Rating: 
Summary: Great book
Review: This is truly a great book. Ayn Rands' writing is beautiful, some of the best descriptive prose I've ever read. The story is wonderful and will keep you turning pages. But the best part of it was the introduction to the philosophy of Objectivism, which, at the very least presents interesting "food for thought" and possibly can change your life if you want to try to live by its principals. The book is long and very dense, but I thought that every page was additive to the novel. I could not believe some of the other reviews I saw on this book, I just don't think they got it. Yes some of the language is "cheesy" and a little dated feeling (the book was written in the late 30s and early 40s). But this is very minor when compared to everything else you can get out of the book.
Rating: 
Summary: This book will change your life... for the worse.
Review: The nth time I heard that someone I knew had built his world-view around this book, I decided to put it on my list.I'm a voracious reader, so normally I'll stop after the first couple hundred pages if I remain unengaged, and I'll get on with the next book. This almost never happens, because most books are strong along at least one axis: characterization, plot, philosophy, descriptiveness. The Fountainhead is an exception to this rule, but an awkward situation had developed, where the friend who had recommended it kept asking how it was going. So I kept on, resentfully. Almost everything I have to say about The Fountainhead was said here very eloquently by "laurah2477 (see more about me) from Daytona Beach, FL United States." I don't really understand why there is controversy around this book. As a piece of writing, it really has nothing to recommend it. As a statement of philosophy, I found that it gave a simplistic treatment to some powerful and subtle ideas, in the end doing them a disservice. The author has a very small arsenal at her disposal for making a point. She sets up hate-able minor characters and stuffs their mouths with ridiculous platitudes, just to give her counterarguments more weight. Needless to say, this should be unnecessary. As she reaches the home stretch, Rand gives up the charade of writing a piece of fiction, and sticks a dry, drawn-out philosophy lecture in the hero's mouth. Oh, one more side point. Maybe it's not really a fair question, but how do you actually feel about the "modern" architecture of post-WWII America? You know, the kind of architecture of which the brilliant and forward-thinking genius hero is a proponent? With few exceptions, I find it uniformly cold and ugly -- arrogantly so. And that's how I feel about this book as well.
Rating: 
Summary: Atlas Shrugged is much more powerful
Review: I had read Atlas Shrugged a year and a half ago, and I loved it. As a single working woman myself, I adored and identified with Tagny Taggart, the heroine of that book, throughout all the ups and downs of the story. The two criticisms that I had of that book was the excessive use by the author of the phrase "as if" and the lengthy philosophical "lecturing" every now and then which tended to be boring and made me say to myself, "Oh, not again."
I just finished recently The Fountainhead, and I have to say that Atlas Shrugged was much more powerful. I wished after finishing The Fountainhead that I had read it first before Atlas. When you consider that The Fountainhead was published in 1943 and Atlas was published in 1957 you can see the reason... fourteen years of life experience.
Here again, the author uses "as if" just way too much, but the philosophical "lecturing" seems a little less than that of Atlas Shrugged. On the other hand, The Fountainhead, to me, was much less convincing as a story. Why would a woman who claims to love a man go and do all what she did (I don't want to spoil the story for perspective readers) instead of standing by him through thick and thin? It just didn't make sense to me. The only reason seemed to me just to make a novel out of it.
Also, I was surprised to read at the end of the Fountainhead (under the title About Ayn Rand) that the goal of Rand's novels is the projection of a moral ideal man: "My purpose, first cause and prime mover is the portrayal of Howard Roark or John Galt or Hank Reardan or Francisco d'Anconia as an end in himself-not as a means to any further end." O.K. what about Tagny Taggart, the heroine of Atlas Shrugged? Wasn't she a moral ideal woman too? This looks like sexism to me. I understand that Atlas was written in 1957, but still if the author was able and willing to write such a courageous character as Tagny Taggart at that time, I think a statement like this is sexist. I loved all three heroes of Atlas, especially Hank Rearden, but I loved Tagny Taggart just as much, if not more.
