Rating: 
Summary: After a great start I felt I was being talked down at
Review: I was incredibly engaged in this book when I first started it. 70 pages in I was excited about where this story was going. Around 100 pages I got this horrible feeling that the world Rand was creating was so unbelievably black and white that the book seemed to be written by a 15 year old who could use adult's words. There is no gray in this book. Every aspect of it is hardcore extreme in its stance. I never finished the book. Around page 200 I felt I was reading, 'This good, that bad'.
Rating: 
Summary: It is her best novel...
Review: which isn't saying much. But at least it's better than the less-than-zero-stars semi-insane rant known as "Atlas Shrugged." My experience with fans of "Ayn Rand" (better known as Alice Rosenbaum) is that they are emotionally disturbed 20-year-olds who overestimate their own not-considerable intelligence and underestimate the intelligence and knowledge of others. In a nutshell that explains the appeal of Rand. As for this novel, it requires intelligence, knowledge, an open mind and some experience in life to see through the skin to the the dark heart. Rand writes that Roark is the "perfect man", makes several comments that he looks at people as "if they're not there," has him say he is "not kind," and praises him as a rapist. The diagnostic category this fits more than any other is an anti-social personality, a sociopath/psychopath. Rand herself was a narcissist; a sociopath is just the extreme form of a narcissist. Rand was projecting her own self as Roark into this book. It's not odd that her villains are more realistic than her heroes; the woman, who was half-nuts, obviously knew much more about hate, anger and envy than she did of love and gratitude. As, I suspect, do most of her fans.
Rating: 
Summary: Inspiring
Review: I first read this book as a junior in high school, almost five years have passed and I have read it 4 times already(practically once a year). This is an excellent story if you take it from a fictional point of view and it is also filled with great political and ideological viewpoints. I find this book very inspirational.
Rating:
Summary: This Novel is Extremely Underrated...
Review: Looking at the recent reviews, I realize that many reviewers have been giving this book fairly bad reviews. Yet, deep down, this doesn't really surprise me. The fact is, when it comes to philosophy-type literature, perspective and experience makes a big difference, and many people aren't finding something worthwhile in Ayn Rand. However, this book can't be passed off simply as the crazy philosophical ravings of an offbeat author- there is much more here than may meet the eye at first.Most things about this book are very complicated- especially the characters. You'll probably end up wondering why they make the choices they do; often, you'll be completely taken aback by the strangeness in them. However, upon closer inspection, they are all very realistic, and all very solid. You just need to invest the time and effort to do this. This book also has a fairly good plot to it- the ending, while left open, is fairly satisfying, and the climaxes are well put together. And, I must say, the antagonist of the story is one of the best in literature history- seemingly innocent and weak, yet at the same time powerful and very evil. And the dialogue is incredible- it's realistic, but not in any way boring. It's well ahead of its time, just like Ms. Rand. The best thing about this book is that it provides so many untraditional ideas to think about. While many reviewers didn't like this book because they disagreed with it, it offers many ideas that can expand your horizons. I would say to read this with an open mind, and don't worry about everything you read. Some of it may seem more passable than other parts- the best thing to do is to take what you want to and leave the rest. Overall, this is a good read, and in the long run is rewarding. If you don't get too deep into every dynamic of the philosophy, you will probably enjoy it more.
Rating: 
Summary: beause I cannot give it zero stars...
Review: It amazes me the amount of effort some reviewers have put into explaining the failings of this book. Simply, it is a book that combines the orientation to the world of a neglected three year old and the writing skills of the average sexist high school student. Bravo.
Rating: 
Summary: Absolute life changer
Review: One of the only books I've ever reread. Profound and mind altering. If you don't want to go out and become a great man after reading this book, get back to your John Grisham reading club.
Rating:
Summary: Not a peice of literature
Review: The Fountainhead is not the typical peice of literature. Despite the great popularity of the book, it should not be in the same category as Jane Eyre or A Tale of Two Cities. The Fountainhead is the Bible of the truly righteous. I write this as a plea to others, who truly love and understand this book, to ignore the criticisms of the unenlightened. Ignore the official organization of objectivists. The members do not see the extent to which they err. Sit quietly.
Rating:
Summary: The sound and the fury.
