Rating: 
Summary: Hmmm...
Review: I'm only thirteen, and in the eighth grade, so when the my reading teacher handed me this book, I wasn't exactly dying to read it. I mean, I'm a teenager! I didn't think I was supposed to read books that big. Anyway, to make her happy (and just to see if I really could finish it) I started. In the beginning, it was just "Yeah, yeah, he's an architect, no one like him, how can someone write 704 pages about this?", but after a while, I really like it. Howard Roark is a lot like many people out there that are amazing human beings who strive to keep their ideals, and not give in to society. Peter Keating, on the other hand, is willing to do anything, as long as it pleases the boss. When he discovers that he really has no idea what is style is, and that the only reason he's gotten a good reputation is by doing what he's told, it's up to Howard to save him. There were some parts where RAnd actually came out and directly gave her philosophical view, but that added to the plot, and actually assisted the character development of Roark, and explained a lot of Keating's mistakes. In the end, both mn are fighting for survival, and both are fighting their own demons, including each other, and they're going to half to claw their way out of the mess they've created one way or another.
Rating: 
Summary: Barbara Taylor Bradford on steroids, or better
Review: I suspect it took a certain amount of guts to write a book like this in the 1940s, with Hitler recently disposed of and the literary trend for kitchen sinks and bedpans just getting underway - a trend which is still very much with us, as the popularity of cute little writers like Kingsley Amis clearly demonstrates. The Fountainhead deals with large, roughly drawn, simpler-than-life characters - a visionary architect, his compromising colleague, a press baron, a woman who at one time or another marries all three of them, and a slimy newspaper pundit - all of them engaged in a battle which (Rand makes it very very obvious indeed) is nothing less than the war for Truth against Lies, for Freedom against Oppression, for the very Soul of Man against those Forces which would drag it down into the mire. Until the very end, when the architect starts spouting, for ten straight pages, the very same morals which have been pounded into us with exemplary force over the preceding seven hundred, it works remarkably well, thanks to Rand's vivid and mercifully unpretentious prose and her evident conviction. People have complained that the hero is inhuman, but that's precisely the point - heroes aren't supposed to have the petty failings of the rest of us, and until the nineteenth century they generally didn't. Howard Roark is an optimistic, present-day, "realist" revision of the old dragon-slaying Beowulf/Siegfried type; the casting of Gary Cooper in the equally interesting and equally bombastic film version was an inspiration. Where the book fails is in Rand's inability to find a plausible way for Roark to win through against the odds she has so convincingly shown to be stacked against him. She uses a deus ex machina in the form of a newspaper tycoon - imagine Rupert Murdoch throwing his weight behind Frank Lloyd Wright or Antonio Gaudi - and, later, that good old standby the Great American Jury. Laissez-faire capitalism, and the democracy Rand has so beautifully satirised and demolished in the person of columnist Ellsworth Toohey, join hands and become twin fairy godmothers magicking the hero to his wedding and a great career. It's a disappointingly cowardly ending to a largely well-written and uncompromisingly epic work that is also, and not least importantly, one hell of a page-turner.
Rating: 
Summary: Good, but...........
