Fountainhead

Rating:
Summary: Classic Rand!
Review: I read this book along with Atlas Shrugged and found them both to be some of the most powerful reading I had ever experienced. Ms. Rand was a phenominal story-teller providing so many interesting characters overcoming impossible odds to show that individuality is preferrable to collectivism.

This book uses architecture as the basis. Anyone deviating from the accepted architectural styles is scorned even if their buildings will be environmentally smart and economical.

Even if one doesn't care for the politics there is so much fascinating detail on how all the beautiful old buildings in New York City were designed.

Rating:
Summary: STOWED AWAY
Review: There are too many people in the world for all of them to agree on one thing, on what's right or wrong, true or false, whether Objectivism, Ms. Rand's philosophy, is worthwhile. "The Fountainhead" is the only book of Ms. Rand's that I've read, and I've given it 5 stars because I liked it. I liked it because it has a positive message. It taught me to value myself more and to strive for ideals. There will be so many who will, with cynicism and skepticism, insidiously tear down those ideals. "The Fountainhead" has for me been a very personally empowering book. It remains my quiet inspiration, my stowed away gallon of fuel.

Rating:
Summary: Outdated and Disappointing !
Review: I am halfway through reading The Fountainhead and will probably stop reading it since I am so disappointed.

Given Rand's popularity, I was somehow expecting to step into an unexplored intellectual territory but I was mistaken. So far, The Fountainhead has been intellectually and philosophically unrewarding. The writing is not so bright either and I see no literary value in The Fountainhead.

Rating:
Summary: Controversy indicates greatness
Review: I can only laugh when I read the other reviews and see how angry this book makes people. However, you don't make waves by going with the flow. Yes, the book is controversial and that is what makes it worth reading. You will either hate it or love it but either way your time will have been well spent. As for me I thought it was the best ideology I have ever encountered, but don't take my word for it. Read it and find out for yourself.

Rating:
Summary: Unexpected Favorite
Review: After all that I had heard about this novel I was disposed to dislike it, expecting it to be full of thinly disguised political viewpoints. I am now so glad I had an open mind and was prepared to read it for myself before jumping to ill considered conclusions. The political perspective is presented, but in no way intrudes on the plot if you do not wish to involve yourself in it. The story is of the struggle of two young architects to achieve their differing ambitions, which does not sound on the face of it particularly gripping. However Rand through her excellent characterization and her depiction of the violence of Roark's struggle against convention and the contrast of the almost prostitutional nature of Keating's rise held me spellbound. Treachery, violence, rejection, manipulation and dominance are just some of the themes Rand explores though this fantastic novel. The politics behind the story, well I guess it's interesting if not compelling, but not nearly as interesting as the story.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting theories--but the writing could have been better
Review: I had a mixed reaction to the book. On the one hand, I find the Objectivist philosophy to be fascinating. I was especially drawn to Howard Roark's determination to live life on his own terms--to be himself. This is one of the hardest things to do in life, and yet one of the most valuable. I am reminded of the quote by a MacArthur Foundation "genius grant" winner who said that "your own karma badly lived is better than another person's karma lived well." Additionally, I like the resolute opposition to forms of collectivism, including fascism and socialism/communism that Rand made part of her work.

There are, of course, certain parts of the ideology with which I disagree. While I highly prize and value individualism, I sometimes got the feeling that Rand advocated the Balkanization of society--her individualism seemed that rampant to me. Additionally, I could never be an Objectivist, simply because I believe in the existence of God, and it is a belief that I have rationalized, and not just taken on faith. Perhaps I am just the latest person to accept the terms of Pascal's Wager, but in any event, my religious beliefs would conflict with Objectivism. I could never be Howard Roark--a man who was practically born without a religious brain center, according to Rand's own notes on the novel. Finally, I have some scorn for Objectivism's disdain for all things traditional and classical. I think it is fine if a Howard Roark wants to challenge tradition. But to entirely dismiss it altogether, as he does with architectural traditions and classical designs, is arrogant in the extreme. Tradition and the classics persevere not because they are sacred cows, but because they have survived centuries of trial and error. This is a fact Rand does not appear to appreciate.

I also could never be Roark because, quite frankly, he struck me as being the world's biggest jerk. He was flippant and dismissive of people who disagreed with him in the slightest, and since his was a decidedly minority opinion on life, his flippancy affected most people. I know that is how Rand drew the character, but I still found it off-putting. And then, of course, there is Roark's approach to romance, which . . . let's just say, is somewhat unorthodox. Rand was able to achieve the desired effect with other characters--I despised Toohey, was puzzled and dazzled by Dominique, saw Wynand as a tragic figure, and I think that Peter Keating is nothing short of pathetic. But Roark just struck me as an unlovable figure. And I don't understand how he suddenly achieves respect later on in the book, after being scorned at the beginning. No one really changes in their thinking about him. No one adopts his philosophy (at least not successfully). It is almost as if Rand has decided that Roark has done his penance, and should now achieve acclaim.

The other problem I had with the book is that Rand is a bad writer. At least in my view. I found her to have a tin ear for dialogue, and an even worse ear for inner monologue. Her characters struck me as being wooden and unreal. I would have given anything for some colloquialisms--which almost none of the characters seemed capable of. The dialogue and monologues appeared contrived, and made me roll my eyes several times. On a specific matter--and perhaps this is just the lawyer in me objecting (no double pun intended)--the courtroom scenes were entirely unrealistic, which annoyed me to no end. Also annoying was the fact that Rand appeared to set up two separate straw men--the Objectivist one, and the Collectivist one--and decided to knock one of them down. Her universally Manichean approach is something I don't agree with.

