Fountainhead

Rating:
Summary: Good, but get the audio book
Review: The plot is much more compelling when read aloud by a chorus of seventeen chickens. (Be sure you get the right version.)

Rating:
Summary: Her philosophy - good. Her novels - bad.
Review: You might have heard people say, "The Fountainhead changed my life." Its that kind of novel - it changes lives. After reading it, I saw things in a very different light. Objectivism is 'the' philosophy. Rand, however, should have conveyed her message solely through philosophical essays. Her novels are far from engrossing. The thing I disliked most about both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged is that her characters lack depth. They are either black or white - never shades of gray. In The Fountainhead, Roark and Dominique are perfect, flawless and one can clearly see the flaws in Keating and Toohey. It would have been interesting to see how normal Americans would behave in Rand's world, however, normal people do not exist in her novels. One reason is that our notion of a 'normal American' is not the same as her's. After all, she wrote the book decades ago. For people who are interested in her philosophy, read Virtue of Selfishness, http://www.amazon.com...

Rating:
Summary: Inspirational
Review: I have read this book three times. I read regularly, and I value this book above all others. When I read any part or page or paragraph of this book I immediately experience a certain kind of joy that is expressed very, very beautifully in the Fountainhead. Every word that drips from the pages into my mind surges with life! That is the focus of my praise for this book: As a work of art. I find it incomprehensible how anyone could fail to appreciate this, even if they disagree completely with Ayn Rand's philosophical views. In response to the reviewers that have found distaste for this book, I offer the cautionary account that I, when I first read this book, could make almost no sense out of it at all. I deduced that philosophically it was very pro-individualism, and this I liked, but beyond that my insight saw no further. I tasted the individualism, and more I didn't even realize I was tasting, and I came back to this book twice more. Since then I have matured and learned so much more about what it means to be alive, and in The Fountainhead I see a philosophical monolith both structured and woven with brilliant metaphors and an artistry of the english language rarely found.

Ayn Rand was a bitter genius who saw into a part of reality deeper than anyone had previously done, and for this she was condemned? I embrace this fact fully, but I want to cast it away! Is bitterness unforgiveable? Is insight immoral? Anyone who is unable to find value in this book has never known for the most fleeting moment what it means to be alive!

Feeling unqualified satisfaction with what I have just said, I want to add that I do not agree completely with Ayn Rand's philosophical ideas. But that is not important. What is important is that the book presents her philosophical ideas as elegantly and as powerfully as a fiction novel is capable of achieving.

If you have any sense whatsoever that on occasion it is a noble thing for a human being to go to a secluded corner of the Universe and think for himself or herself, absent any regard to what others have thought before, and to enjoy this, and to use this thinking to change things, to create, then the totality of Ayn Rand's faults will seem trivial as this book causes you to exist more than you had existed before.

Rating:
Summary: A classic
Review: What's so amazing about this book--aside from the excellent writing, great characters, and wonderful plot--is that it's still around and going strong. I initially read this book in college and it kept me up at night. Along with "Atlas Shrugged," it changed my life and initially not for the better. But after the dust settled I was better off. It was the first book that really got me to think about things--this book of "ideas," and while my emotional and psychological pendulum swung too far in the opposite direction I had been at, I was, in the end, better off. Talk about your eye-opener! And that's what is so amazing about this book--the power it has to change people. How many other books do you know that can do that? This is a classic, a must read for anyone interested in great and serious literature.

Also recommended: McCrae's Bark of the Dogwood, Atlas Shrugged, and East of Eden

Rating:
Summary: Great book
Review: This is truly a great book. Ayn Rands' writing is beautiful, some of the best descriptive prose I've ever read. The story is wonderful and will keep you turning pages. But the best part of it was the introduction to the philosophy of Objectivism, which, at the very least presents interesting "food for thought" and possibly can change your life if you want to try to live by its principals. The book is long and very dense, but I thought that every page was additive to the novel. I could not believe some of the other reviews I saw on this book, I just don't think they got it. Yes some of the language is "cheesy" and a little dated feeling (the book was written in the late 30s and early 40s). But this is very minor when compared to everything else you can get out of the book.

Rating:
Summary: This book will change your life... for the worse.
Review: The nth time I heard that someone I knew had built his world-view around this book, I decided to put it on my list.

I'm a voracious reader, so normally I'll stop after the first couple hundred pages if I remain unengaged, and I'll get on with the next book. This almost never happens, because most books are strong along at least one axis: characterization, plot, philosophy, descriptiveness. The Fountainhead is an exception to this rule, but an awkward situation had developed, where the friend who had recommended it kept asking how it was going. So I kept on, resentfully.

Almost everything I have to say about The Fountainhead was said here very eloquently by "laurah2477 (see more about me) from Daytona Beach, FL United States."

I don't really understand why there is controversy around this book. As a piece of writing, it really has nothing to recommend it. As a statement of philosophy, I found that it gave a simplistic treatment to some powerful and subtle ideas, in the end doing them a disservice.

The author has a very small arsenal at her disposal for making a point. She sets up hate-able minor characters and stuffs their mouths with ridiculous platitudes, just to give her counterarguments more weight. Needless to say, this should be unnecessary. As she reaches the home stretch, Rand gives up the charade of writing a piece of fiction, and sticks a dry, drawn-out philosophy lecture in the hero's mouth.

Oh, one more side point. Maybe it's not really a fair question, but how do you actually feel about the "modern" architecture of post-WWII America? You know, the kind of architecture of which the brilliant and forward-thinking genius hero is a proponent? With few exceptions, I find it uniformly cold and ugly -- arrogantly so. And that's how I feel about this book as well.