Rating:
Summary: Review determined by philosophical outlook
Review: One can safely say that both the tone and text of a review of THE FOUNTAINHEAD (or ATLAS or any of the other Rand books) is determined more by the philosophical outlook of the reader than the actual story, characters or message. I read this book some thirty years ago and reread it again recently just to see if it still "rang true" and if the same things that I liked and disliked the first time were still there. I am glad to report that the story still is a powerful one - ignore the politics if you must. The handling of the many relationships, the uniqueness of the characters, the totally unconventional love story, the tragic hero - it was all still there. Also, the same things I disliked were present - the lack of more female characters, the dryness of Roark, his wooden speeches...indeed, his presence is like a shadow. And just as the REAL hero in ATLAS was the very human Hank, the real central character in this book is the very human Wynand. The portrait of this man is still - in my opinion - one of the best insights into the psyche of a complex, would-be-great individual I have ever read. Perhaps the fact that Wynand was so "like us" and not on some stellar plane or residing on a lower rung of hell makes him such a likeably character. The writing is deft, brilliant at times, turgid occasionally. The arguments against collectivism still ring true. The basis of collectivism is that the State, through force, attempts to create equality by distributing material and intellectual wealth from those who have it to those who don't. The fact that the given wealth is unearned is apparently not important. And although it's been done without success many times, it will be tried again and again for one reason: Those who contribute the most are fewer in number than those who simply "go along for the ride". Good book with some banal parts - great story and great blend of science, business and art.
Rating:
Summary: Will SOMEONE PLEASE Stand Up
Review: The man, Howard Roark, is not just the hero of the book, but he is the embodiment of who we all are, probably, when we begin on life's journey. This is not just a statement of individualism. I could paint my hair green and carry a toaster with me everywhere I went if I wanted to be an individual. It is about integrity. It is about not being able to be moved, by anyone's might or power, not even your own. It is about doing what's right, regardless of who opposes.
THIS BOOK IS NOT A LOVE STORY, though that aspect of the story makes it more bearable and interesting. Furthermore, to clarify the misjudgements about Dominique's character, she does not like masochism. She gives herself to these men she doesn't love as an act of punishment to herself and comtemptment spawned from her own acceptance of things she knows to be wrong. She has left her first and true love: integrity. That is why she enjoys being mistreated. That is also why she loves Howard Roark. It's also why she tries to destroy him, because his work is not fit to be viewed by a public who doesn't appreciate the majesty and perfection in it. His work is a glorification of life and the elements we are to sustain life with. Other people in the story try to pervert it, and destroy it with non-appreciation. This is what Dominique tries to protect him from by trying to destroy his career as an architect.
Howard Roark is someone we all wish to be, and Gail Wynand is someone most of us have probably turned into. This book gives you courage to be who you want, but more importantly, who you CAN be. Roark was not crazy about eating in soup kitchens, but he did it in spite of a desire he might have had to be wealthy. He did it because he wanted to be Righteous more than he wanted a full stomach. Being righteous is just more glorified than being rich. (Wonderfully, he gets both as he deserves.) You could say that he exhibits the same personality trait of Joan of Arc. Living was not worth his life, if he wasn't true. What an ideal and beautiful way to exist! Which was also the reason he was so passionately hated, as some hate this book.
Rating:
Summary: Laurah2477 is a frightened individual
Review: The Fountianhead makes one think; an action of which most people are frightened. This appears to be the case in the instance of one "spotlight" reviewer. The Fountainhead is intrinsically non-conformist, and therefore, out of the ordinary. Laurah2477, for example, wrote an emotionally-charged review because she didn't want to bother understanding what Rand had to say. It is always easier to not think than it is to think. The preceding is self-evident, with the afforementioned reviewer as its main affirmation. I am willing to guess that other books that make this person angry or emotional also received bad reviews. Ayn Rand's message in this, a book of principles, was lost on some people, which is sad. Read this book and cherish it.
