Fountainhead

Rating:
Summary: One Small Voice
Review: I know it is against everything Ayn Rand stands for by writing this review, but I will do it anyway. Her works were written solely for her own sense of achievement and for no other reason. Thus, the theme of her writings is finding the greater good in the man who can throw all opinions and criticisms of his actions aside and achieve only for himslef in a completely selfish manner.

This particular novel centers around the cultural arts, primarily architecture, and one man's struggle to break the mold of traditional designs. This man is Howard Roark. He is Rand's ideal man. He designs and builds only for his own ego and the satisfaction of having done it himself.

But, the novel was so much more than that. It outlines Rand's overall lack of respect for compassion and selflessness. She, as do I, beleives in a world where all mankind must make do for themselves. Man is to survive solely on his entrepreneurial insticts and his inner spirit. All the obstacles that are thrown in front of man on his way to achievement must be overcome only by strict resolve and determination, not by conforming.

I enjoyed this book. Yes, it was lengthy. Yes, it was difficult to stick with at times. I'd like to give no rating in honor of Ayn Rand and that it should not matter what I think, or write about the book, but since I have to, it's a Four Star.

I would recommend Atlas Shrugged in addition to those who enjoyed this book, or in favor of The Fountainhead as an intro to readers who have not yet been blessed with the writings of Rand.

Rating:
Summary: Quite Uninteresting and Rather Pedestrian
Review: Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead was a ridiculous farce that didn't spare the good sense of its readership. I found her use of similie quite boorish and plebian. The author is clearly of a mindset which dictates her outrageous behavoirs. She is a product of the sub-culture which nourished her desire for world domination. It is clear that this book is a cry for help to be removed the world in which she is forced to live by a domineering husband. Ayn Rand's style of prose is detestable at best. We're all less enlightened for having to read this unimaginative, unitelligable work. Tee-Hee, hee.

Rating:
Summary: Brilliant, very flawed work by brilliant, very flawed woman
Review: Funny how most of the reviews are either unqualified adulation from Rand worshipers or slams from Rand haters. IMO, "The Fountainhead" is neither a prophetic work of great genius nor a piece of evil tripe. It is a brilliant work, perhaps even with flashes of genius -- but as flawed as its author.

I think Rand had the potential to be a great novelist, which she largely ruined when she decided she was the world's greatest philosopher since Aristotle. Any dogma is the enemy of art. If you read Rand's three major novels -- "We the Living", "The Fountainhead", and "Atlas Shrugged" -- you can see her dogma becoming more and more rigid, and her characters less and less human. "The Fountainhead" is a novel you can still appreciate even if you don't agree with the philosophy (and I think the philosophy has some excellent points, just taken to an absurd extreme).

Unlike some reviewers here, I don't find Howard Roark to be completely inhuman. He does feel pain -- not only the pain of his own struggle but of his mentor Henry Cameron and his friend Steve Mallory, the sculptor. It's just that, as Rand says, the pain "only goes down to a certain point" because it can't touch the core of his independent soul. But consider this passage when Dominique tells Roark she has married Peter Keating: "It would have been easy, if she had seen a man distorting his mouth to bite off sound, closing his fists and twisting them in defense against himself. But it was not easy, because she did not see him doing this, yet knew that this was being done, without the relief of a physical gesture." Clearly this is a man who feels and suffers. He can feel sympathy as well: for Gail Wynand, even for Peter Keating.

At that stage, Rand herself was still capable of sympathy for less-than-perfect characters. Guy Francon, Dominique's father, is an opportunist -- but ultimately still more a good than a bad guy. His relationship with his daughter, sparsely depicted, is nonetheless very "real" and touching. Even Keating, the ultimate "second-hander" and in many ways a despicable man, is to some extent sympathetic and is shown as having some good in him. His failed romance with his true love, Katie, is very poignant -- and the scene near the end where he meets her years after dumping her, when she has "gotten over" him and lost her humanity, is truly heartbreaking. (Though her loss of humanity and selfhood is a little too complete.)

