Rating: 
Summary: Average - Philosophically Moot
Review: This book is unnecessarily long. It is only a little interesting. No one really claims that this is great literature, but the following are claims that generally praise the book:1. It is inspiring
2. It is philosophically admireable Claim 1 is subjective and possibly true for some. But claim 2 is just plain mistaken. Rand's novels are at most some type of applied philosophy in fictional form. At worst they are repeated batterings of a wild worldview. Anyway I can't recommend spending money on this. Afterall, there are tons of legitimate philosophical works out there, and most self-help books are probably more effective than this for motivating. But don't take my word for it. If you're still compelled to read this then go for it. Maybe you'll like it for some unique reason.
Rating: 
Summary: Where's the big deal
Review: When I see people around me who claim their lives have changed after reading this book, it is understandable. Objectivism is a great relief - you don't have to worry about other's opinions because they are imperfect and dumb and you are the caretaker of this universe. Of course except for the ideal case where each one of us inherently owned the outstanding qualities which Rand has suggested and would automatically blend into the harmony of the resulting world. The qualities that Rand has suggested are courage, confidence and quest for perfection(absolute sense?).
Rand created Roark's character to exemplify that perfect individual but he fails to impress, mainly because of the way Rand created him. Roark could have been more human, talkable( I actually mean it )
and less rigid and could have still retained the qualities Rand thinks are required to make you perfect. His relationship with Dominique is the worst thing I can imagine. It is impossible to be deeply in love with someone if you havent experienced the like-love-emotions with others. Otherwise it would turn into a dangerous obsession, an adjective which doesn't go with "perfect".
Dominique is worse than a Bimbo. How can anyone like a man whose first move is sexual exploitation ? Her character is degrading to women.
Roark's and Dominique's future togetherness depended on her marriage to Keating and Wynand (who Rand thinks were insignificant to Roark's life ? ) . Roark needed Dominique and Dominique needed these men. Whatever was Dominique's logic for marrying these men, her objective was the same - to have Roark. So at least she is one character for sure who cannot propagate Rand'd theory. How can Rand being a woman create a character like Dominique is beyond my understanding ?
This book isn't a fantasy ;it is supposed to illustrate and exemplify a philosophy , and therefore it is expected to be based on logical thinking and observation of real humans,not imaginary charcters in an imaginary world. -Proma Ray
Rating: 
Summary: Life Changing and Life Saving
Review: I am a high school student. This is the most inspiring work I have ever read, and it has encouraged me to turn my life around. It is not meant to read like a novel. Rand means The Fountainhead to be a work of philosophy. The characters are unrealistic, but they are prototypes and help carry out her philosophy.
Rating:
Summary: it's about a selected few in this world
Review: The ascent of humanity rests on the shoulder of the few; the descent on the many who are represented and dumbed down by a few like Wynand. For thos who doubted why creating/discovering something new for our world required a life of hardship and danger, Corpenicus was a good example. Sure, no women would attach herself to a fool and illogical person like that. But the chosen few probably don't care about those women either. The book is written for a few MEN, not meant to be read by women or woman-like men. For these men, their life is to create and lead the society to a brighter future. They couldn't care less about women's notion of happiness. A man does not live according to the wish of a woman. It's simple as that. People should not take the book literally. To take it literally and criticizes its faults based on that is foolish at best.
Rating: 
Summary: well written, but completely psychotic
Review: Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead" is brilliantly written. But that's where the brilliance ends. The characters are completely unbelievable. If you've read this you know that Roark claims that he doesn't care at all, about anything but himself. He claims that he doesn't need anything but himself and his art. If that is true, why was he so unhappy when Dominique was with Wynand? I don't understand the characters at all. I know a lot of women and none of them would risk their own happiness the way Dominique did. The only character with genuine emotion is Wynand.
Rating: 
Summary: Repetitive and lacking in imagination
Review: I knew Ayn Rand first as the founder of Objectivism and later as a novelist. I think her capacity as the latter leaves a lot to be desired. Repetitively used is the "tell-me" (v.s. "show-me") style of narrative: lacking in imaginative language both in the descriptive and intellectual context. It becomes obvious early on what the message is: "individuality is great, blind conformity, not so great". It becomes more and more obvious in the next 20 times the point is iterated, to the point of tiring. Objectivism aside, I feel there could have been more eloquent,subtle and ultimately effective ways to write a novel as a work of (intellectual) fiction. As a reader, I didn't care much for the characters, and that's a Bad Thing(TM) in my judging of books.
Rating:
Summary: Forget About Rand's Philosophy and Enjoy a Magnificent Story
Review: I seldom care to read books of this length. However, I was mesmerized and intrigued by the first 25 pages. While the story and characters were larger than life and quite twisted, I couldn't get enough. I was completely drawn in by Howard Roark. And the relationship between Roark and Dominique was explosive. I like to be taken away in a novel. In this case, I felt completely transported to the world of architecture, the powerful, and the elite. I wouldn't want to live there, but it was a great ride. Rand's philosophy and politics while interesting, was not the attraction for me. This book did not profoundly change my views, but Rand's style of writing and storytelling did have an effect on me as a creative individual.
