Rating: 
Summary: Powerful Story
Review: This is a very powerful story. Ayn Rand explored good and evil like no one else. This book explores a great many characters. She goes from Roark, the idealistic good, and Wynand, the man that should have been good, through Keating, the weak, and Toohey, the evil.Ayn Rand demonstrates the evil so thoroughly one is left in despair that good might survive. This is a wonderful and original story. No one else has written like Rand.
Rating:
Summary: I understand women better now.
Review: It took me a long freakin time to read this book, but it has really changed my life and stuff. I now know that women, even if they are strong on the outside, like to fantasize about having themselves forced upon by rock quarry workers or similar blue-collar professions, like construction, or dog catching. I feel like I've been WAY too nice to women. Thanks, Ayn Rand!
Rating: 
Summary: Thought-provoking read
Review: This is one of my all-time favorite books! It is really a unique book in that Rand not only develops theoretical yet realistic storylines and characters but also creates this completely unique philosphy. It allows the readers to really question true human intentions and goals. With all this, it is still a really enjoyable read! The only reason I gave it 4 stars is that it can become tiresome because it is so long.
Rating:
Summary: "To thine own self be true"
Review: A disclaimer first: Howard Roark is not my ideal man and Dominique Francon is not my ideal woman. Roark is a ... and Dominique is self-destructive. If I met these two in real life, I wouldn't want to be too close. There is, however, greatness within the both of them. It's not that Roark has a vision he kills himself towards; he simply knows what is true within him and works that as his guiding principle. Dominique, for all of her masochistic self-thwarting, is almost uncomprehensibly tragic. She shares Roark's commitment to truth to one's self but is so shaken and disgusted by the lies and compromises of the real world that she takes it as her duty to punish everyone for it- most of all herself. In my opinion, the book is really about her, as she is the one who needs to come to the realization that she can live in the world according to her own principles even if they are at odds with everything else. Gail Wynand, Ellsworth Toohey and Peter Keating all cut memorable figures as the tragic, powerful man, the Machiavellian villain and the dupe. As anti-ideal as Howard and Dominique are, these three make are even less appealing alternatives. Ultimately, this book is a great tool to help one figure out who is a real person and who is a poser.
Rating:
Summary: Definatly Worth Five stars
Review: All right the first time I read this book I hated it. I loathed every stone that Ann Rand had ever walked on and this continued for some time. Thinking about it and eventualy reading again I realized why I hated the book. It was not something in its pages it was something in me. I laugh when I think about it now that this book which I so hated could have been such a fulcrum to change my view of the world. Any book that forces you to view the world with different eyes is worth 5 stars many times over.
Rating:
Summary: One small voice, mine.
Review: Read just about any four or five star customer review and you have a fine summary of this book. It is not necessary for me to repeat what has already been said. I myself would like to talk about the individual characters which keep me rereading this book as much as the philosophy does. Roark, Keating, Toohey (shudder), Dominique, etc., all represent facets of humanity, good and evil. But characters like Keating and Wynand are more complex than the characters in Atlas Shrugged. Yes, they are Randian archetypes but they have taught me much about human nature. Keating, had he a little more backbone, might have actually been able to make something of himself. Unlike the villains of AS, he was somewhat sympathetic. He was in love with Catherine, a woman who may not have possessed the glamor and poise of Dominique but who was right for him simply because they were happy when they were together. Fool that he was, he instead opted for what he thought he was supposed to, just as he chose architecture over his true calling, painting. His story is a lesson for all of us. To detractors of the book who call it contemptuous of people I say you don't HAVE to be this way. Don't be a Peter Keating. It is up to you. Ellsworth Toohey is a villain for the ages, somebody you just love to hate. I won't even describe him as a man. I relish the creepy, slimy feeling I get rereading the passages about him. Every patronizing, smarmy sentence that comes out of his mouth is designed to make one cringe. The fact that he DOESN'T seek out wealth, or even happiness, makes him all the worse. It is through him and this book that I learned what is evil: holding society and "the greater good" over the individual. Now, whenever I read or watch the news, I am acutely aware of the malice in people who would say they are trying to protect society when their actions result in harm to an individual, or worse, equate society with an individual as I recently heard from a prominent proponent of the death penalty. Again, he is a lesson to all of us: beware the Ellsworth Tooheys of the world. They are out there. Rand wrote Roark as the ideal man. He certainly is that. I could never expect to be as he is but I firmly believe that he is something to strive for. He had the courage of his convictions. He did not care what other people thought, except those whose opinions mattered to him, such as his mentor, Cameron. Such is the lesson I learned from him. If I find myself jealous or resentful of somebody, I asked myself what my weakness is because fear of one's own shortcomings is from whence hatred and jealousy arise. If it is difficult to relate to a man who does not even see you, as he is frequently described, consider for a moment why it is important for him to see you and why you feel your own worth is based on how others see you. Then consider the friends that he makes in the book, competent and intelligent people who feel about the world as he does. And finally consider what true friendship is. It is not alms to be doled out in the name of compassion. It is respect and love for those whom we enjoy having around us. Dominique Francon is a strange bird (Rand said that Dominique was her in a bad mood). Her motivations are complex but when I think about them, they make sense to me. I see her as somebody who has so much contempt for the world that she doesn't think it deserves a man like Roark (or a woman like her). Hence the reason she works against Roark, not to deprive Roark of a living but to deprive the world of Roark. Clarifying the reasons behind her actions also clarifies that controversial rape scene. It is the ideal man saying to the ideal but obstinate woman that the world cannot destroy him. They spar violently to show how strong they are. Gail Wynand is less interesting to me but an intriguing character nonethless, the man who could have been. He had the drive and the intelligence but, like Dominique, too much contempt. His contempt for humanity at least was purer and cleaner than Toohey's love for humanity. I wonder if, had his childhood not been so brutal, he might have gone a different direction. But then I think that had Roark had a brutal childhood, he still would have come out the same. Such is Wynand's weakness. A sad waste, really. Atlas Shrugged is THE definitive Rand book. I myself certainly feel this way. Nevertheless, The Fountainhead has virtues that one does not find in that mighty tome. As in AS the characters are largely archetypes but interesting in different ways. Even though Atlas Shrugged is several hundred pages longer than The Fountainhead, it also feels more streamlined. The characters are more complex in the latter (except, admittedly, for Roark), maybe because where Atlas Shrugged deals in the steel and railroad industries, The Fountainhead deals in the more aestetic field of architecture which, incidentally, Rand describes beautifully.