Gail Wynand is a fascinating, tragic character throughout -- and in a way, his relationship with Dominique is more interesting than the Howard/Dominique romance. The story of his childhood and his rise in the newspaper industry is absorbing and very well-written.

Some reviewers mention stilted dialogue. I don't agree. Yes, there are long passages where the characters preach/philosophize instead of talking, and become nothing but vehicles for Rand's ideas. But apart from that, the dialogue is mostly dynamic, crisp, and quite believable (e.g. the first meeting between Wynand and Dominique).

Rand also has a terrific descriptive style. Take this passage describing the aftermath of rain: "The pavements glistened, there were dark blotches on the walls of buildings, and since it did not come from the sky, it looked as if the city were bathed in cold sweat. The air was heavy with untimely darkness, disquieting like premature old age, and there were yellow puddles of light in the windows."

And there are wonderful, memorable lines; one of my favorites is, "All love is exception-making."

Now the flaws. The character of Dominique, particularly in the first half of the book, is not very plausible. I don't "get" her masochism, the wallowing in her degradation at Roark's hands in their first encounter. (And yes, it was definitely rape -- Dominique herself repeatedly describes it as such.) Her motives for trying to destroy Roark's career when she has already realized she loves him never feel "real," no matter how Rand tries to rationalize them. I enjoy twisted love-hate relationships as much as the next gal (one of my favorite books is "Wuthering Heights") but this is twisted beyond plausibility. (Dominique becomes much more believable in the second half of the book, though; the scene where she finally comes back to Roark is great.)

Ellsworth Toohey with his grandiose plans for world power is even more implausible. And the idea that the dumbing down of culture is some sort of deliberate plot to pass off mediocre works as great ones in order to debase cultural standards ... puh-leeze.

Rand has an annoying tendency to restate every idea a dozen times and hammer the reader over the head with it. Eventually you just want to shout, "All right, Ayn -- I got the point!"

As for the philosophy -- yes, the occasional super-individualist like Howard Roark is great. A lot of great geniuses, including apparently Leonardo da Vinci, didn't have the "people" gene. But if everyone behaved like that ... I'm not sure it would be such a great world to live in. No matter how much Rand might pretend otherwise, her worship of the great man does have a flip side of contempt for the mass of humanity. See Wynand's comment to Dominique, "One can't love man without hating most of the creatures who pretend to bear his name." That's scary. So is Rand's palpable disgust for the imperfections of unheroic human (and particularly female) flesh.

A readable, thought-provoking book, but hardly a guide to life. Read it -- but with a critical mind.

Rating:
Summary: Exemplifies the reason for reading any piece of literature
Review: I feel the purpose of reading is to be challenged: ideologically, philosophically, politically, etc. Either those challenges will cause one to rethink one's beliefs or strengthen one's existing convictions. Either of these outcomes will produce, I believe, a better person - a thinker who is willing to encounter more than one argument, one side to any issue, and still retain opinions of one's own.

I would also like to counter some of the comments that the book is simply a thinly veiled treatise on Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. If anyone read the introduction written by Rand she answers a fundamental question:

"Was The Fountainhead written for the purpose of presenting my philosophy? ... This is the motive and purpose of my writing; the projection of the ideal man ... My purpose, first cause and prime motive is the portrayal of Howard Roark as an end in himself."

What I understood from Rand's statement is that her ultimate goal is to present her characters - showing, through their actions and inactions, attitudes and convictions - and the good and bad points of their diverse perspectives on life. In interpreting the book, I feel one should focus on how one perceives the characters, not on what the afterward by Leonard Peikoff or any other outside source espouses.

Form your own opinion of the philosophical ideas expressed in the book - do not rely on Piekoff's interpretation or the interpretation of this review or others. Read the book and analyze the characters on your own - pull from them what grabs at you - what relates to any of your life experiences. To me, that is the most effective way to think and read. Think critically and scrutinize closely and you will not fail to learn from most every part of life.

This is how I approached the novel and I was not disappointed.

