The Fountainhead

Rating:
Summary: Individualism vs collectivism
Review: I loved it! I have read it 11 times . Roark is my idol but my individuality is intact, thanks to ms Rand. Once in a millenium book. Do not miss it!

Rating:
Summary: New from Ayn Rand: Book Lite!
Review: What can I say? Philosophy is philosophy. Fiction is fiction. Can the two be mixed, intertwined as it were? Certainly; Joyce did it. Dante did it. Plato did it. Many other authors did it, all in different ways. Do I mean, in dropping the above names, to compare Rand to such great pillars of the Western Canon? Certainly not. Rand's implantation of philosophy into her writing is about as subtle as an appendectomy without anasthetic, and just as painful. Her characters are one-dimensional vehicles for abstract concepts. They lack any depth, and I as a reader could not care for them. Her metaphors are incredibly awkward, and her prose style seems to look forward uncannily to the books one can now find in wire racks at airports. As for her philosophy itself, she can keep it. If I want to embrace a Cult of Personality, I'll look no further than Stalin, thank you very much. I suggest to all of those who have turned to Objectivism to think for a moment, at which point I hope they'll realize that "rational selfishness" is no more than "rationalized selfishness." If you wish to read a REAL bildungsroman, pick up Joyce's "Portrait."

Rating:
Summary: Response to the negative reviews
Review: I recently began reading The Fountainhead, but am only about 200 pages into it. Granted, I have not read even half of it yet so I am not totally qualified to pass judgements on it, but I just had to say something after i read these reviews. First of all, I don't know a thing about Ayn Rand or what she felt about her characters, etc. All I know is that i cant put this book down but I dont like any of the people in it. I do not feel in any way that Howard Roark is the "ideal man." In fact, I find him to be somewhat of a warning. Everyone in this book is an extreme of something. Roark will sacrifice anything for his ideals while Keating will sacrifice anyONE for success. In my opinion, this book shows the reader that one cannot live in the extremes. One must find a comfortable middle ground. Why is this a bad book just because you dont agree with the people in it and how they behave? It is excellently written. That cannot be denied. I think Rand could write a paper describing a soda can and it would sound like music to me. not only that, but its the disgust one feels towards the characters that makes it so exciting to find out what happens to them. read this book, not for a lesson on any particular viewpoint; not to be preached at, but because it is a wonderful symphony of words which take the reader away. It is one of those books that cause one to lose sense of everything around him. I can't wait to finish it!

Rating:
Summary: Use at your own risk. But do use.
Review: It's just a book. Really. . . despite what some might tell you. But it is a great book. Critics complain that Howard Roark, and the inevitability with which he rises to pre-eminence, are superbly unfit for the real world. This is true. Howard Roark, however, is not a person and perhaps not even a hero, but an abstract ideal. He is a model of matchless integrity and personal excellence (to a fault), and as I see it the book's premise is that these qualities -- that what is right -- will be recognized and accorded their due in the end. Thus, the good are the pure, those without compromise. Personally, I don't believe Rand even meant the book to suggest that this should, or does apply on planet Earth. Certainly, the theory is ludicrous and circular when applied in reverse to suggest that whatever becomes pre-eminent must have become so because it is inherently excellent and therefore should be allowed to remain so if it can (a theory with which some oppose the anti-trust case against Microsoft). In fact, I think history provides more examples in which those who are pre-eminent have used their power to squelch those who are excellent and right, often successfully. At any rate, I recommend The Fountainhead to anyone and everyone; read it, but take from it what you will.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent Process+Excellent Product= Excellent Read
Review: Fitzgerald once penned, "An author ought to write for the youth of his own generation, the critics of the next, and the schoolmasters of ever afteward." And though Fitzgerald's words are a bit antiquated, I can think of no greater a "litmus test" by which to judge fiction in general. _The Fountainhead_, all pundits and critics of Objectivism aside, is a narrative that stands on the pinnacle of literary excellence for it's scope, timelessness, authority, seamlessness, eloquence, and shear bravado. The damn thing is well written. Crtics of Rand's work point to the characters as charicatures, or hyperbolized men and women without emotion, empathy and humanity. If one takes this consideration at face value...so what? This is the world of fiction we are talking about. I can remember reading Klotzwinkle's _The Fan Man_ and thinking of the unreality of Horse Badorties; thinking Horse was so far out of the box that I would never come across a character so pathetically lethargic in all my life. But because of this "grotesque" aspect of the character, I was much more interested in reading about his destiny and eventual demise. I believe the same notion can be applied to Rand's characters in not only _The Fountainhead_, but all of her work. It is because of the fabulous and often distant nature of the characters that liberates the reader into a kind of unreality and allows the reader to think about the reality of situations at a distance. Regardless of literary intent by the author, regardless of her staid philosophy, _The Fountianhead_ (if nothing else, or everything else in this case), transports the reader into an entirely original and thought-provoking way of looking at the world.

