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
Rating:
Summary: Overrated, anyone?
Review: The Fountainhead's enduring popularity remains a mystery to me. Really, this novel is a fairly standard romance with a lot of heavy-handed philosophy thrown in. Howard Roark's rugged individualist shtick isn't anything we haven't seen before in other novels. Sorry, folks, but this novel is absolutely not what it's cracked up to be.
Rating:
Summary: Ayn Rand's Best Literature
Review: Although "Atlas Shrugged" contains a broader and more detailed look at Objectivism, this book benefits from not having such a burden placed upon it. Where "Atlas" gets bogged down with lengthy philosophical statements and never gets some of it's main characters developed (in some ways we still wonder "who is John Galt?"), this book is a more complete work. Don't get me wrong, "Atlas" gives great insights and is possibly a more important philosophical work. The Fountainhead, however, is a completely woven literary tapestry and one that can fully be enjoyed on that level.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent, philosophically challenging novel
Review: This novel is like a drug. It's so good, no matter how much of it you read, when you put it down you feel the pull. It lures you back. It's just that good. Rather than simply telling a story, Ayn Rand wraps her tale around an overarching philosophy -- Objectivism, her own creation. This basically revolves around self-interest, occupying yourself with your own affairs and nobody else's, and preserving your integrity at all costs. It seems that Rand carries this through to its illogical conclusion; she rejects any act of altruism as evil, for example, yet freely acknowledges that some people are born to succeed as individualists (Roark) while others are born to fail (Keating). Whatever you think of her philosophy, this is a great story; who would have thought the architectural profession could be so exciting and dynamic? The central conflict is Roark vs. the world, and it's inspiring to see how he fights against incredible odds. Once one understands Roark, what motivates him, and how he thinks, it becomes easier to understand his struggle. This is a good book -- lots to think about. Nobody should go through life without reading it and thinking about what Rand has to say. Read it!
|
