Rating: 
Summary: Should Be Required in Schools
Review: The book is well-written, especially considering English was not Ms.Rand's first language (although one would never guess, reading the book).I don't agree 100% with the philosophy of the book. I do think it has a lot of points vital to know in today's business world. The romance was beautifully written. And no, I did not identify with Howard Roark. I still loved the book. Those who didn't like the book probably believe spouting off a bunch of nonsense about being a "team player" makes them sound more "human".
Rating:
Summary: Glancing at previous reviews
Review: Glancing at the vitriolic and euphoric reviews of this novel I am reminded of a few parts of a very controversial novel. They remind me a lot of the discussion. "Three quarters of them don't know what they're fighting about, but they've heard the other one-quarter fighting over your name and so now feel they must pronounce it with respect. Of the fighting quarter, four-tenths are those who hate you, three-tenths are those who feel they must express an opinion in any controversy, two-tenths are those who play safe and herald any 'discovery', and one tenth are those who understand." "I can't tell anyone about my building. If I prepared a hash of words to stuff into other people's brains, it would be an insult to them and to me. But I am glad you came here. I do have something to say. I want to ask every man who is interested in this to go and see the building, to look at it, and then to use the words of his own mind if he cares to speak." "A man like Roark is on trial before society all his life. Whom does that indict-- Roark or society?"
Rating: 
Summary: Somebody should have taken this woman to a bar!
Review: If this novel is representative of Ayn Rand's "Romantic Realism" theory of art, then slap me twice and call me a realist! No, Rand does not paint a portrait of things as they SHOULD be, but instead a ludicrous picture of things as they SHOULDN'T be, in some sort of alternative world where nearly everybody is a mindless socialist parasite. Romantic my foot! In case you care (I didn't), the hero of this story is Howard Roark, a man who supposedly represents a perfect human specimen, but seems to me to have all the "individulism" of a graphing calculator. Roark is nothing more than a flat, emotionless talking head, who says very little (apparently Warhol-like silence is a virtue in Rand's mind), except to spew abstract philosophical silliness. Yawn. And you KNOW, for a book that suggests in every other paragraph that art should be more streamlined and functional, this is one EXCESSIVE novel. The story (slightly less substantial an issue of Teen Beat) is repetitive to the point of a headache, with the incredibly simplistic theme rammed into our brains like a jackhammer. It almost makes you wonder if a FEW of the "evil" editors who rejected this book when it was first written didn't do so simply because it had been edited so horribly. I'm certainly not going to get into Rand's philosophy here, but I DID find myself a bit offended by this novel's fallacious reasoning: either feed your own ego or join the collectivist whole. Whatever.
Rating: 
Summary: Not the worst I've read, but not a classic
Review: I really don't understand why so many people say that this book changed their lives. The philosophy presented within it is overly idealistic and completely impossible if you hope to survive in our society. The message of being a true individualist, not led by the mindless masses is GREAT. But to turn down jobs because you are unwilling to cooperate with others? That's not evil collectivism; it's a necessity, unless you think being supported by welfare possesses more integrity. The writing in this book was bad enough that it merited a one-star review, if not for the fact that there are so many worse-written books out there. The characters are hollow and their motivations often make no sense. Everyone knows that neither heroes nor villians are so one-dimensional. The dialogue is the worst part, though. The speeches the characters deliver (especially those of Dominque and Howard Roark) sound completely unlike natural conversation. Each scene seems to serve as a soapbox on which our protagonists can proclaim their own virtues. I admit that some of the scenes contain such bad, pretentious writing that I literally laughed aloud. What most confuses me is the men who've written reviews here before me that said Dominique is their ideal woman. Why? In my view, Dominique is an exceptionally POOR example of womanhood. Roark rapes her and she likes it. She marries Peter Keating and Gail Wynand for reasons I never really grasped. If she were such a noble individualist, why would she marry people she despised? Maybe I'm missing some deep philosophical subtext in that, but her character particularly annoyed me. The whole book, in summation, is just too heavy-handed and obvious. I don't see this as a thought-provoking book at all, except maybe for the fact that it provoked the thought that reading it wasted my time. Also that several friends I've really admired recommended it really disturbed me. There are some great philosophers out there who give you much more to ponder, and many more writers who can turn out an interesting story with complex, multi-faceted, BELIEVABLE characters.
Rating: 
Summary: nice book for some serious & useful reading
Review: a great book for those interested in objectivism, which sets forth the fundamentals of Rand's philosophy. it is a challenging new look at modern society by one of the most of provocative individuals in american scene. an amazing book to read
Rating:
Summary: The Fountainheadache
Review: It seems to me that one has to separate Objectivism from the Cult it generated. Rand DID write some very helpful things, but also some nonsense. There is a lot of evidence around that she was not a very pleasant person to be around unless you treated her like a omniscient prophet. The problem is that her legacy has been transformed into a dogma by some people who refuse to see her dark sides. I strongly urge you to read Jeff Walker's The Ayn Rand Cult. It's not a great book, but I believe his research is sound. He has read most of the literature about Rand, as well as interviewing Objectivists and ex-Objectivist that knew Rand. Then ask yourself this question: Which one is most truthful, Jeff Walker's book or the hagiography Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life? I guess reason requires you to read both before you make up your mind.
