Rating: 
Summary: interesting novel
Review: As far as summer reading goes, I think this has been my favorite.. but my opinion may be biased as Moby Dick was last summer. I don't object to Rand's philosophy in the novel. What I liked was that it was interesting, enjoyable, and I didn't feel like I was reading fluff. I personally read books for pure enjoyment (except when the school requires it) and I found that surprisingly _The Fountainhead_ was a good book. While I don't agree with Rand's philosophy, I definitely found it an interesting theory. So I would recommend to anyone to read this book. :)
Rating: 
Summary: one of the best books of the century:
Review: Ayn Rand might not have eloquent prose or the same writing method as Michael Ondaatje. She might, at times, even write poorly and less than adequate. No matter what is said about how this book is written, no matter how many critiques are made about her style, her message still remains strong and clear. Her message still remains truthful and honest. There is no other novel that displays so concisely the life of someone who defeats the odds by his individuality. I realize that this novel brings controversy along with it because Ayn Rand did not believe in God. Well this book is not about God; it is about the triumph of the human spirit. It is about the true meaning of life. It is about living as an individual and not compromising by conforming. I was captivated by this book. I could not put it down. It made so much sense to me. I could see what Rand was writing about all over the place- Hollywood, Washington, in the media. It is rampant. I see mediocrity being crowned as brilliance. I see power hungry individuals who have sold their soul to domination. There is no evil in this novel. It is the refutation of all evil. It teaches that one must activate their potential and not sell it, not waste it, not give it away to the causes of another person. One must live life their way- or there is no reason to live in the first place. I disagree with the so-called intelligentsias who claim that Rand is copying other people's ideas. Her ideas are methodical indeed, and she does build upon other thoughts. (See Howard Roark's testimony on the evolution of mankind). Ayn Rand makes a statement to the world loudly and clearly. It is essential to learn your past, to utilize your past, but not to copy it. The future is a time when the past must be built upon, not copied. Her philosophy follows the same train of thought. I highly recommend this book to any person with an open mind. It will forever change your life.
Rating:
Summary: Simply Amazing
Review: If you want to be inpired, I highly recommend to you this book. It is simply amazing. This book has changed my life and opened my eyes to many things in life. And after you've read this one, read Atlas Shrugged, it's just as great.
Rating: 
Summary: It seems like either the reader loves it or hates it???
Review: I haven't read the book. The funny thing is the readers' comment goes extreme... Hate the book or love it... Hummm.... I better check it out in the bookstore first...
Rating:
Summary: A Criticism of Criticism
Review: One reviewer, from "Virginia USA", seemed to sum up his screeching dislike for the book with the following comments which I've dissected and responded to. "Poorly Written, Obvious Plot This is a typical Ayn Rand novel. If you are part of the school of Objectivism, take a second to read back through this book. I find it ironic that the woman who started an 'intellectual' movement can write in such an obvious (and poor) manner. With no subtlety in style and little suprises to the plot, this novel truly reflects the shallow depths of American intellectualism. I'm baffled at it's long standing popularity." Poorly written and unimaginatively plotted. Really? The concept of a bold architect, Roark, pursuing his career with integrity despite the incredible public loathing of his work which is driven by the actions of the woman he loves, Dominique, and his best friend, Gail, is not imaginative, original, and creative? Perhaps I have forgotten about the vast canon of literature celebrating the accomplishments of architects who choose a life of integrity, overcome hardship, and risk disdain, prison, and even life itself to achieve their goals. Regarding the claim the book had no sublety, I must simply admit that perhaps the author of that review had a greater mind than mine. In fact, he must have a greater mind than almost all of Rand's readers. After all, we dolts who read her novels again and again are always finding new and insidiously well-hidden hints as to the characters' nature, personality, or motive. As far as the claim the the novel reflects the utter shallowness of American intellectualism, I must agree. Unlike the novels of Sartre or Camus (the critic's more refined, Continental, sophisticated preference, apparently), Rand's novels are not so deep that their bottoms are hidden from sight. Sadly, there are no angst-filled miscreants, men who turn into cockroaches, or anti-heroes. Only plain, honest, shallow, men and women with their petty, uncool values of integrity, career, passion, and pride. In the final analysis, it's probably a good idea to read these novels with a grain of honesty, not salt. If you disagree her ideas, fine. But do not attempt to slander Rand's writing skills unless you are prepared to do so with original criticisms that arise from an actual reading of the book in question.
