Rating: 
Summary: What exactly do we consider deep??
Review: The "To be Fairs"
- I was unable to bring myself to actually finish this book.
- I don't know anything about architecture.
- I don't know much about the general attitudes towards non-conformity at the time the book was written, as I was not yet born. That much said, I found this book to be dreadful. I feel that I can generally overlook my personal feelings on a given "philosopy" and appreciate the depth of thought that another person has put into his/her ideals. I simply found Ms. Rand to have a sophmoric lack of depth.
The template Rand used to exemplify her philosophy was architecture. I found it insulting that Rand expects her readers to accept classical architecture as inherently evil simply because it is aestheticly pleasing to most people (popular). "What's popular is not always right", but this is a bit extreme. I realize architecture is not the beginning and end of Rand's Objectivism; I think only that she could have used a basis for argument that is (ouch) a bit MORE controversial (after all, her philosophy is controversial in the extreme- why not go for the gusto??). The main character, Roark is repugnantly unlikeable (I won't hash into this subject as it has been well addressed in other reviews). Which makes the book difficult to read. Those who are obstinant for the sake of obstinance alone (teenagers mostly) may identify more with Roark and find this book to be "profound". Well good for them, everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion ( : )Tee hee).
My advice is this: If you want to read philosophy on individualism through thought and self-discovery, read Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse. If you want to know what self-serving behavior REALLY is (objectively) read The Moral Animal: Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Life by Robert Wright, you may be surprised.
Rating: 
Summary: An Unsuccessful Attempt to Brainwash Me into an Objectivist
Review: I read "The Fountainhead" on a friend's recommendation and was thoroughly disappointed. I found that it read like a textbook--a textbook that could have had its point across in 100 pages rather than 700. The characters in this "novel" are completely unbelievable. They speak only in philosophical terms, not like any human being I've ever heard, and have unbelievable or nonexistant motivations for their ridiculous actions. Towards the end of the book, Rand takes one last attempt to cram her philosphy down your throat (although it already has been attempted PLENTY of times) and the characters dictate their philosophy in pages and pages of unnecessary repetion. Perhaps if Rand had been a bit more subtle in her attempts to preach objectivism, she would have been more successful. I gave the book two stars rather than one simply because I managed to finish the book and I suppose that's saying something for it. I did enjoy the two or three pages of action and I think I laughed once. Rand is said to have been influenced by Victor Hugo however everything in her book goes against his subtle philosophy of self-sacrifice and love. She didn't fail completely however-she did manage to make me one of "Les Miserables."
Rating:
Summary: Philosophical overtones lack badly-needed subtlety
Review: Ayn Rand is very good at situational descriptions and setting. In this book, the overbearing/awe-inspiring effect Dominique has on the people around her is carried off very well throughout the book, as are the portrayals of Howard Roark, particuarly in the opening scene where he stands on a cliff and surveys the land around him.
As a whole, though, The Fountainhead really falls short. Yes, yes...it has an Important Philosophical Message to get across, which it does (many times) utterly without the grace that, say, Sartre's writings are capable of. Ayn Rand is quoted as having said that she always puts the story before the Message in her fiction, but she's mistaken, at least in this case.
This book is a good example of a novel whose ambition exceeds its content. Fundamentally, the reader is being told that he/she ought to feel no sense of responsibility to anyone or anything other than his/herself, or, rather, his/her creative urges. This is a little bit contradictory to Rand's other notion that the only worthwhile enterprise of the individual is create in a manner beneficial to other people (doesn't that sound a bit like her much-demonized altruism?), but I'll leave that alone here. It really doesn't take all the proselytizing that goes on in The Fountainhead to get its message across. It tries to be epic, but there just isn't all that much there.
And we aren't met with characters; we are met with Ideals. The walking, talking beings in this book fail to be interesting because they are impossible as real humans. This would be okay if the book were much shorter, but after the first several hundred pages it wears thin. And then the illusion breaks down further when two of the characters break into a thinly-veiled Socratic dialogue, for the purpose of expositing even more of the same thing all over again, as if the Message weren't already explicit enough.
Not that I would mind too much reading straight philosophy. The Fountainhead, though, should have been one or the other, philosophy or novel. The two elements' competing only serves to annoy. Ayn Rand just couldn't pull off, conceptually, the whole "ideas with legs" thing.
Rating: 
Summary: ayn rand is right
Review: This is a glorious book. It should provide a beacon of hope and inspiration to anyone who has struggled to stay true to their own vison. I recommend it to anyone who works in a creative field, after reading this you will realize that you are NOT crazy or alone in your vocation and its consequences. Beautifully written, with characters and scenery that are 3 dimensional and alive, the story rings clear like a church bell, even when re-visited over and over again. You will recognize these characters in the world around you, and so the Fountainhead will become more vivid and relevant. Objectivism fails to answer some of life's questions to the same degree as any other philosophy, but its emphasis on independence, courage, hard work, creativity, truth, and the respect for the effort to live such ideas is important. Likewise Rand paints in believable colors the opposition to a person such as Howard Roark, and such opposition is alive and real. I have met a variety of Second-Handers, thankfully none so adept as Ellsworth Toohey.
