Fountainhead

Rating:
Summary: On why architecture is philosophical.
Review: This book is about being truthful to one-self. It is wrong to say that this book is not about architecture. First, the architecture of New York and the northern US East-Coast in the 1920s and 1930s is the offspring of capitalism and individualism. Ayn Rand's was born in St. Petersburg Russia and lived through the first years of the Communist Regime, which she detested. She moved to the United States where she developed a theory praising man and what it can do. That is why the characters in this book are so fond of New York - the huge skycrapes are NOT TO MAKE MAN FEEL SMALL, BUT TO ELEVATE HIM THROUGH WHAT HE CAN ACCOMPLISH.

On the other hand, you will understand the superficiality of renaissance, baroque, classic and neo-classic architecture used in the early 1920s and 1930s. This architecture is merely decorative. Howard Roark comes to tear all this apart with a concept of unity and "objectivism" largely criticized but admired by those who do not live with the flow like the passive-agressive Peter Keating who you will probably despise at the end of the novel. It makes me feel like when I finished The Catcher in The Rye.

Other themes include love, sex, jingoism and sensationalism, art, society and socialism. That is why this book is so rich. All this is set with very en-vogue New York as backdrop. I highly recommend this book for prospective and practicing architects and to anyone who appreciates anti-heroes.

Rating:
Summary: Taking one's self too seriously
Review: The successful philosophical or political novel is a rarity. Of the former, Sartre's "Nausea" is a modern masterpiece. Of the latter, I would nominate Zola's "Germinal" and Steinbeck's "In Dubious Battle" as leading contenders. Of course, "War and Peace" and "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" present philosophical ideas, but neither is a novel in the traditional sense. The secret of success in these endeavors is to to present the ideas through the media of sympathetic characters and a compelling narrative. "No sense in useless tub-thumping," said Zola. Ayn Rand should have heeded that advice. Her characters are mere types, employed repeatedly (and I mean repeatedly) as mouthpieces for specific points of view.

There are three telling omissions in "The Fountainhead": the first is that, although this is an epic tale, covering several decades in the lives of many characters, there are no babies born, no children reared. I'm afraid a philosophy of selfishness has to go the way of dirty diapers when Baby arrives. The second omission is humor. There are no laughs here. Egoism is a serious business. The third omission, perhaps arising from the first two, is emotional warmth. Ironically, Rand's essentially Humanist (that is, atheistic and anthropocentric) view lacks humanity. Her heroine can only achieve sexual fulfilment through being forcibly raped, her hero's heart and soul are centered on bricks and mortar. This novel will oblige you to think, but will not move you to laugh or cry.

"The Fountainhead" is well written and thought provoking, but in addition to the points I mentioned above, I was left wondering what the problems were supposed to be in relation to the architecture of the time. This was the age of Art Deco and of Frank Lloyd Wright, surely a golden age in American architecture. And is the era of the the Wall Street Crash, the Great Depression and Roosevelt's New Deal really the best advertisement for laissez faire economics?

Rating:
Summary: You Can't Touch Howard
Review: This was my first Ayn Rand book to read, a easy, understandable read because its in the form of a fictional novel. The main reason I like this book and felt angry sometimes is because Howard(the main character) gets [bothered] alot but he doesn't care, he is too pure. I was getting mad at him for not getting upset. It was fairly easy to understand Ayn Rands philosophies on life because they were portrayed through the characters. I think if you read this book you will be surprised at how it will affect the way you feel about yourself and your ego.

Rating:
Summary: The Sacred Contract
Review: Although the heroic architect of "The Fountainhead" is very loosely modeled on Frank Lloyd Wright, the novel is not really about architecture at all. The story really centers on a man who knows what he wants to do and intends to work only on his own terms.

Howard Roark bucks architectural norms to create his own designs where form follows function. While it sounds like an auto commercial today, the notion was more revolutionary when the story was written in the forties.

True to Randian form, the pack instincts of Roark's peers take over as they vow to take him down. His originality and, more importantly, his refusal to act on any terms other than his own infuriate those around him. Also true to form, our superhuman protagonist has a superhuman mate equally dedicated to pure excellence and pure ego.

Both "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" make for great reading aside from Rand's tendency to engage in speechmaking. She never trusts the reader to draw the appropriate lessons from the story and therefore sets up melodramatic, scripted speeches of heroic length to drive her points home. Nevertheless, the books are interesting, with powerful plots, and mark a potent answer to the drive toward collectivization of the twentieth century.

Rating:
Summary: Kanishka Sinha from India.. your mind is like silver in mine
Review: Kanishka Sinha from India, once again, bless you. In my opinion, people who enjoy Rand's philosophy too much have not been philosophical in their own thoughts. If one were to develop one's own philosophy, based on my experience, he would find that there are numerous questions to raise concerning Rand's philosophical development. Since it has been a while since I refuted her philosophy, I will not bring up any points here, but I strongly recommend Kanishka Sinha from India's review. Read critically.

I will leave this, however. Rand is not totally wrong, but her philosophy assumes a certain nature of humanity, and of the cosmos. In her assumption, she falls into a pitfall, through it, and into another. And in that her philosophy remains. Good job Kanishka Sinha from India .

I give it a five because Kanishka Sinha from India did. I've not yet read it, but plan to after AP tests.

Rating:
Summary: beautiful!
Review: i wont try to imitate Ayn Rands writing. just read the book and see for yourself.