Review: Fountainhead gets its four stars because it is a great novel and because it effectively presents some wonderful ideas (individual ability and effort alone yields real achievement; integrity should never be compromised; selfishness, in a specific sense, is a virtue) through the romanticized super hero, Howard Roark. But wait a minute. There are a few things you must remember, before you bury your nose in the book. In her desire to present a complete view of life, Rand found it convenient to deny the existence of everything that did not measure up to her own tunnel vision. There is a danger in thinking that Rand's is an integrated philosophy. It is as integrated as laboratory experiments are, in which you ignore or nullify the effects of certain things. This is alright for experiments in simulated lab conditions, not in real life. Rand applies this inadequate approach to real world. Well, we can't expect any one system to provide answer for every thing, and the danger is in thinking that 'Yes! This is the way it is'. In Rand's writings you meet nice people who turn out to be weak in the knees, or have venom in their hearts, and rude ones, who turn out to be heroic. A combination you don't always come across in the real world. But conditioned to associate certain behaviour with certain others, you may find yourself barking at the wrong trees. Beware. Think for yourself. Perhaps this is the crux of Rand's philosophy. As in one of Rand's early plays, the hero admonishes a kid 'Don't let them steal your soul' (or mind or something to that effect). But generations of Rand's fans have been doing just that. Surrendering their ability to think to Rand. Leaning heavily on her writings rather than their own experience. Doling out Randspeak with an air of originality. Forming a cult, whose goddess is Rand. Just have a look at some of reviews in this section for examples. A proponent of rationality, Rand sways her readers not by reason, but by emotion. You may not realise it for the chains of such emotional appeals are too light to be felt, until they are too heavy to be broken. Nothing wrong in it. For any good literature appeals to the heart. But the problem is you may reel under a spell of emotion to deify rationality, or worse Rand herself. Rand's books have often been criticized, primarily because of destructive influence they have on those who take them too seriously. For you, however, there should be no problem as long as you don't suspend rationality.
Rating:
Summary: Marvolous insight into many different things
Review: Ayn Rand, much like she did in the novellete "Anthem", has said very much in very few words about many things. Other than the normal egotism and objectivism portrayed in her other works, the fountainead goes deeper into the realm of, at least I think, organized religion at its roots. More than that, but I think that Ellsworth, Keathing, Guy Francon and the majority represent the "church" of archietecture, and Howard Roark represents the new thinker, the "agnostic" in a sense. Remember, the Roman Catholic Church did not acknoledge that the geocentric view of the universe was correct until the 70s! Organized religion and groups as a whole will always be hate-filled about new ideas, they wish to maintain conformity. Ayn Rand says very much in this novel, and I dont see how anyone can see that this is bad writting, unless they just dont like Ayn Rand's philosophy.
Rating: 
Summary: So wrong in so many ways
Review: Ayn Rand is so wrong in so many ways -- and spreads her mistakes out over hundereds and hundereds of interminable pages. "The Fountainhead" could be unintentionally funny, a kind of trashy read, a giggle for people with a brain. In fact it's just dull, full of stooges for Rand's tenets haplessly disguised as characters. And, oh, she doesn't know the first thing about architecture, either.
Rating:
Summary: valley of skyscrapers
Review: I am a 30 year old architect. I read fountainhead for the juicy details of big time architecture. Rand wrote a story that is both bigger than life and true to life. She was a voracious researcher and a highly imaginative writer. Art imitates life in Fountainhead, in glorified fashion. I can attest from personal experience that a career in architecture does indeed include elements such as school rivalries, office politics, insecurities, megalomania, long hours designing, critiques, skyscrapers, mansions, engineers, contractors, tradesmen, and wealthy clients. There is mediocrity in American architecture, and there was a modernistic movement in the early twentieth century. Rand abridged it for her story. The lives of her magnified characters are entangled in destiny. This could never happen in real life, could it? Many scenes are so confident and gritty I cannot forget them. Also, her building descriptions are vivid and beautiful. As you can tell, I needed some extra excitement in my 9 to 5. I thank Rand for the greatest American story about architects that I know of. Only, I wish she would have finished it. I have a big problem with the last third of the book. A misplaced dialectic of philosophy cuts into her ending. The ending is missing something. If only Rand would have kept her artistry and philosophy more separated. Thus, as is, Fountainhead ultimately is not literature to me, but propaganda. And every person should be wary of propaganda. The message of this story is not universal. It is a mistake for young readers to imitate Rand's protagonist. Roark is the most wooden hero. He is a robot programmed to design masterpieces. A puppet in a book, not to be confused with a real life fountainhead. Instead of anthropormizing Roark, look for real life leaders who struggle and ultimately change our world. I know I'm just a regular architect. If I was a fountainhead, I would know it. Don't be a player hater.