Rating:
Summary: Ayn Rand's philosophy introduced through a great fiction
Review: I think that this book is one of the best fiction books I've ever read. Although I don't understand some parts of it, I try to piece the information I collected together during parts that I understood. Because I didn't understand Ayn Rand's philosophy beforehand, I didn't understand why the characters chose to do the actions they did, until I read further and started to make more sense out of it. This book mainly mentions Ayn Rand's philosophy on individualism and objectivism, and how collectivism doesn't enhance the society but instead is bringing it down. She further explained this in 'Atlas Shrugged.' In the Fountainhead, the society turns against the protagonist, architect Howard Roark, because he has a mind of his own, loves his work, is unbending to his clients, and has real talent on modernistic architecture. Others probaly hate him because they have on 'original' idea of their own to 'beat' him. According to 'Atlas Shrugged', people who can't think on their own, at such creativity as innovating new ideas, feel guilty that they can't do it. They tend to value people who say, "It's all right, you don't have to think. We're all like this, you're not stupid." If the whole society is like this, there will be absolutely very little improvement in anything because people are 'encouraging' each other not to innnovate new ideas for the sake of 'feeling good' together. So far, I think that Ayn Rand's philosophy makes sense, which proves to me why she is called 'one of the most influential thinkers.' Although in the Fountainhead, Ayn Rand's philosophy on Individualism is quite extreme. I don't think that absolutely no negotiating, compromising, and group work can exist in the world and this society where it's most encouraged to do so. Roark was turning every client that didn't accept his work by not signing the contract, eventually leaving him with no job for a while. I think that being individualistic most of the time is good, but you need to negotiate in situations where negotiation is needed. Ms. Rand said that she believes that her philosophy is not widely known right now, but it will become more popular in the future. The character development and plot in this book are wonderful. My favorite characters are Roark, Dominique, Wynand, Mallory, and Mike. Peter Keating seems to be too unsure of himself and tends to stick to collectivism with Toohey. In this book's romance, due to her love of Roark, earlier in the story, Domonique tries to persuade Roark to quit the architecture career and go live where no one knew them. That is because she can't stand the society turning against Roark and can't bear anyone 'hurting' him by making harsh comments about his work. Maybe this is the reason why all the great-minded people disappeared in 'Atlas Shrugged', but I haven't reached that part yet so I don't want to conclude firmly yet. Despite Dominique's persuasions, Roark remains persistent and water wins the 'battle' against the society that is trying to push him down. This book ends with a happy ending, although it doesn't seem that complete. I wish there was a sequal to this book. Overall, I recommend this book to people who are interested in Ms. Rand's philosophy and want the concept to be introduced to them through good fiction.
Rating:
Summary: One of the finest works of fiction I've read
Review: I've been through Faulkner I have a working knowledge of Stephan King I know Moby Dick I'm on a first name basis with Will Shakespeare and I write my own poems and I worship Dr. Ike (Asimov) like a demigod But Fountainhead is one of the most moving and powerful, intelligent and entertianing novels I have ever encountered. It WILL change the way you think, if not the way you believe
Rating:
Summary: A Fascinating Rommance
Review: For me, The Fountainhead is the best book that Ayn Rand wrote. As a Rommance, the fountainhead is way better than Attlas Shrugged. The characters are much better constructed, the story is more interesting and plausible. I'm not saying that I don't like Attlas Shrugged: Actually its a great book too, but in a philosophical sense. Attlas Shrugged exposes Rand's Philosophy in a complete way, and maybe because of that, as a rommance, attlas shrugged is not so good as Fountainhead. Howard Roark is one of the most fantastic characters ever created, as well as Peter Keating, Gail Winnand(perhaps the most intriguing of all, a character which Victor Hugo would have liked)and Ellsworth Toohey. The psicological side of the protagonists are fantastic, and so is the story itself. For my personal taste, the best Rommance ever written is "Le miserables", by Victor Hugo. The Fountainhead is not very far from this. A great Book!
Rating:
Summary: I lived didn't I?
Review: I too had to read this book for a scholarship. I'm saddened as to how other youths will probably buy into such a tragically flawed philosophy. Too many misunderstood young genuises will compare themselves to Roark. They will repress emotions because they are believed to be Reasonable. They're lives will end the same as Rand's: Tragic, pathetic, and alone. Nathaniel Branden said of the Fountainhead: "Take the Fountainhead and the first chapter for example. Consider these facts: The hero has just been expelled from school, he is the victim of injustice, he is misunderstood by virtually everyone, and he himself tends to find other people puzzling and incomprehensible. He is alone; he has no friends. There is no one with whom he can share his inner life or values. So far, with the possible exception of being expelled from school, this could be a fairly accurate description of the state of the overwhelming majority of adolescents. There is one big difference: Howard Roark gives no indication of being bothered by any of it. He is serenely happy within himself. For average teenagers, this condition is agony." This is its youthful appeal. The objectivists philosophy is too simplistic and uncaring. So social Darwinistic. The characters are noble and true to their emotions because society is against them, but in a society in which everyone becomes an objectivists these heros will become the oppressors. The protagonists (Dominique & Howard) are too ideological. The villans are strawmen. The message is conveyed in a substandard way, it is far too preachy. I love the way how the Rand institute is giving out college money to get converts. 59,000 dollars in prizes is a very small price to pay. I highly suggest reading all the reviews, about midway through someone does a great satire of the story.
| 