Rating:
Summary: Atlas Shrugged is much more powerful
Review: I had read Atlas Shrugged a year and a half ago, and I loved it. As a single working woman myself, I adored and identified with Tagny Taggart, the heroine of that book, throughout all the ups and downs of the story. The two criticisms that I had of that book was the excessive use by the author of the phrase "as if" and the lengthy philosophical "lecturing" every now and then which tended to be boring and made me say to myself, "Oh, not again."

I just finished recently The Fountainhead, and I have to say that Atlas Shrugged was much more powerful. I wished after finishing The Fountainhead that I had read it first before Atlas. When you consider that The Fountainhead was published in 1943 and Atlas was published in 1957 you can see the reason... fourteen years of life experience.

Here again, the author uses "as if" just way too much, but the philosophical "lecturing" seems a little less than that of Atlas Shrugged. On the other hand, The Fountainhead, to me, was much less convincing as a story. Why would a woman who claims to love a man go and do all what she did (I don't want to spoil the story for perspective readers) instead of standing by him through thick and thin? It just didn't make sense to me. The only reason seemed to me just to make a novel out of it.

Also, I was surprised to read at the end of the Fountainhead (under the title About Ayn Rand) that the goal of Rand's novels is the projection of a moral ideal man: "My purpose, first cause and prime mover is the portrayal of Howard Roark or John Galt or Hank Reardan or Francisco d'Anconia as an end in himself-not as a means to any further end." O.K. what about Tagny Taggart, the heroine of Atlas Shrugged? Wasn't she a moral ideal woman too? This looks like sexism to me. I understand that Atlas was written in 1957, but still if the author was able and willing to write such a courageous character as Tagny Taggart at that time, I think a statement like this is sexist. I loved all three heroes of Atlas, especially Hank Rearden, but I loved Tagny Taggart just as much, if not more.

Rating:
Summary: Review determined by philosophical outlook
Review: One can safely say that both the tone and text of a review of THE FOUNTAINHEAD (or ATLAS or any of the other Rand books) is determined more by the philosophical outlook of the reader than the actual story, characters or message. I read this book some thirty years ago and reread it again recently just to see if it still "rang true" and if the same things that I liked and disliked the first time were still there.

I am glad to report that the story still is a powerful one - ignore the politics if you must. The handling of the many relationships, the uniqueness of the characters, the totally unconventional love story, the tragic hero - it was all still there. Also, the same things I disliked were present - the lack of more female characters, the dryness of Roark, his wooden speeches...indeed, his presence is like a shadow. And just as the REAL hero in ATLAS was the very human Hank, the real central character in this book is the very human Wynand. The portrait of this man is still - in my opinion - one of the best insights into the psyche of a complex, would-be-great individual I have ever read.

Perhaps the fact that Wynand was so "like us" and not on some stellar plane or residing on a lower rung of hell makes him such a likeably character. The writing is deft, brilliant at times, turgid occasionally. The arguments against collectivism still ring true. The basis of collectivism is that the State, through force, attempts to create equality by distributing material and intellectual wealth from those who have it to those who don't. The fact that the given wealth is unearned is apparently not important.

And although it's been done without success many times, it will be tried again and again for one reason: Those who contribute the most are fewer in number than those who simply "go along for the ride". Good book with some banal parts - great story and great blend of science, business and art.

Rating:
Summary: Will SOMEONE PLEASE Stand Up
Review: The man, Howard Roark, is not just the hero of the book, but he is the embodiment of who we all are, probably, when we begin on life's journey. This is not just a statement of individualism. I could paint my hair green and carry a toaster with me everywhere I went if I wanted to be an individual. It is about integrity. It is about not being able to be moved, by anyone's might or power, not even your own. It is about doing what's right, regardless of who opposes.
THIS BOOK IS NOT A LOVE STORY, though that aspect of the story makes it more bearable and interesting. Furthermore, to clarify the misjudgements about Dominique's character, she does not like masochism. She gives herself to these men she doesn't love as an act of punishment to herself and comtemptment spawned from her own acceptance of things she knows to be wrong. She has left her first and true love: integrity. That is why she enjoys being mistreated. That is also why she loves Howard Roark. It's also why she tries to destroy him, because his work is not fit to be viewed by a public who doesn't appreciate the majesty and perfection in it. His work is a glorification of life and the elements we are to sustain life with. Other people in the story try to pervert it, and destroy it with non-appreciation. This is what Dominique tries to protect him from by trying to destroy his career as an architect.
Howard Roark is someone we all wish to be, and Gail Wynand is someone most of us have probably turned into. This book gives you courage to be who you want, but more importantly, who you CAN be. Roark was not crazy about eating in soup kitchens, but he did it in spite of a desire he might have had to be wealthy. He did it because he wanted to be Righteous more than he wanted a full stomach. Being righteous is just more glorified than being rich. (Wonderfully, he gets both as he deserves.) You could say that he exhibits the same personality trait of Joan of Arc. Living was not worth his life, if he wasn't true. What an ideal and beautiful way to exist! Which was also the reason he was so passionately hated, as some hate this book.

Rating:
Summary: Laurah2477 is a frightened individual
Review: The Fountianhead makes one think; an action of which most people are frightened. This appears to be the case in the instance of one "spotlight" reviewer. The Fountainhead is intrinsically non-conformist, and therefore, out of the ordinary. Laurah2477, for example, wrote an emotionally-charged review because she didn't want to bother understanding what Rand had to say. It is always easier to not think than it is to think. The preceding is self-evident, with the afforementioned reviewer as its main affirmation. I am willing to guess that other books that make this person angry or emotional also received bad reviews. Ayn Rand's message in this, a book of principles, was lost on some people, which is sad. Read this book and cherish it.