Rating:
Summary: Very Interesting Characters
Review: Many people constantly compromise their most precious gifts in life in order to satisfy the wishes of the majority. In this story Rand reminds us that the only way one can come to greatness is if they first fight the masses. In order for something to be great, it must have at least a grain of originality. Forget the objective philosophy and see this book for what it is, a great story which recognizes the need for humanity to stand up for their beliefs and for their gifts. Many of Rand's philosophies are incorporated through this theme, but there are major flaws in my opinion with the belief that all greatness comes from pure egotists. No one is a pure egotist and no one is a pure altruist. Pure and simple, this is a great story that uses paradoxical characters who are so simple but appear very complex. It's definitely worth reading.
Rating: 
Summary: ultimately overrated
Review: I have never quite understood Americans' obsession with Ayn Rand. I read Atlas Shrugged about 25 years ago and found it to be an overwritten bore. Some interesting points, but certainly not worth the effort of 1100 plus pages to pour through it all. Admittedly, the Fountainhead reads far better than Atlas, but it still suffers the typical Rand oversimplification plague: Her contention about the evils of collectivism is so wrought with emotion, that her dialog ends up being incredibly superficial. When the Stanton Dean contends that "everything worth doing has already been done" it just doesn't ring true. What 20th century person of ANY intelligence would ever say that phrase with a straight face? Collectivism or not, I have never met anyone who believes that, in or out of the education ranks. The art of good writing is to show strong aspects of both sides of the debate. Ayn Rand is so fervently on one side, she actually derails her entire argument. Roark and Keating are nothing but bad caricatures, rather than flesh and blood characters. There's no depth to Rand's ideas. Even her introduction to the 25th edition (1968) has a lot sour grapes dripping all over it, although for what reason I am not so sure. I guess the 1960's were probably a bummer for Rand. The hippie generation's central theme was everyone getting together (hence, a form of collectivism, ouch, Ayn!). Had Ayn Rand lived into this century, she probably would have been ecstatic with FOX NEWS and Rush Limbaugh (or Sean Hannity, for that matter) could have been her real life Howard Roark(s) model.
Rating:
Summary: Passionate objectivism
Review: An unquestionably eloquent writer/philosopher who believes she can champion "Objectivism and Reason" notwithstanding her "passionate convictions." By definition this combination is inherently oxymoronic. I can't help but view Rand as a child who as bright as they may be, constantly proclaims that they can give you the answers to the universe while standing on one foot. The problem is that once you lose respect for an author, it is hard to do anything but notice their flaws. I did find it interesting that in the Fountainhead, the emphasis on the morality of wealthy individuals is entirely removed, replaced by a starving artist's commitment to his work (Which he somehow believes as being an absolute truth??!!) Likely at this stage in her career, Rand wasn't rich enough to advocate the morality of money. My stomach turned fewer times while reading this. I still find her notions on sexuality anything but ideological. Her lack of empathy and cooperation with other ideas is very infuriating and I can't understand how such a personality can claim to be objective? The trial at the end is hogwash where she tries to, and does, cloud the issue. I'd like to see a real judge let off Roark due to "artistic merits." And finally: I love porticos and Grecian pillars!!!
Rating:
Summary: The Brilliance of Thought
Review: The first thing I must say about the Fountainhead is I found it utterly brilliant. That said, I must tell future readers that it is one of the densest books I have ever read. This is a good thing though, and anyone who likes to think should read this book (I hope those of you looking to buy this book can actually think for yourself). The secret to the success of the Fountainhead is that it shows Howard Roark not as perfect, but as ideal in not being perfect. He is ultimately stubborn, unemotional, but driven by the desire to create, the desire to achieve greatness for the sake of its own creation, not for the artificial enjoyment of others. The Fountainhead is about the extremes of society. Everyone can picture a man like Ellsworth Toohey, but few have actually seen one. Howard Roark is a character that no one will comprehend, because his greatest strength is that he does not feel the need to make himself understandable. He is what he stands for, and that is all. Ayn Rand uses this book to champion the individual, to show that it is not the follower who achieves true success, but the creator who refuses to compromise his ideals. He expects nothing from anyone, but still works because his work is important to him. Ultimately, Ayn Rand is an extremist whose ideas are very controversial simply for that reason. She does not see the other side, and believes that her ideas are correct, and that the other side is ultimately wrong because of it. What you must understand with this book is that its extreme point of view leads to its power, but that you have to make sure and realize what it is that she is saying. It is something that no person can accomplish, and that is why Howard Roark is a model for mankind. No one can be Howard Roark, but we can encompass bits of his philosophy into ours. This book will confuse you, torture you, but ultimately leave you feeling fulfilled and full of ideas. That is all you can ask from it.
Rating:
Summary: I am overawed by the brilliance of this book
Review: All I can say is that this book is unbelievable. I was unable to put it down, even though it is extremely dense. I don't know what else I can say, other than that you should give your mind a treat by exercising its synapses.
Rating: 
Summary: starting point
Review: I enjoyed and related well to this novel.It's core is meant to shake up the existing conditions of a set society and bring about change. We can apply this more fictionalized world to our own, and Rand employs a lenghty technique to achieve just that. Ultimatley you have to decide for yourself whether you hate or love this novel(there is little margin to qualify),and that I believe is the sign of a great piece of work, either way it will evoke something in you, controversial or not.I recommend it to those who enjoy a little philosophy in their sex and politics.
| 
