The Fountainhead

Rating:
Summary: Howard Roark laughed...
Review: So began my journey with a most memoriable character: Howard Roark.

My father gave "The Fountainhead" to me after I announced that I would be reading "Atlas Shrugged" in the near future. Quickly my father responded that I needed to read "The Fountainhead" first. Rightly so as it turns out.

If you are struggling with people telling you it is your duty to serve others, read this book. Ayn Rand makes me proud to be an individual with individual talents that are mine alone.

Take pride in your work and in the meantime read "The Fountainhead."

Rating:
Summary: WORDS HYPNOTIZE
Review: Ayn Rand was a phenomenal salesperson. If you had a dollar in your pocket, this woman could convince you it was really hers, and make you feel guilty for stealing from her poor orphan mouth. She employs the magic of literature -- by which the reader identifies with the hero and trustingly enters the author's make-believe universe -- to manipulate, confuse, and recondition her unsuspecting victims. You will walk away from this book a bloodthirsty, heartless vampire -- and think that the world, not you, is warped.

The title comes from a line in the book that "man's ego is the fountainhead of human progress." Rand's agenda is to convince you that man, not God, is responsible for human greatness. Furthermore, she stresses that any authority which does not recognize the supremacy of the individual's ego is an evil tyrrany (God being the unidentified exemplar of this dictatorial regime).

Howard Roark is an architect. He likes to build really tall towers. The Man has it in for him, wants to oppress his revolutionary genius and prevent him from becoming rich and happy. So Roark thumbs his nose at the System, and blazes his own trail...

This is the Satanic Bible that Anton LaVey only wishes he could write. I know that sounds crazy but when you find yourself knifing your friends "for their own good," you'll know what I mean.

Rating:
Summary: The Second Best Book I Ever Read.
Review: The best book i ever read was Atlas Shrugged. I think that alot of people misunderstand the fountainhead. People seem to get hung up on the fact that Rand's characters don't seem to be human or the idea of selfishness being a better virtue than selflessness. Rand has never claimed that her characters were ment to be acurate representations of people. They were meant to show her ideal man, they are to be ideals to look up to. Her ideas about selfishness deal with a meaning much broader than the common definition especially in connection with greed. I believe the reason she makes all of the characters who would be called selfish the heros is because to her selfishness goes with integrity, not sacrificing yourself to the justifications of other people. Her characters are people unto themselves who do not feel that they owe anything to any one and that no one owes anything to them.

Rating:
Summary: Why was it called "The Foutainhead" anyway.
Review: I've read so many reviews for this book it makes me sick. Some say its the worst book ever written while others acclaim its genius. I would agree that Dominique's character could be seen as a little bit demeaning, and Roark is a selfish (selfish is probably not the right word because Roark never wanted money or power, he just wanted to work - his way) jerk. But I think what Ayn Rand is trying to say is that we need people like Roark to help the human race evolve. And it's people like Toohey who hold us back not for humanitarian reasons but for power.

This book blew me away and made me take a step back and accept what Ms. Rand's point was, not necessarily agreeing with everything she says but at least accepting it and respecting it. Also, she talks about Altruism and how (she)Roark thinks that it is holding society back, but that it's okay to give and be equal because we've been bread to do so, but there are going to be people out there who would rather give in another way, by inventions and ideas. Roark was very clear from the beginning that he works for himself only, and his work is a gift to society.

I loved Toohey's rants too. Hearing the evil badguy preach what we've all been taught since the beginning like: "make man feel small and insignificant", "make man associate pleasure with guilt" and we all know and believe that. The only thing I didn't like about him was that everything always went how he planned--he was too smart and manipulative to be human.

Love it or hate it - You should read it. You might learn something about yourself and other people. Her (Rand)ideas will never be outdated and in that way she'll live forever.