Rating:
Summary: Must read book but I don't agree with any of it
Review: I read this book because all my friends said I should. "I'm surprised you of all people haven't" they said. And driven partly by my need to live up to their expectations I read the book. Howard Roark, the hero of the book, would never have cared which book his friends thought he should read. But then again I don't want to be like him.

Roark doesn't care what anybody thinks about what he designs. As long as he thinks it's beautiful (and he does), he's happy. I don't think Roark is great. Carefree maybe. Not great. Deluded maybe. Not great. Hitler too had a vision that he thought was beautiful. He was single minded in his determination to make his vision a reality. He didn't really care what the vast majority of the world thought about his views.

Both Hitler and Roark are like bow lakes that had become separated from the meandering river of humanity of which they should have been a part. They failed to understand how interconnected all people are with each other. Humans are like cells in a body. The blood cell, the liver cell, the lung cell - all need and support each other. There is a vulnerability to being dependent on others. Being dependent on others requires a courage far greater than being independent. Only the basest of all organisms live in isolation. The advanced organisms have learned that there is a beauty to interdependence that can never be achieved by a solitary creature. True greatness results not from building ugly sky scrapers but in ensuring that harmony, peace and happiness of humanity is increased.

I don't think much of Roark's architecture either. If he thinks that buildings should only have utility and therein lies their beauty then surely everything he would have built would have been just a box, with a slanting roof perhaps so that snow and rain didn't accumulate and cause damp. How can he say that buildings should only consider the needs of its occupants and not their personalities. If you don't understand your client's personality how can you understand his or her needs? He dismisses aesthetic beauty that exists for beauty's sake. But there are some things that just naturally appear nicer than others to our human senses and why should we deny that this exists. The smell of a rose elicits a certain instinctive reaction from us as does the sight of a maggot infested corpse. These are not societally instilled responses that we should scorn and ignore. These are natural instincts that reside deep within us. To dismiss the fact that the smooth gracious curves of the Primic, Ionian or Doric eras are pleasing to the eye and to dismiss the fact that sharp angles and utilitarian structures are jarring to most people seems to be poor understanding of architecture.

I don't think the characters in the book are believable. Nor are their motives. Nor are their dialogues. Nor are the events that unfold.

I think that Ayn Rand is unsubtle about her points. I don't think she handles individualism vs collectivism in a balanced way. I think that Ayn Rand believes that she is the greatest living philosopher in the world and that nobody who disagrees with her is really worth listening to. A lot like Howard Roark actually. I also don't think she knows anything about architecture at all. It's quite clear she hasn't done any in depth study of the subject at all - another sign of her arrogance.

However having said all that I'm glad I read it. It's one of the greatest books of all time because of the effect it has had on so many people and it certainly makes you think about whether you agree with some of her views. There's a lot to think about in terms of integrity to yourself and what you believe is right.

I think everyone should read this book. But critically. The answers are rarely as black and white as this book makes them out to be.

Rating:
Summary: vgh
Review: Great book. Good read. Strong ideals. Rand writes with authority and conviction. Objectivism seems to be perfection to an atheist. I am not an atheist so I dissagree somewhat with her ideology but still highly recommend the book. (It's the only book I've read twice.)

Rating:
Summary: Literature At Its Best
Review: This book is Ayn Rand's gift to the world, and to any person, young or old, who strives to live an individual and independent life free of the societal forces that want to crush the bold and spirited energy of the creative mind. This is the book that has changed so many lives, and it does so because it provides a vision of an uncorrupted life: a life based on love of living, and the joy in experiencing one's ability in the face of the corruption and conformity that are so much a part of modern life.

I first read this book when I was in Vietnam, and it was love at first sight. It gave words to all the adolescent dreams I aspired to, but had no ability to explain. More than anything, this is a book of liberation, a guide to living in a, many times, confusing and hard to understand world. Here, one gets a vision of the unfettered individual spirit soaring through life, so in love with his work and his vision of what he wants to create, that he is blind to the world of The Banner, the New York newspaper that caters to the lowest common denominator: the gossip; sexual fears and guilts of Mr. and Mrs. Jones; and the hatred of the free and the noble found amongst those whose lives have tumbled into oblivion.

If you are a timid conformist, worried about the crowd and what others may think about your behavior, this is not the book for you.

But if you are fresh of mind, curious about life, interested in going beyond the stagnant views of everyday life, then "The Fountainhead," is your book. It was written with you in mind, and probably is everything you are seeking for your journey here on earth.

Rating:
Summary: The philosophy is correct------and startlingly cool
Review: This is a great book----It shows that individual fredom and liberty is under an assault by socialism. This is an anti-socialist book and it speaks on the philosophical level-----the most scary to those who have bought communism/socialism. When individuals are free to reject the rules of others liberty is attained. When the group makes people conform it is bad. istory shows this. This book is about a architect who doesn't understand why thers are assuming that the conformity is normal/moral. He acts completely outside of the conformity of academia. Here si my cool list;
1 an academic is shown to be the bad guy---one fo the few books
2 There are powerful female characters and weak male characters, and heroic characters of both sexes
3 The media is shown as a bad guy----also one of few books showing this theme----and it is AWESOME
4 Liberty is the theme-----mental and moral be predominant---with the theme that if liberty/capitalism spread it could reverse the cancer of socialism
5 an anti-socialism book! what more can I say
6 Worth the price of admission and very well written
7 if it were were not an anti-socialist book that scared many socialists infesting america and europe it would be made into film many times over
8 The first chapter alone is worth the over price
9 I feel that thsi kind of art anti-socialist art-----has a huge market-----the market of the anti-socialist majority in america feb 24 2003 :) woodland hills CA