Rating: 
Summary: Poorly Written, Obvious Plot
Review: This is a typical Ayn Rand novel. If you are part of the school of Objectivism, take a second to read back through this book. I find it ironic that the woman who started an "intellectual" movement can write in such an obvious (and poor) manner. With no subtlety in style and little suprises to the plot, this novel truly reflects the shallow depths of American intellectualism. I'm baffled at it's long standing popularity.
Rating:
Summary: Chicken fat.
Review: Amazing how Rand's defenders use exactly the same ad hominem attacks that they profess to hate (as lovers of "Reason" with the all-important cap R). "The Fountainhead" is not the worst book ever written, but it may certainly be one of the worst SUCCESSFUL books ever written. Its philosophy -- one hesitates to call it that -- is a hodgepodge of other, better thinkings, and as a book it's hardly any less wooden than an old-time Christian morality play. Again, Objectivism (which would be better off renamed Subjectivism) shows its real colors: if Reason wins the day, why such ghastly, elephantine pieces of propaganda masquerading as literature? People who actually do believe in freedom of thought and deed and enterprise are better served going back to the REAL fountainhead, the philosophers who made such things possible, but my guess is that they won't find writing there that'll stroke their sullen egos and confirm their prejudices that they're all just misunderstood geniuses in a world of mediocrities. (Okay: ONE ad hominem.)
Rating:
Summary: The engineer as the ideal human type?
Review: Howard Roark, allegedly an architectural genius, is 'projected' in this work of so-called 'Romantic Realism' as the most concrete-bound of mechanical engineers. If, as we are told, other people are not real to him, how is it that his buildings take such marvelous account of the needs of their occupants? If the descriptions of his inspired, Frank Lloyd Wright-type buildings are accurate, why do the descriptions of his 'creative' processes all involve little more than engineering calculations? If, as we are told, he is capable of seeing nature only as raw material for buildings, how is it that his buildings seem to be such 'natural' extensions of the landscape? Roark is not an ideal human type; he is nothing more than a projection of Rand's own self-absorbed fantasies. The human mind is indeed the 'fountainhead' of human progress, but Roark's own concrete-bound, highly limited mind is not exactly a shining example of it. By the way, why is it that all of Rand's male heroes are rapists?
Rating: 
Summary: A 725 page rant... on selfishism
Review: Rand's irrational philosophy is expressed (at length) in this poorly written book. Others like Emerson have expressed similar individualistic thoughts in a much more appealing and concise way.
Rating:
Summary: Will change your life
Review: The people who have slagged off this book in these reviews have really missed the point. They fear a world where they have to actually take responsibility for their own lives and their own actions. The book perfectly explains how to get your life in order by establishing the importance of personal integrity. If you want to understand why the insecure people put down the magnificence of this novel, then read it. Then you'll understand that like basically everyone, they saw similarities between themselves and some of the characters. As the novel goes on, they realise that what they thought were qualities in themselves were actually negatives and realised that they themselves try to force their opinion on everyone - explaining their need to come here and try to destroy other peoples' chance at true happiness. Howard Roark is an example of what we should always strive for - look after yourself, stand up for yourself, and never really care what others think of you as long as you're not interfering in their lives. In the spirit of the book and keeping in line with its core message - read it and decide for yourself. People who truly understand the book won't try and make you read it, but those who were scared to admit to themselves that they lack integrity and are obsessed with trying to control everyone (ie. those who make negative comments about this novel) will try and influence you not to read it.
|
