Rating: 
Summary: A Philosophic Mirror
Review: The literary value of The Fountainhead can be questioned. It's fundamental theme cannot. The story of a brilliant creator refusing to lower his standards to please the mediocrity worshipping herd stands as a classic. For those readers who simply abhorred this work, I would not be surprised to learn that upon discovery of the character of Peter Keating, you saw yourself exposed for the second-hander that you are.
Rating: 
Summary: Worthy Read.
Review: "A great story of a hero. Just that and nothing more."
Rating:
Summary: The first good book I've read all year
Review: This book is absolutely stunning. After being forced to read pointless novels for English classes, this is like a breath of fresh air. Ayn Rand's philosophy is definitely singular; I don't care what the previous reviewers say who think they are superior to every differing mind set there is - they ought to try to come up with such a bold view of life and man. Honestly! Be a little openminded. I don't fully agree with Rand's philosophy, but I have absorbed some of the ideas and thought about them. You see, I'm only 16 years old and I'm struggling to develop my own philosophy and opinion of mankind. No, it won't be anything like that of Ayn Rand; but her concepts have broadened my mind. It took me longer than normal to read "The Fountainhead" because after every chapter or two, I had to pause and reflect and consider the things which had been stated. There are at least five interesting ideas, concepts, even just a nice quote to underline, on every two pages. I find myself unconsciously using Dominique or Roark as a role model for myself; yes, this may seem silly to you, but every character in the book is extremely influential in his or her own way. Whether the influence is good or bad is really up to the reader. That's what I like so much about this book. Ayn Rand has no partialities, she isn't biased in regards to her characters. She presents them to the reader all in the same way, and lets you decide whether Peter Keating is successful or a mere fake; whether Roark is sincere, whether he's as strongminded as he thinks he is, or if he will eventually break down and submit to the conventional methods; whether Dominique has any typical feelings or is just a machine turned on by her contempt of Howard Roark; whose side Toohey is really on; if Catherine Halsey is submissive or defiant; and so on and so on. These are the things I thought about; you think about them too, and make your own decisions about the characters and the philosophy hiding under this rather strange plot. (How many authors use the profession of architecture as the main theme and passion of the book?) But don't judge the book and the concepts it offers unless you have your own definitive philosophy which you know could persuade and convince every person in this diverse little world.
Rating:
Summary: interesting novel
Review: As far as summer reading goes, I think this has been my favorite.. but my opinion may be biased as Moby Dick was last summer. I don't object to Rand's philosophy in the novel. What I liked was that it was interesting, enjoyable, and I didn't feel like I was reading fluff. I personally read books for pure enjoyment (except when the school requires it) and I found that surprisingly _The Fountainhead_ was a good book. While I don't agree with Rand's philosophy, I definitely found it an interesting theory. So I would recommend to anyone to read this book. :)
Rating:
Summary: one of the best books of the century:
Review: Ayn Rand might not have eloquent prose or the same writing method as Michael Ondaatje. She might, at times, even write poorly and less than adequate. No matter what is said about how this book is written, no matter how many critiques are made about her style, her message still remains strong and clear. Her message still remains truthful and honest. There is no other novel that displays so concisely the life of someone who defeats the odds by his individuality. I realize that this novel brings controversy along with it because Ayn Rand did not believe in God. Well this book is not about God; it is about the triumph of the human spirit. It is about the true meaning of life. It is about living as an individual and not compromising by conforming. I was captivated by this book. I could not put it down. It made so much sense to me. I could see what Rand was writing about all over the place- Hollywood, Washington, in the media. It is rampant. I see mediocrity being crowned as brilliance. I see power hungry individuals who have sold their soul to domination. There is no evil in this novel. It is the refutation of all evil. It teaches that one must activate their potential and not sell it, not waste it, not give it away to the causes of another person. One must live life their way- or there is no reason to live in the first place. I disagree with the so-called intelligentsias who claim that Rand is copying other people's ideas. Her ideas are methodical indeed, and she does build upon other thoughts. (See Howard Roark's testimony on the evolution of mankind). Ayn Rand makes a statement to the world loudly and clearly. It is essential to learn your past, to utilize your past, but not to copy it. The future is a time when the past must be built upon, not copied. Her philosophy follows the same train of thought. I highly recommend this book to any person with an open mind. It will forever change your life.