It is an exercise in futility for anyone to endeavor in evaluating the rightness or wrongness of this "trip" or the perspective you are given by the author, as the true test of great literature is the ticket there. If the story takes you to a place you have never been, and teaches you something (whether you like it or not), it passes the test as being worthwhile. This is the case with _The Fountainhead_.

It strikes me as humerous that the negative comments of Rand's work surround the personal characteristics of Rand and her characters; but rarely is a comment made on the style of storytelling. In the case of _The Fountainhead_, the storytelling is no less brilliant than that of any great writer extant or extinct to date. Creative Fidelity is maintained from start to finish. I would be willing to bet that everyone who has read the _The Fountainhead_ (be it admirers or pundits), have the desire to sit with Rand or one (if not all) of the characters for an afternoon discussion.

This book can inspire you to think and feel many things. In this, it is a controversy. Rand was no dummy. She designed it exactly for this purpose. And the purpose, be it good or bad, was to turn over a rock inside everyone who picked the book up, and examine the underside of the rock inside all of us. This is the kelson of excellent fiction.

From the Passion of the Pundits to the Loyalty of the admirers, it is clear that no one who reads _The Fountainhead_ simply walks away from it indifferently. This novel is a romance of extremes, and well wraught at that.

Rating:
Summary: Buried Treasure
Review: After seeing a short documentary of Ayn Rand, a story of married unconsenting/consenting swinging couples(of which Ayn and her lover were the antagonists), I was able to see the strength that she possessed. I was entrigued by this women who spared no thought, action, nor passion on idle time. She certainly was ahead of her time then & and now - 57 years later. Fountainhead, is facinating, not only because of the strength it possesses in substance, language and conviction, but because it circumvents all coventional perceptions. Given to me by a dear friend and interesting scholar, it is no wonder he gave me such a treasure.

Rating:
Summary: Brilliant, what else is there to say?
Review: Certain people obviously can't separate the writing from the writer. I'd agree that Ayn Rand is a bit fanatical, however she presents an inspiring and unforgettable example of her philosophy in this book. Hard to get through at first but well worth it. It will change your life if you are open to it.

Rating:
Summary: TO THE ANTI-OBJECTIVIST
Review: This review is written in response to the "anti-objectivist" review that you can find on this same page. I feel that "The Fountainhead" has many great things to offer the reader and I definately recommend it. I have read some extremely intelligient dissenting reviews of this book and had to bow to those reviewer's reasoning abilities. BUT - the "anti-objectivist" should not be allowed the status of monkey for his horrible pseudo-logical take on why he doesn't like "The Fountainhead".

Rating:
Summary: I can't describe it
Review: Reading this book gives me a strange feeling in my stomach which i have never had experienced before. This book is something that is too, i don't know what, for words. I think i'm going to read that book as much as possible, because you can't understand it after reading it only once

Rating:
Summary: Read the book in context
Review: Many of the low marks for this book are from people that either did not read it, are incapable of understanding the material because they are projecting their own psychological dysfunction's and problems into it, or just too stupid and close minded to understand. The bottom line is that you have to think for yourself, and that parasites rely on your thinking and efforts to survive. Anything taken out of context can be used as a non-sequitor, which is to twist the truth into meaninglessness. If you read the book objectively, that is with a clear mind, free from bias, I guarantee that you will understand Rand's concepts. Yes, Rand did not live her life according to her own philosophy, and yes the Randites are rather rabid, viscous narcissists; but so are any groups of zealots. Look at the content and framework of her work, not her life. She was a narcissist, but she was also one of the most brilliant women to have ever lived. Many of our greatest geniuses were nuts and quite eccentric, look at Newton and Edison, they were extreme egotists, but it doesn't take away from their work, it has even been suggested that you have to be a bit nuts and an egotist to really be creative. That's just my opinion, I may be wrong but at least I think for myself and take responsibility for my actions.