Rating:
Summary: An enlightening and Intriguing story.
Review: Truthfully, when I opened this book, I had no idea what to
expect. I had heard Ayn Rand and history of writing revolutionary and radical themes, but nothing can really prepare
you for what this story has to offer. The idea is some what
controversial and will either cause the reader to love it or hate it. Personally, I whink this book is masterpiece, otherwise
it wouldn't have lasted all these years without being forgotten like so many other empty and pointless pieces of literature. It is simply a Story of the Glory of Man and shouldn't be critized for any other reason.
The pertinent characters, Howard Raork, Peter Keatings, Ellsworth Toohey and Domonique are like no characters you will ever read about. Despite there somewhat cold and strange manner
towards life, you can't help but feel fascination towards these
people. They are the extremes of the human nature portrayed in
single individuals and show the reader what human are truly capable of, whether beatiful or truly disgusting. Out of these
characters, one by the name of Howard Roark shines through.
He is the one who symbolizes the glory of human acheivment and how we reached it. This is what the story attempts to and succeeds in portraying. I actually feel sorry for people
who criticize this book becasue they believe characters are cold or the portrayal of love is sick and inaccurate. First of all, Nothing is inaccurate about this book, it's human nature at it's darkest. Secondly this book wasn't written to please people but
to portray a theme about society.
All I say is give this book a try. If you make it through
the first chapter, then you won't be able to put it down. If you don't without hating it, then don't waste your time.
Rating:
Summary: "There is no such thing as a collective brain"
Review: Yet again, a story about the ideal man. Yet again, a tale of a hero. And again, individual versus society. Been there, done that. But never with these epic proportions, and never as well written as this. Like the rest of Rand's novels, you either love it or hate it. I just started reading Rand this year, and although I disagree with her philosophy in many areas, I have to revere her brilliant, bitter writing style; it made her book live and breathe in a way that few other books do. I found the character of Roark to be decent, but I think that too much emphasis was placed on his cold selfishness and his indifference toward most people. Dominique Francon and Gail Wynand, on the other hand, were much more human and convincing. The philosophy when Roark was on trial could be cut, but ultimately, this novel casts a ray of hope when there seems to be none.
Rating:
Summary: Inspired work of genius
Review: This is the story about one man, his struggles, and his triumph. It was truly an inspiring book in that it showed a man with integrity, courage, determination, nothing will stop me sort of attitude. Some have said that this man will go to any lengths to get what he wants which is just not true, he is determined to find success and happiness on his own terms, by keeping his morals. This work is so relevant in today's timeframe with quotes like "its not what you know but who you know, truth is what my peers will let me get away with etc, etc." This book rejects such beliefs. It was men like Howard Roark (the hero) that founded this nation and crafted the constitution with ideas such as man has a right to live for himself, that the world is knowable, and that happiness IS attainable; "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". On a more personal note, I had just been kicked out of school when I read this, which was an extremely low point in my life. This book made me think that I CAN accomplish, I CAN achieve happiness, life IS worth the struggle, and most importantly, I can do it on MY terms. Since then I have enrolled in a new school, am pursuing a degree, and have made dean's list as well as been invited to the Honors Society. Note: If you liked this book I strongly suggest you read Atlas Shrugged, also by Ayn Rand. Or if you want a clearer explanation of the ideas in non-fiction form you may want to read The Virtue of Selfishness.
Rating:
Summary: Exceptional
Review: This book was helpful in giving insight into how people should live life. It signifies the creations of mankind and how we can learn from their actions. I really enjoyed the ideologies of Roark. I loved how he practiced architecture not for the money and fame, but for passion. He was a creator that practiced originality. He believed that every building has its own purpose for its certain surroundings. In a way this can be correlated to us humans. We ourselves have to stay original to ourselves. It will do us no good to immitate the actions of others as it will only lead us to self destruction. It is these correlations that give this novel praise.
|