Rating:
Summary: Simply Amazing
Review: If you want to be inpired, I highly recommend to you this book. It is simply amazing. This book has changed my life and opened my eyes to many things in life. And after you've read this one, read Atlas Shrugged, it's just as great.
Rating: 
Summary: It seems like either the reader loves it or hates it???
Review: I haven't read the book. The funny thing is the readers' comment goes extreme... Hate the book or love it... Hummm.... I better check it out in the bookstore first...
Rating:
Summary: A Criticism of Criticism
Review: One reviewer, from "Virginia USA", seemed to sum up his screeching dislike for the book with the following comments which I've dissected and responded to. "Poorly Written, Obvious Plot This is a typical Ayn Rand novel. If you are part of the school of Objectivism, take a second to read back through this book. I find it ironic that the woman who started an 'intellectual' movement can write in such an obvious (and poor) manner. With no subtlety in style and little suprises to the plot, this novel truly reflects the shallow depths of American intellectualism. I'm baffled at it's long standing popularity." Poorly written and unimaginatively plotted. Really? The concept of a bold architect, Roark, pursuing his career with integrity despite the incredible public loathing of his work which is driven by the actions of the woman he loves, Dominique, and his best friend, Gail, is not imaginative, original, and creative? Perhaps I have forgotten about the vast canon of literature celebrating the accomplishments of architects who choose a life of integrity, overcome hardship, and risk disdain, prison, and even life itself to achieve their goals. Regarding the claim the book had no sublety, I must simply admit that perhaps the author of that review had a greater mind than mine. In fact, he must have a greater mind than almost all of Rand's readers. After all, we dolts who read her novels again and again are always finding new and insidiously well-hidden hints as to the characters' nature, personality, or motive. As far as the claim the the novel reflects the utter shallowness of American intellectualism, I must agree. Unlike the novels of Sartre or Camus (the critic's more refined, Continental, sophisticated preference, apparently), Rand's novels are not so deep that their bottoms are hidden from sight. Sadly, there are no angst-filled miscreants, men who turn into cockroaches, or anti-heroes. Only plain, honest, shallow, men and women with their petty, uncool values of integrity, career, passion, and pride. In the final analysis, it's probably a good idea to read these novels with a grain of honesty, not salt. If you disagree her ideas, fine. But do not attempt to slander Rand's writing skills unless you are prepared to do so with original criticisms that arise from an actual reading of the book in question.
Rating: 
Summary: Poorly Written, Obvious Plot
Review: This is a typical Ayn Rand novel. If you are part of the school of Objectivism, take a second to read back through this book. I find it ironic that the woman who started an "intellectual" movement can write in such an obvious (and poor) manner. With no subtlety in style and little suprises to the plot, this novel truly reflects the shallow depths of American intellectualism. I'm baffled at it's long standing popularity.
Rating:
Summary: Chicken fat.
Review: Amazing how Rand's defenders use exactly the same ad hominem attacks that they profess to hate (as lovers of "Reason" with the all-important cap R). "The Fountainhead" is not the worst book ever written, but it may certainly be one of the worst SUCCESSFUL books ever written. Its philosophy -- one hesitates to call it that -- is a hodgepodge of other, better thinkings, and as a book it's hardly any less wooden than an old-time Christian morality play. Again, Objectivism (which would be better off renamed Subjectivism) shows its real colors: if Reason wins the day, why such ghastly, elephantine pieces of propaganda masquerading as literature? People who actually do believe in freedom of thought and deed and enterprise are better served going back to the REAL fountainhead, the philosophers who made such things possible, but my guess is that they won't find writing there that'll stroke their sullen egos and confirm their prejudices that they're all just misunderstood geniuses in a world of mediocrities. (Okay: ONE ad hominem.)
|