Rating:
Summary: society and I
Review: The Fountainhead is no simple book; it discusses society in some of the deepest and most unique ways I have ever read. What starts out as an eloquent yet simple tale about Howard Roark the striving architect becomes a struggle to maintain man's individualism. The true hero of this novel is egotism, while selflessness, as surprising as it might seem, is the evil. This is easily one of the greatest, most profound, books I have ever read. By the end of this book you will be thinking really deeply about your personal ideals and societies. Sure, it is not short but it is definitely worth the length!

Rating:
Summary: A Timeless Classic
Review: This is undoubtedly the place to begin with Ayn Rand. The Fountainhead is a true testament to the human spirit and the sublimity of human reason. I made the error of reading Atlas Shrugged first - don't do that. The Fountainhead grabs one from the beginning and Rand's style never lets you go. I can see how another reviewer was somewhat bored with Rand's (via her characters) sermons, however the wisdom professed is worth the lecture. Although some view Rand's philosophy as sometimes outdated, I have to disagree. Although Rand was writing during the Cold War and against the evil empire U.S.S.R., the world is yet full of similar sentiment to give relevance to her works. There are no flaws to the work, in my opinion. Approach this piece with intellectual honesty and respect for Rand's background, ability, passion, and intellect - you won't be disappointed. A timeless classic.

Rating:
Summary: Caveat Emptor
Review: Wow. Where to start with a book of this size, scope, and complexity?

Well, first, Ayn Rand is not a goddess. The sheer number of quasi-disciples ranting on this website (and others) about how she changed their lives are not only frightening, they're missing the point. Of course, their blind adherence to her philosophy will allow them to brand me a "second-hander" or something of the sort and write off my comments as frightened or jealous. Go Googling for "Ayn Rand cult" sometime, and you'll see just how far the tentacles of this beast can stretch.

With that said, this is actually a very enjoyable book. Not often can I find myself pulled ahead from page to page by the writing style of a Harlequin Romance series novelist, while simultaneously being forced to pause and ponder some of the complex motivations of her characters or the ideas they (sometimes unconvincingly) exchanged during lengthy monologues. Rand has some very original ideas (or at least cobbles together an original synthesis of these ideas from other philosophies/ers). Her ideas on individuality, while carried here to an extreme, could stand to be applied in moderation to a culture that seems to now be run by masses of simpering Keatings who refuse to accept responsibility.

The character of Gail Wynand is, to me, the most interesting in the whole book. Though all of the characters, at various times, make decisions that seem strange based on complex motives dealing with unusual ideas of pleasure, pain, and need, Wynand does this almost constantly. He grants the people power over him by convincing himself he owns them; he befriends Roark, tries to save him, and then abandons him after Roark saves himself; the list goes on and on. Despite the woodenness and archetypicality of most of the other characters, in Wynand Rand managed to create someone genuine and believable.

And for those claiming that Roark rapes Dominique, to my recollection she does not fight back. That would make it rape. Sex can be violent, and often is, without the actual act of rape taking place. Considering how messed-up Dominique's ideas of power and pleasure are, she might just be a textbook masochist, in which case causing her sexual pain would be the highest pleasure Howard could give her.

Now for the caveats:
First, this novel displays an astounding naivete about human nature and socioeconomic theory. Especially in the wake of corporate accountability scandals, is there anyone left who actually believes that the Roarks of the world will triumph over those who are willing to sleaze around and take whatever they can whenever they can from whomever they can? The current climate in America is a strange one: Tooheys abound, but they are in Roarkian positions in society. Rand's assumptions about the nature of power and of the masses have proven not to be quite as accurate as they first seem.

I would also recommend finding out a bit about Rand's life before either slamming or idolizing this book, or any of her others. For instance, knowing that her family's store was taken over by the state in Russia, forcing her family into poverty when she was still a child, can help put into perspective her near-hysterical insistence that collectivism can never work, EVER, IN ANY FORM!!!(etc...). And knowing a bit about her circle of devotees and their practices, such as a modified process of expulsion and banishment for members that Rand disagreed with, can show what the world would be like populated with megalomaniacs like Roark, or Rand herself.