Rating:
Summary: A subjective look at objectivity
Review: It is difficult to brand this book as a novel.It mixes philosophy, selfishness, love and several other rarely discussed concepts. The first time I read this book I found that everything it said was perfect. But 15 days down the road the holes in the story started showing up. I started finding whole of Rand's so called objectivity a cruel farce. The story starts with the naked Roark and ends with a successful Roark who after 700 odd pages looked to be mightier and aweinspiring than ever. Toohey- the evil really went on to prove that "the pen is mightier than the sword". All in all the book is powerful and is not for the weaker fun loving minds.
Rating:
Summary: One of the Best
Review: Many pseudo-intellectuals think they are geniuses for being able to read a book of this length. I am no intellectual by far but have read many books on philosophy. I believe this book to be one of the most important pieces for people of any age. This book puts life in perspective. It shows, quite cleverly, that there are rewards beyond materialistic ones. It also shows that greatness is not necessarily what others believe it to be but what the creator gets out of it. I first read Atlas Shrugged at the suggestion of my brother. I read it in about 3 days, seldom putting it down. I went on to read every novel written by Rand. I think that she is a very important author of our time and whether you believe in her philosophies or not you must read it.
Rating:
Summary: The "synthesis" of Ayn Rand
Review: A strictly entertaining story or interesting philosophy is a notable achievement. The capacity to combine both as only Kierkegaard and a few others have done before is a mark of special genius. The first fiction read in years which I seemingly could not put down, I'm glad I held off reading "The Fountainhead" until my late-20s. The marrow of this book -- its uncompromising stand against workplace compromise -- is a theme unlikely to be fully appreciated by younger readers. "The Fountainhead" is pure hyperbole, through and through. Though its chief protagonist, Howard Roark, will have great appeal, hardly anyone could stand a friendship with so self-assured an "ubermensch." Few outside of Rand's world warrant such callous disregard for the judgment, experiences, and rational talents of others. Yet it is precisely this hyperbole which drives home Rand's point so convincingly. The lesson to be distilled? If our lowest common denominator world is the "thesis" and Roark its "antithesis," then the world is surely a better place at the "synthesis" -- that point of equilibrium where intelligent, principled independence is asserted and yet where accomodation doesn't necessarily connote capitulation. "Fountainhead" is a must-read.
Rating: 
Summary: I strain myself to review this fairly.
Review: "The Fountainhead" was supposed to be -if one believes the back cover- a book about two architects at war. But instead of focusing on such an interesting idea -Peter Keating, always leaning on crutches; and Howard Roark, always breaking free with new forms and materials- what we have here instead is a "novel of ideas" that attempts in one swoop to cover the media, altruism and selfishness, and a love story that reminds one of pulp fiction (not the movie, but the "school" of writing). I gave it two stars because, if you can suffer through all the cliches, there's some extremely thought provoking ideas that are inspiring. Stick to your guns, Rand tells us, and anything is possible. Don't compromise, and don't listen to others telling you you can't. But oh, the cliches! Every time Roark raises a building he walks through the skeleton, the girders lunging heavenward (as she might put it in her many variations on this same exact scene), with his hands clasped, with a cool, confident demeanor, languishuing in his own deftness and surety. And of course the kid on the bike, whom Roark gave "the courage to go on living". I suppose some cliche usage is permissable, but after 700 pages it really gets on the nerves! Philosophically the book is very interesting, very foundation-shaking, but it's a NOVEL, of course, not a book on philosophy (of which she has several), and in examining "The Fountainhead" strictly as a novel, as a big story, I'm left feeling cold. Perhaps I'm just a product of my times, but way too much artifice and melodrama, and not nearly enough passion. Also: far too diffused, too many topics! Read it for the powerful philosophical ideas, but skip it if you want a good story!
|
