Fountainhead

Rating:
Summary: One of the finest works of fiction I've read
Review: I've been through Faulkner I have a working knowledge of Stephan King I know Moby Dick I'm on a first name basis with Will Shakespeare and I write my own poems and I worship Dr. Ike (Asimov) like a demigod

But Fountainhead is one of the most moving and powerful, intelligent and entertianing novels I have ever encountered.

It WILL change the way you think, if not the way you believe

Rating:
Summary: A Fascinating Rommance
Review: For me, The Fountainhead is the best book that Ayn Rand wrote. As a Rommance, the fountainhead is way better than Attlas Shrugged. The characters are much better constructed, the story is more interesting and plausible. I'm not saying that I don't like Attlas Shrugged: Actually its a great book too, but in a philosophical sense. Attlas Shrugged exposes Rand's Philosophy in a complete way, and maybe because of that, as a rommance, attlas shrugged is not so good as Fountainhead. Howard Roark is one of the most fantastic characters ever created, as well as Peter Keating, Gail Winnand(perhaps the most intriguing of all, a character which Victor Hugo would have liked)and Ellsworth Toohey. The psicological side of the protagonists are fantastic, and so is the story itself. For my personal taste, the best Rommance ever written is "Le miserables", by Victor Hugo. The Fountainhead is not very far from this. A great Book!

Rating:
Summary: I lived didn't I?
Review: I too had to read this book for a scholarship. I'm saddened as to how other youths will probably buy into such a tragically flawed philosophy. Too many misunderstood young genuises will compare themselves to Roark. They will repress emotions because they are believed to be Reasonable. They're lives will end the same as Rand's: Tragic, pathetic, and alone. Nathaniel Branden said of the Fountainhead: "Take the Fountainhead and the first chapter for example. Consider these facts: The hero has just been expelled from school, he is the victim of injustice, he is misunderstood by virtually everyone, and he himself tends to find other people puzzling and incomprehensible. He is alone; he has no friends. There is no one with whom he can share his inner life or values. So far, with the possible exception of being expelled from school, this could be a fairly accurate description of the state of the overwhelming majority of adolescents. There is one big difference: Howard Roark gives no indication of being bothered by any of it. He is serenely happy within himself. For average teenagers, this condition is agony." This is its youthful appeal. The objectivists philosophy is too simplistic and uncaring. So social Darwinistic. The characters are noble and true to their emotions because society is against them, but in a society in which everyone becomes an objectivists these heros will become the oppressors.

The protagonists (Dominique & Howard) are too ideological. The villans are strawmen. The message is conveyed in a substandard way, it is far too preachy.

I love the way how the Rand institute is giving out college money to get converts. 59,000 dollars in prizes is a very small price to pay.

I highly suggest reading all the reviews, about midway through someone does a great satire of the story.

Rating:
Summary: Good, yet Bad; The Philosopher versus the Literary Critic
Review: Readers have labeled this book sublime, putrid, fascist, satanic, and excellent. I will not choose not to choose, for I have judged, and it is a complex judgment, indeed.

The book qua book is substandard. Certainly, the story enthralled me, and I managed to read the hefty tome (builds stronger bones and muscles) in about two weeks. Let us face it, however: the book is no The Sound and the Fury, but then again, that is the comparision of a mere ubermensch to a god.

I'm a fan of the ubermensch theory. I'm an elitist, a fascist, an anarch, a mystic, fully esoteric and completely iron fisted (That sounds like poetry). I have no qualms with Ayn Rand's philosophy as advocated by The Fountainhead, although I have found that the Any Rand Society has thouroughly sodomized the already bastardized when codified theory of Objectivism. The book's themes are palatable, even pleasurable: the individual, the artist, absolute narcissism, the ugliness of most architecture (one must look out for my wit, it's very sardonic), and so on.

I find the presentation lacking, however. I have stated my enjoyment in the existence, and triumph, of Roark, although so heavy handed is The Fountainhead that the reader may discover slap-marks upon his face. Eventually, though, one becomes accustomed. I would suspect (for I am not sure) that a great author would not need such heavyhandedness to deliver a message. The tome itself is more didactic than anything Victorian, although the tale merely presents the self-made man who lives in the mountains, probably in the cave next door to certain prophet to whom Rand's philosophy owes much.

I will also admit that I am a postmodernist; pseudo-Realist fiction does not appeal to me. I am the avant garde, hear my preformance art roar. Seriously, though, Rand's style is just, well, substandard. It lacks the innovation of Joyce and Paton, or the pregamesmanship and gamesmanship, respectively, of The Turn of the Screw and The Dictionary of the Khazars, although, I must state, that the story is well-crafted, and perhaps almost better (gasp!) than the first Realist novel ever, Madame Bovary; something, however, seems immature about the whole thing.

And this may stem from the target audience being the high school crowd (interesting that the term crowd is chosen, and interesting that Rand wrote for a crowd, as this seems contradictory to the nature of her philosophy). The rebellion inherent to this story may be the attraction, and perhaps the moths merely find the flame, not the flame the moths (i'm hideously esoteric; i enjoy the arcane). I recant.