Overall, this is a very thought-provoking, enjoyable read, to be read by anyone frustrated with the vapidity and self-conscious posturing of most modern novels. Just don't get sucked one way or the other by the raging controversies and you'll come out of it enriched and (possibly) more understanding of the mindset of anyone you know who may seem to behave like Roark at times.

And to those who whine that Roark's ending speech is too long, pick up Atlas Shrugged. If memory serves, John Galt's ending speech is at least four times as long.

Rating:
Summary: A Bible
Review: also the Koran, the New Testament and the Bhagavad Gita in one book

Rating:
Summary: Good Novel with a Fatal Flaw
Review: It makes no sense to attempt to separate the story of The Fountainhead from it's philosophy, because they are one in the same. I read the first page of this book while bored at a yard sale, and was immediately hooked. Rand's character introductions are excellent, and immediately give picture to the character. This is especially important because for the most part, her characters each represent a personality type consistent with a particular aspect of her philosopy.

What I believe unique about this book is the singular challenge Rand had in crafting a novel that can stand on it's own as a story (it can), while each page advances the specific set of philosophical, political and economic positions that are the true reason the book was written. I imagine that other writers have sat down to write "the novel" deep within them, with major philosophical themes providing dramatic tension. Other writers, wanting to advance their own complex philosophy, would simply write a non-fiction book presenting themselves as gurus of this "new" way of thinking (whole sections of bookstores are full of such books). Rand's courage to attempt to write a great novel that is in fact a primer for Objectivism, and her skill in doing so is what makes The Fountainhead the achievement it is.

Now, why only three stars? A couple of reasons. First, although her story arcs are superior, her paragraph by paragraph writing is often heavy handed, and beats her points to death. Secondly, the length and scope of some of the philosophical speeches given by her characters, particularly in the last quarter of the book, are simply not believable. Employing other writing techniques could have achieved this more believably. It's as if Rand hasn't trusted her own characters to carry the point she put them in the book to illustrate. The speeches do however, make their points crystal clear, especially Toohey's speech about collectivism. It's just that you don't believe Toohey would have made that speech, to that person, in that setting.

I said at the beginning that it makes no sense to separate the story from the philosophy, and though I know I am now criticizing the philosophy and not the writing, here goes. If I read this correctly, Rand's "ideal man" is entirely self focused, does nothing he doesn't want to do regardless of anyone else's need, does everything he wants to do regardless of how it might effect others, places himself above the rule of law, commits several felonies, watches virtually everyone around him self destruct and leaves the novel entirely self satisfied. Rand calls this the "ideal man". Others might read the same book and identify Roark as a sociopath, just a very talented one who also possesses many admirable qualities. By the way, on a factual point, the idea of Roark being acquitted after admitting the deed in open court is ludicrous.
Wasn't it Shakespeare who told us "To thine own self be true"? The notion of being your own man, and standing on principle is as old as philosophy itself, but Rand has given it entirely fresh treatment and perspective.

One last note- my wife was reading "Atlas Shrugged" at the same time I was reading "The Fountainhead". It took until I was nearly finished to notice that there are no children in the book. None of the main characters are raising the next generation of ideal men. I asked my wife about "Atlas Shrugged", and she said the same. I wonder if this isn't the fatal flaw of Objectivism- can you be true to Objectivism and be a good parent? Or raise a family? Or preserve a marriage where "the two shall become one"? Her two major novels show that her characters can't, and a glimpse around you might show that the "me" generation isn't doing such a good job either.

Rating:
Summary: Amazing.
Review: I just finished this book yesterday, but I didn't want it to end.

I've also read _Atlas Shrugged_ and was amazed by Miss Rand's ability to spin a tale. The characters are ficticious, but you feel as if they live next door. You laugh with them, cry with them, get angry when they make silly decisions.

Say what you want about Miss Rand's Objectivist theories, this story provokes the reader to think about questions that go relatively unasked in this society. Why do we feel the need to hold others back to make ourselves look better? Why do we have empty feelings of accomplishment? Why aren't we happy?

To push yourself emotionally, intellectually, to understand the drive of mankind, one should read this book. If you just want a great story, READ THIS BOOK!