instead of passing profits on to the little people, the ones without medical coverage, for example, they can simply Ritz Carlton around the world and no one can remove them from power. Finally, what's moral isn't black and white. There is a world beyond our homes, surprisingly enough. Our realities are not universal. Our daily expectations aren't carbon copied around the world. Indeed, within the same day one can sacredly sacrifice an animal, fly north and be locked up for doing the same thing. I disagree with Rand mostly because I see my fellow country folk as I do a family. If my sister is struggling, I help her with whatever it is I have to offer. I don't sit back, hoarding what I rightfully learned or amassed and preach that if I can do it, she can. I help and I expect the same in return when/if I should need it. That is a communal, collective, compassionate lifestyle where everyone wins because help extends far beyond money; time can even be 'socialized' in exchange for other commodities. It's much bigger than the dollar. In the end, Rand simply has a bone to pick with her place of birth, the Soviet Union. Don't let her play on your indoctrinated fears of that which was associated with the U.S.S.R. Think for yourselves. If you're a die-hard fiscal conservative, you can be a Rand fan and still consider yourself an intellect. If you believe the well-connected, affluent and most disciplined CEOs should lead you and not well-connected, affluent and most disciplines people of your choosing, Rand is for you. My beef is with Rand's belief, not the presentation. We simply have differing beliefs and therefore differing arguments. Aside from that, the book is pretty well-written and held my interest. When you understand each of Rand's characters represent ideologies, you'll realize it's as much propaganda as this review is.
Rating:
Summary: Why are you reading this? Just buy it now.
Review: Fabulous book, absolutely fabulous.
Ayn Rand hits you hard with her philosophy of Objectivism in this thrilling classic. It's theme? Individualism versus collectivism. This is about a man living life as he wants to, as he should want to, and all of the pain he suffers because of it.
If you're not into the philosophy, at least read it to be exposed to the writing style. Rand's writing style is so brilliant, so perfect, so dashing and in-your-face, so daringly, startlingly blunt. She says only what she needs to, only when she needs to.
Rand planned out this novel very hard, for several months dreaming and thinking of nothing but Howard Roark, Ellsworth M. Toohey, Peter Keating, Gail Wynand and Dominique Francon. And the result is stunning.
Rating:
Summary: A Classic
Review: Ayn Rand out-did herself on this book. Though usually overshadowed by Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead is arguably Rand's greatest piece. It is the true story of a hero with his back against the wall, in a struggle to fight for what is right. For all of you socialists out there, pay close attention to Ellsworth Toohey- it might be like looking in the mirror.
Rating: 
Summary: Dreadful!
Review: First off, I am by-and-large a conservative, so I do not find Ayn Rand's ideas objectionable on their face. In fact, I very much enjoyed the book Anthem, also by Rand, which is essentially an anti-communist manifesto. Rand's style of writing leaves quite a bit to be desired, but she is passionate about her ideas, and that is laudable. But, this book takes stark writing to the extreme. I was never once amused or saddened or made happy because of this book, and I never for one instant believed any of the characters. To make the sick little world she creates more "believeable", Rand sprinkles a bunch of obscure, lengthy references to architecture throughout the already too-long tome. And, just to make sure she really pounds all of her points home, Rand makes all of her characters self-absorbed philosophy-spewers so you can't escape her tedious diatribes about the worth of the individual over society and the foolishness of any kind of selflessness, including charity. You can't help feeling disgusted by all of these terrible people who populate Rand's book. Now, I must admit that I never finished this book. I got about halfway through, but then I was entirely sickened by the fact that the supposedly "perfect" main character, Howard Roark, rapes an independent, self-made woman, Dominique, and she is HAPPY about it! That's right, Dominique WANTED to be raped - indeed, she falls in love with Roark after the event! It's this kind of sick rape rationalization that is the cause of sexual abuse around the world - how can people claim that a book that contains such smut to be a "classic"? Needless to say, I don't recommend this book; it's not even worth the ink it's written with, not to mention the paper it's printed on.
Rating:
Summary: Run for Your Lives!
Review: I can understand why young people would like Ayn Rand: she tells us to love ourselves, tells us we are capable of great things, tells us to persist. And these teachings are, especially for high-schoolers, good things to embrace. But the other stuff she espouses, i.e., selfishness, social darwinism, compassionlessness-- these things are profoundly destructive. Sadly, Ayn Rand never realized there was a way to love yourself, help yourself, do great things, and still love and help others out, too. For some reason she thought the two were mutually exclusive. Moreover, from a literary point of view Ayn Rand is an aggressively bad novelist. Her characters are one-dimensional; her prose is bizarrely bland and plodding (and that's not even mentioning the forehead-clutchingly-bad dialogue); and her plots are as predictable as third-rate soap-operas. If you want to read great long novels try Dickens, Tolstoy, Faulkner, Woolf, or Melville. These cats make Ayn Rand look as sophisticated as a hyperactive first-grader with her first Etch-A-Sketch. Rand's vision of existence ultimately was a very cowardly one: she only saw what she wanted to see. Instead of opening herself up to life and all of its beautiful complexity, she vainly sought to reduce it to neat, tidy, hateful philosophy. And plus philosophy-- as any philosopher whose worth his salt will attest-- can only solve so much.
Rating:
Summary: A Dangerous Book
Review: You can probably refer to the other 755 Amazon reviews to get a sense of this book. I will explain quickly, however, why it's a pernicious force, based on my own experience. The Fountainhead takes a very powerful hold on a lot of young people who read it just before or just after arriving at college. At a time when these young people are going through a lot of upheaval in their lives, and often feeling very alone, this gives them a false sense of security; rather than going through the hard work of making friends and generally being an adult, this book feeds notions that we don't need other people. That's not a healthy outlook for an 18 year-old striking out in the world. Life is complex and none of us make it alone. It's true that we need a strong sense of self, but Rand takes it to a sociopathic extreme. Luckily, I had a respected college comp professor who told me that "this is a dangerous book for a young guy," and who suggested that I rethink what a world of complete individualism would look like. I'm the better for having known him, not Ms. Rand. I hope that those of you who see value in human interaction and feeling, and reject Rand's almost incredible view that any of us can be truly independant, will avoid giving this book as a gift, reading it, or recommending it to anyone. If you want to give a good gift, choose something that will challenge your loved ones to be more thoughtful, caring individuals, not something that will turn them inward and give them a god complex. PS - This is not philosophy. Rand wasn't that smart, or if she was, it's not demonstrated in this book.
|