Rating:
Summary: More than a book
Review: In Ayn Rand's novel The Fountainhead, Rand paints a world with two extremes of human nature. On one side of the spectrum there is Peter Keating. Keating illustrates the second-hander, a chameleon, willing to adapt himself to his surroundings to appease others. Juxtaposed to the second-hander is Howard Roark. Never adulterating his own opinion, Roark remains an originator, a first-hander. Between these two extremes, lies a middle ground where people are a mixture of both. Gail Wynand, a newspaper magnate, believes he controls the public because of his power and wealth. But in the end, he realizes that it is they that control him. A man who controls others through the acquisition of souls, Ellsworth Toohey is a first-hander who promotes second-handedness. Through these characters, the novel is an allegory of real-world people. There are selfish individualists and then there are devout followers of altruism. Whatever it may be, all people exist on a continuum between Roark and Keating. Peter Keating lives his life through others. When Keating is first introduced, he is valedictorian at his graduation looking for a former competitor to reaffirm his triumph over a rival. Keating cares only for defeating someone else. He does not care for himself. Keating has no passion, no driving force to make decisions for himself. His mother decides he will accept the offer from the Francon firm. The lack of an individual self manifests itself also in his pliable code of ethics. On the job, Keating repeatedly uses sycophancy and other such ruses to woo Francon and to propel himself to a higher position within the firm. He caters to their vices and lets their tastes dictate his life. Keating's pretentiousness cannot hide his incompetence in designing buildings. Second-handers need the help of others to achieve success. Peter Keating needs Howard Roark do his drawings for buildings through his career. Keating needs journalists like Dominique Francon and Ellsworth Toohey to give him a good name. Peter needs his fellow men for their respect and competency. By the end of the novel, Peter Keating realizes that he has tried to live his life through others. But it is too late; Peter has already compromised his life so that it is more acceptable to the general public.
The second-hander represents the foil to the individualist. The individualist relies on no one. Howard Roark embodies the soul of the individualist or first hander. Growing up, Roark had no family and thus worked on building projects to support himself through school. After being expelled from the Stanton Institute of Technology for designing free-thinking houses, Roark is called into the Dean's office. The Dean offers him a second chance to return to the school and begin anew. Roark refuses; he asserts that he has learned all that he has needed from the school. With this tone set, Roark's resolve will be tested. When asked by his mentor, Henry Cameron, to develop projects more suitable to popular tastes, Roark responds with a decisive answer that he would rather starve. His uncompromising attitude toward catering to tastes prevents him from attaining numerous commissions. But the few that Roark does receive are from individual men who admire his audacity. Throughout the novel, Roark is static, never compromising his morals.
While Keating is naïve and easy to manipulate and Roark is obstinate and maverick, there is a middle ground. The self made man, the American businessman, closely resembles Gail Wynand. As a youngster, he was always told by superiors, "You don't run things around here." He rises to this challenge and through individual effort; Wynand builds a vast newspaper chain that sways popular opinion. However, Wynand rarely agrees or qualifies the opinions presented in his paper. In fact, he privately despises them. He compromises his beliefs in order to attain greatness. When Wynand marries Dominique, he adamantly pursues a hard policy of banning his wife from being mentioned in the papers. He creates a barrier separating his personal life from his public life. His love for his work is tested morally when Roark is put on trial for dynamiting Cortlandt. On one hand, he can give up his newspaper and power in order to try and sway public opinion for Roark. The alternative is to let his passion sit idle while he sees his paper denouncing his friend. He fails to realize it is the people whom he holds power over that ultimately control him. When he finally does understand his mistake, he decides to compromise his morals to maintain his newspaper and reputation. Wynand is a creative man capable of capturing the unattainable, but in the process he sacrifices his morals to reach his goals. In that sense, they have lost their place among the respected in society. Wynand is not a true uncompromising first-hander, yet he is not a leeching second-hander. These people may attain greatness but at a hefty price.
The Fountainhead illustrates an allegory of characters that symbolize types of men. In the novel, there are true first-handers and second-handers. The few extremists like Keating and Roark represent only a minority of men. Wynands meet a tragic end And it is the Keatings that feed off Roarks to prevail. It is ultimately the individualistic spirit of Howard Roark that will rise above it all.
Rating:
Summary: None too subtle
Review: I loved this book and admired Ayn Rand's philosophy. As a novel, however, it is about as subtle as a jackhammer. Pulp philosophy, but unforgettable nonetheless.
Rating:
Summary: The pinnacle of objectivity in philosophy
Review: The depth and inner conflicts of rand's characters creates a fluidly readable and purposeful novel. The philos of the characters and the plot weaves into a intricate tapestry of chalenging interactions, between the ego of the architect and public opinion. A subtle contrast is also created between the depth and scale of domonique's persona ans the relative complex simplicity of howard roark. this book is an icon of publishing and has inspired many young architects and thinkers alike.
| 