I suppose that the thing to bear in mind is that this is more a book about a philosophy than it is about a story. But I think that a philosophical work doesn't work when applied to a real life setting. I think that Rand's style of writing would apply more to a science fiction story, which is why I would be interested in reading "Anthem." I'm also more than willing to give "Atlas Shrugged" a chance as well, despite the fact that it is not science fiction. But I just think that this story had problems as a result of being applied to a real world setting.

All in all, I would recommend people to read "The Fountainhead," if they haven't already. But proceed with caution.

Rating:
Summary: neat, but be careful: functionalism to promote selfishness!
Review: [My original rating was low, and unfairly biased against the book as literature...because I feel the terminology used to explain the concepts is very powerful and subject to misinterpretation.]

Ayn Rand makes some points which may seem eye-opening to those who haven't challenged conventional definitions of beauty. For instance, she mentions how Greek/Roman Columns aren't intrinsically "pretty", they are artifacts of imperfect material science of the time. If they'd had steel--she argues--they would have built their buildings to more modern standards.

That's true, and one of many interesting truths she taps into. But from these simple observations she draws sweeping conclusions--that the ultimate seed of all human action is self-benefit, and thus maximizing your own benefits is the highest spiritual calling you can heed. Somehow, to Ayn, there's a "more perfect" ring to saying you don't burn down buildings because people would be hurt and "that would make me sad"...as opposed to saying you don't burn down buildings "because people would be hurt". Both are equally arbitrary philosophical foundations, and preferring one or the other is up to aesthetic choice. Hers just happens to have a greater appeal to egotistical mindsets.

This doesn't mean Ayn isn't *right* in her own mind, but it is probably best to look at this book as "an important part of a balanced philosophical diet". As with all powerful works of philosophy, what you must do is to take the proclamations and average them with those truths you find in other sources. Doing so helps you ensure that you are not too trapped in the terminology to listen to those who identify with other (similar) philosophies which evangelize absolute truth and goodness.

For instance, objectivists might be well served by becoming familiar with the vocabulary of Christianity; an idea they typically reject (and a set of terms I, myself, am reluctant to use). There is an undeniable similarity, however, that both frameworks establish the validity of a "mind's eye" that can grasp aesthetic beauty...and whose calling must not be compromised once it is found. There are many other such frameworks, all of which ask you to make the intuitive leap towards trusting your instincts; that faith is a large part of what has allowed people to create the great and lasting works we see manifest in our world.

Rating:
Summary: sophmoric
Review: this is comic book Nietzsche. If you like this, do yourself a favor and read the source of this tributary. That it is writ by an ex-patriot Russian she male should give pause to her(?) politics, and such an hyperbolic ad hominem attack is justified due to the juvenal nature of her corpus.
That this is still read should make any thinker pray for death or roused to kill. Gods! Stifle the bile climbing my throat!

Rating:
Summary: Important intro to objectivism
Review: Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead is an engrossing and challenging literary/philosophical book.

At one level, the novel is a simple story, following the life of Howard Roark, an architect with daring vision and uncompromising standards who battles psychologically (and occasionally physically) with the world around him. Roark dares to design buildings not for their aesthetic or functional purposes as defined by others, but rather for their prima facie, self-serving purposes--a goal which Roark (and Rand) believes is pure and perfect, for the human ego is the fountainhead of all progress. In opposition to Roark is seemingly the rest of the world--charlatan characters who merely imitate and debase the pure egotistical nature of man. Peter Keating and Ellsworth Toohey are the main antagonists, both of whom live parasitic, relativistic existences that run counter to Roark's objective philosophical purity.

At the second and more important level, The Fountainhead is an introduction to Rand's philosophy of objectivism, which exalts man's place in the universe and actively promotes egoism, capitalism and objective reality as its virtues. Rand's characters are caricatures, as Rand exaggerates her perspective to drive home her philosophical points.

Regardless of what one thinks about Rand's philosophy, The Fountainhead is an engrossing story that, despite its length, keeps the reader's attention throughout. Readers will really have to think throughout the novel and will be filled with many questions and doubts at the end of the book as Rand makes a forceful and often persuasive case against modern American society.

While I found Rand's philosophy to be a bit obnoxious and oversimplified, it did not get in the way of me enjoying this book. Unfortunately, much of the debate about this book has been clouded by people's philosophical and political leanings. The people who enjoy this book the most are those who go in with an open mind. Whether you conclude the book in total agreement or utter disgust with Rand's philosophy is moot--readers will be better off for having read this intellectually challenging book.

Rating:
Summary: Yes, it DID change my life, for better
Review: What can one say about a novel so extraordinary, so rich in "human" characteristics? Here I was, drifting through life, nearly lost as a twenty three year old. Aimless. Then I was introduced to Miss Rand's genius via The Fountainhead. I have read this novel 25 times, cover to cover, since being introduced to it in the late Seventies. I've never looked back. Young American's desperately need to be introduced to this artwork. It will save a lot of growing pains, let me tell you! Don't hesitate in purchasing, then reading, this book, for he who hesitates, is lost. However, this novel was written to assist anyone who chooses reading it, to find your "self." Indeed the most sacred possession we have.