As for the Church of Satan thing....The Church of Satan is a very commercial (more so than Objectivism in its Capitalist manifestation), very contradictory, but most imporatantly, confusedly Atheistic church. If you want to understand, read Le Vey's piece of sh*t titled The Satanic Bible. They don't worship anything, that's why they have rituals that invoke Cthulhu and Company. Le Vey claims that he choose the inverted pentagram and the name "Satan" only to aggravate the bourgeious and the Christian (often, the former only pretends to be the latter).

Synopsis: I like the philosophy presented by the book, although Nietzsche is better; an excellent plot, but rather didactic narrative (fortunately, never does one encounter the abhorred "dear readers"); Ultimately, a decent, above the mean, rating.

To sum up: One of the best philosophies to occur in the twentieth century, and one of the finest books of the nineteenth.

Rating:
Summary: Absolutely Brilliant
Review: I loved and adored _Atlas Shrugged_. I didn't expect _The Fountainhead_ to be as wonderful. It was even better. The characters in this book are more real and accessible than those in Atlas. I always like Galt (of course) but in my mind he doesn't compare to Roark. There's no arguing that this book is, in essence, a "political tract" of sorts. Whether or not you agree with Rand's philosophies, her books are worth a read. If you can successfully argue against her logic, I'd love to hear it.

Rating:
Summary: This is a great book!!!!!
Review: I just got finished reading it. I had to write a paper on The Fountainhead for a scholarship and was not looking forward to the 694 pages that lay ahead of me. But about 15 pages into it, I realized that I really would enjoy it. Length is a factor that should never turn anyone away from a book. This novel was extra influential for me because I am only 16, and questioning how I should live my life and what I should think. I have learned to think for myself and become independent, just like Howard Roark. Now, I try to not care what others think of me, just be myself. That is what I hope others get out of this book, too.

Rating:
Summary: I loved this book!
Review: I think this book explores Ayn's interesting phlosophy and shows what she beleves.

Rating:
Summary: Reviewers: who ARE all of you people?
Review: I've read the "Fountainhead", "Atlas Shrugged" and many other works by Ayn Rand, as well as works on herself and her philosophy. I am studying Objectivism. I have not formed a complete and final opinion of Ayn Rand and Objectivism nor will I until I have completed my studies.

I realize such an approach to developing an opinion of deep and complex subjects is foreign to most of the reviewers below, both those praising and condemning "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged". Scrolling down the column of reviews is like taking a wary peek under a rock, not knowing what kind of perversions you'll find cringing and warring in the eternal muck and darkness. Most of you people understand next to nothing about Rand and her philosophy. I've read so many statements that testify to the disgusting, wounded intellects floating around out there that I know there are not as many honest, objective readers of Rand as there could be.

Those of you who hate Rand, as Roark says, "I don't think of you." How can I? One can't consider the opinion of a person who portrays himself as a snarling beast. Some of you sound like you are an anurism away from declaring a jihad against Objectivists.

As for those others who:

a. Like the story, dislike the philosophy;

b. Dislike the story, like the philosophy;

c. Have a lukewarm response to both;

d. have read just "The Foutainhead", love it, and assume that that automatically makes their opinions of Objectivism valid to influence a person who is considering to begin reading Rand;

To all of you I say: READ ON. Read "Atlas Shrugged". Read her books on Objectivism, not just the fiction. Read Leonard Peikoff's "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand". If you don't you are doing yourself and others who might be persuaded by your opinion a disservice (certainly more for yourself; others don't depend on your views, but your guise of authority is misleading).

People who want to dissect Rand on the internet need to wake up. I have read few reviews not bloated with fallacies. Are you readers or are you not ?! Read on!

Rating:
Summary: "oh god, it's worse than I thought", i thought holding a gun
Review: "oh god it's worse than I thought", I thought holding a gun to my own head.

Rating:
Summary: Good, but not great
Review: When I first read "The Fountainhead," after incessant raves by a friend, I was in awe. (I was and still am young.) I am no longer so impressed by this book. I once heard fans usually say they first read Rand in their late adolescence. This would explain why people become so enamored with her. People find this idealistic author during idealistic youth. "The Fountainhead" is divided into four parts: "Peter Keating," "Ellsworth M. Toohey," "Gail Wynand," and "Howard Roark." It is a story about those four men and the woman they all love, Dominique Francon. The thing about it is is that she only reciprocates the love for one of them, the architect Roark. Each section focuses primarily on its title subject, but once Dominique is introduced she takes over the protagonist role of the story. The problem with Rand in this book and "Atlas Shrugged," even more so, is she bludgeons you as with a blunt object with her "message." This has not stopped me from reading more Rand, as I am currently reading "We the Livng." "The Fountainhead" is not as good as my friend and other Randians say it is, but it is not the pretentious drivel others say it is either.