Review: THE FOUNTAINHEAD came highly recommended by a like-thinking libertarian friend of mine who believed I would be receptive to Ayn Rand's philosophical ideals of personal freedom and free market ideals. Upon reading Rand's epic, I was struck by its similarities to John Milton's PARADISE LOST. Like Milton, Rand has curiously allowed the novel's supposed villain, Ellsworth Toohey, to be the most fascinating character in the book. Unlike Milton's epic poem, however, Rand's novel has virtually no literary value whatsoever. The novel's value arises merely from the odious fact that her cult of devotees insist this trash is a classic of world literature and philosophy. As a philosopher, Ayn Rand is no novelist. And as a novelist, Ayn Rand is no philosopher. There is absolutely no believable dialogue or action in this novel -- the weak plot functions merely as a tool for philosophical harangues to spill out of the mouths of completely uninteresting characters. I know the defenders of THE FOUNTAINHEAD say that Rand purposefully created an ideal character in Howard Roark. Ideal? Perhaps. Unsurpassingly dull, without a doubt. Howard Roark is the most wooden, one dimensional literary character that I have ever encountered; he exists solely on the paper on which he is printed. The love scenes between Howard Roark and Dominique Francon are likewise laughable. Rand's idea of passion must be akin to a neanderthal clubbing his betrothed over the head and dragging her back to the cave. How ironic that Rand completely subverts her Objectivist philosophy by pandering to the lowest common denominator. Defenders of Rand say that THE FOUNTAINHEAD is actually the lessor of Rand's philosophical treatises, and that to fully appreciate Objectivism, you must read ATLAS SHRUGGED. Well, thanks but no thanks. After suffering through some 700 pages of THE FOUNTAINHEAD, I've served my time in hell. Jean Paul Sartre had it all wrong; hell isn't other people, its suffering through utterly boring books such as THE FOUNTAINHEAD. Recommended solely as a textbook example of how density is often confused with profundity.
Rating:
Summary: Another cure-all for insomnia from Ms. Rand
Review: Like all the rest of Rand's fiction, "The Fountainhead" clonks along like a 1956 Chevy pickup with flat tires on a dirt road. It exhibits as much literary grace as a hippopotamus on waterskis, splashing didactic Objectivism in its wake and nearly drowning laughing observers in waves of pedantry. I first read this book at age 15 and at the time it certainly seemed brave and inspiring. I read it again at age 25 and was far less impressed, and the last time I tried to read it I couldn't finish it. The plotline is painfully simple. The dialogue has no trace of authenticity, or any of the rhythm of normal human speech. The characters are cardboard cutouts with little or no subtlety. The less said about the agonizing length of the book, the better. Nothing happens but talk for enormously long stretches, and then when something does happen, it seems anticlimactic, because the characters have already signaled what is going to happen. And afterwards they analyze each event in excruciating detail, never forgetting to put a nice Randian Objectivist spin on everything. Rand could have taken a lesson from Robert Heinlein. Heinlein was another objectionable, obnoxious person with a semipolitical/philosophical axe to grind, but Heinlein knew that you couldn't talk your reader to death. So he had the good grace to put in the occasional explosion, alien invasion, or sex scene in between his philosophical rants. He also had a sense of humor, which Ayn Rand's books completely and absolutely lack. This is primarily a very dull book. It appeals to misunderstood adolescents because it addresses their concerns: being misunderstood, wanting freedom, wanting to be the big hero who triumphs over all through sheer force of will, etc., etc. But those who have left adolescence behind, who are not as self-absorbed or as self-righteous as Rand and her characters are, will not find much to like in this book. The positive reviewers in the "Synopsis" section above harp on how much Rand's novels have sold, but if large sales guarantee high quality, then V.C. Andrews must be the new Shakespeare. I advise anyone with good sense to give this book a pass. There are thousands of other good books you could read, including the New York City Telephone Directory, before you try to tackle this unreadable, lumpy mess.
Rating:
Summary: A great novel of ideas
Review: The Fountainhead is the masterwork of one of the best writers and most original thinkers of the 20th century. Nietzsche told us that God is dead and that we will have to create new myths to live by; in portraying her ideal man, Howard Roark, Rand responds to this challenge as no one else has done. Roark is a creator, with the intelligence, artistic talent, strength and integrity to reform the world according to his vision. Roark's artistic ethos -- that form must fit function -- is simple, but it is not simple to follow in the real world, where politics and style rule. Roark's triumph is over those who care not about art or science, but only about raw power. As other readers have noted, Roark is not a fully formed character in some aspects, so one should not try to become his living embodiment. But one does not need to become Roark any more than one needs to become Jesus after reading the bible -- one need only strive to achieve his strength and integrity.
| 