Rating:
Summary: a big undertaking - but worth it....
Review: This book is truly a great one, but you really have to attentive and persistent to "get" it all and get through it. I especially had trouble staying focused for the first 200 pages (paperback). One the book does take off, it is a rewarding ride, a thought-provoking journey through a time in America when things were vastly different (but - in so many ways the same?). Especially interesting is some of dialogue surrounding freedom of the individual vs. the perceived primacy of the masses, enhanced even more so given the backdrop of our events of 9/11/01 in the USA (GBA!!!!). Some of the dialogue is downright eerie in this context, and it almost seems that you could peel some of it out and use it as an editorial without it seeming anachronistic at all. Overall, a great read, and absolutely worth it if you can spare the time.
Rating:
Summary: Amid Acrimonious Controversy, A Great Book
Review: Ayn Rand was a talented writer, whether or not you agree with her philosphy. Alas, the Rand purists are offended by all reviews that are not uncritical praise, and the anti-Rand socialists are outraged by any that do not paint the author as unspeakably evil. Whatever happened to the idea of an open mind? In light of the foregoing, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that "the Fountainhead" is a great book for someone just looking for good fiction. It is a tale of competing schools of architecture in New York during the 1920s and 1930s, when capitalism was increasingly opposed by dialectical materialism and socialism. Howard Roark, the main protagonist, is a lone eagle who desires to achieve on his own, applying his own modernistic style to architecture, to erect buildings that inspire a sense of joy while being a testament to the greatness of man. Roark is opposed in his efforts by an assortment of traditionalist-architects, who oppose modernism in favor of the baroque styles of Roman and Greek architecture, and who heap scorn on any architect who steps outside this box. The traditionalists are supported by a socialist-journalist named Elsworth Toohey, who writes a column in the New York Banner, praising or criticizing the work of architects. Toohey has great influence on public opinion, and few architects or builders wish to risk his wrath and public humiliation, and so "go along to get along," much in the same way that political correctness works today. Howard Roark refuses to be swayed by these strong commercial and societal pressures, and continues to design office buildings, homes and other structures in a way that pleases him. He suffers terrible adversity because of his principles and his vision, but over time emerges victorious. I loved Ayn Rand's prose, her descriptions of New York and its skyscrapers. Her writing flows smoothly through the mind, painting pictures in the imagination, and is fresh and inspiring. I found her sentences expertly constructed and a joy to read. The motivations of some of the characters, however, is not always easy to understand. Dominique Francon, for instance, loves Roark but feels compelled to destroy him; and when she no longer wishes to destroy him, marries someone lesser than Roark in an inexplicable act of self-contempt. The novel has other aspects that also strain credulity, such as Roark's long and preachy opening statement in his second jury trial, where he is little more than a talking-head for Ayn Rand's philosophy. (In fiction, this is called "author intrusion," and is to be avoided.) I like Ayn Rand, and sympathize strongly with her support of individualism over group-think statism. Rand's philosophy jives closely with the writings of 18th Century British economist Adam Smith, who taught that every individual in pursuing his or her own good is led, as if by an invisible hand, to achieve the best good for all. Therefore any interference with free competition by government is almost certain to be injurious. I agree. Having said that, I do not believe that individual action (the "lone eagle" Roark approach) is always the most effective means of achieving success in every endeavor. There is the concept of synergy, where two or more individuals can produce more or create more than any one of them can do alone. This is the concept wherein "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts." The Beatles achieved more as a group than any one of them ever did alone. The value of teamwork is illustrated by professional sports, and the concepts translate well to the business world, as most creative, productive endeavors require cooperative effort. Individualism is the engine of creativity and capitalism, but a volunatary association of individuals united in a common purpose can often accomplish more than an individual acting alone. This is not a contradiction of either Ayn Rand or Adam Smith. Howard Roark suffered much in his ascent to the top, but much of his suffering was avoidable or at least could have been mitigated by a better strategy, perhaps by seeking the assistance of a good publicist or marketer, the alliance of a competing journalist to Ellsworth Toohey, and by establishing a business network of professional association and cooperation with others who shared his modernist vision. Ayn Rand's novel makes you think, and helps you determine where your own personal philosophy fits into the cacophony of competing ideals. But first and foremost, the Fountainhead is just good fiction. Enjoy.
Rating: 
Summary: Yuck!
Review: This is certainly and most definitely the most boring book i have read in my whole life. There is a lot of hype created around this book and that is why i think a lot of them thinks that if the book is not liked by them then they are not literally normal...
Rating:
Summary: The message is true and clear in this book and philosophy
Review: A good book.
| 