Rating:
Summary: The BEST
Review: Being a young man (17) I think I have the bennifet of taking a more naive view of this book. It is, to put it simply, the best book Ive ever read, and I have a wide range of classic literature on my shelf. Many single "star", critical reviews of this book seem to dwell on Rand's philosophy, not the book itself. I dont understand why I have had to read peoples rants about her personal life or Objectivism. That is not the point. I'll admit her philosopy and personal beliefs are being sold within the books covers, (quite well, might I add, even thought I disagree with them) but once you can get past that you will realize what a great piece of fiction this is. Another complaint is how unbelieveable the story and its characters are. Rand over does it this way to emphasise her Objectivism beliefs. Sort of like a characature, substatuting the person for an ideal. It's a bit over done at times, but, in my opinion, never really got in the way of the story. The length was yet another issue. I found it perfect. 600 would have been too short and 800 a little too long. I was actually a little sad when I finished. I had become so accoustomed to Roarks character it was like losing a friend when I was done. This proves Rand as a writer as far as Im concerned. Her characters, although sometimes utterly unlikable, are always interresting. She creates an entire world, then draws you in completely. I enjoyed the book immensly and could care less about her political ideas or her personal life. She gave me this amazing book that, for the duration I was reading it, made me smile, sneer, cringe, gag and feel passionatly about something. And isn't that what reading is supposed to be all about: Enjoyment?

Rating:
Summary: Leave your current life with a book
Review: Amazing, how a book written so long ago can be written about some people today. It is as if some people on one side of the political spectrum seem to follow the book. Besides philosphy, this is good reading for a story in itself. Long book, and the characters become a part of your life.

Rating:
Summary: Intriguing philosophy, shallow characters
Review: I first read this novel about 30 years ago, when I was, of all things, an architecture student. I was fascinated. As time passed, the details of the novel receded from my memory, but I had occassion to learn more about objectivism. I don't believe in it mayself, but I do understand it and respect it as a vital contribution to our intellectual history and an importamnt expression of principles underlying one school of thought inour ongoing political/economic debates.
Recently, I found myself bumping into Ms. Rand's ideals, through TV specials, etc. I decided it would be a good time to refresh my understainding of The Fountainhead. Ouch. I guess I was a bit naive when I read it the first time. Coming back to it now, after years of adult life experience (and exposure to a lot more literature), I found the characters hopelesly one dimensional; not evil, as some critics claim. Just horrendously shallow. And it's a shame becasue Ms. Rand fully understands the setting of the novel; the issues that reeally did polarize architecture back at that time. But her characters come of like .... pod people is the only phrase that keeps coming to mind.

Rating:
Summary: An excellent book
Review: You can tell what I thought of this book by how many stars I gave it. So this review is written more to the people who gave it one star. It seems to me that the people who don't like this book need to reread it and pay attention to the characters such as Toohey and Keating and see if perhaps they relate to these people. To say this book can get boring is a fair statement. Any book that's 700+ pages gets boring in places. To say it's evil is plain stupidity. The people who despise this book and Rand's ideas are scary, to say the least. Altruism is a very scary thing. This book is great because it conveys the virtue of being yourself. It's not about one man rebelling against society. If you read it, you'd notice that he doesn't care about society enough to rebel. It's about society's desire to crush greatness because the public knows that it's something that they cannot reach. This is truely a great book, as are all of her books.

Rating:
Summary: Apparently I'm an outsider
Review: I just don't think this book lives up to all the hype. Besides the philosophy of Ayn Rand, I just thought it was a boring story, with characters that weren't particularly interesting. There was nothing that really compelled me to keep reading this book. Yes there were times when The Fountainhead did start to pick up, but then it quickly slowed down back to boring.

Dominique's love for Roark is ridiculous as is the love making (glorified rape), not to mention crude and tasteless. I'm not a feminist, but even I thought Dominique's character was demeaning.

All this combined with the clichés similar to cheap pulp fiction, made reading the remaining three hundred or so pages a huge task. So instead of finishing The Fountainhead, I picked up a good book instead. Two stars, because it wasn't horrible. But I wouldn't recommend it to anyone I like, (...)

Rating:
Summary: People who criticize this book don't get it
Review: Since every positive aspect of this book has been written about by the hundreds of others who reviewed it, my review will be in response to its critics. The one "flaw" that I read in the review over and over again was that "it wouldn't work in real life." This is true, to a point. If one is to accept that the world is how it is generally perceived, and to live one's life in accordance with this perception, then yes, I suppose the book is flawed. But, the point of the book, which I believe its critics miss, is that the world is how you make it. If you choose to believe that Objectivism is fatally flawed and can never work, then Objectivism is fatally flawed and can never work. But, if one is to live one's life completely within the bounds of the philosophy, you would be surprised at how often it does indeed work. So, bottomline: read the book, take its lessons to your heart, live your life by them, and you will succeed in what you are going for. But, if you carry the defeatist attitude that it is impossible to do so, guess what, it will be.