Rating: 
Summary: NOT For The Close-Minded
Review: I'll start right off by saying this: if you can't accept some shocking, startling, controversial ideas (I fully believe that that is the only reason many of the previous reviewers of this book gave it one star), DON'T READ THIS BOOK! It is completely essential for the reader of Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead" to accept ideas that are different and - in the case of some - differing from one's own. That is what this book is: a differing idea.The only bad point of this book (though not bad enough to detract any stars) is the length. It's amazingly long - not only in length (my copy had 700-something pages) - but in content, if that makes sense. However, it doesn't ever FEEL long. I remember the point where I reached Part Three (at page 502 in my copy). It didn't feel like I'd read 500 pages. However, the length does become an issue when you realize you've been sitting alone for hours. Third I need to mention the characters. Most of them are one-sided. Both female characters - Dominique and Katie - have relationship problems, but this only adds to their character. There is no hero in this book - Roark is ANYTHING but a hero. The characters, I think, are unlike anything put into a book before. However, they're really amazing - GREAT - characters. In closing, I want to stress the fact that you CANNOT read this book if you're not willing to be exposed to differing ideas. This book is perfectly written - amazing style and characters. Read with an open mind!
Rating:
Summary: the best
Review: the best book i've ever read...i found the end a bit disppointing.a friend of mine had recommended the book to me.it is surely a masterpiece.the character of dominique and roark was very impressive well described.roark the hero of the novel..somebody who's just in love with his work and the emotions and relationships are not importand for him,he is not artificial and fake.he is how a man should be..he stuck to his principles all through his life.i think everybody must read this book.
Rating:
Summary: WOW
Review: After reading Atlas Shrugged I was a bit hesitant about reading The Fountainhead. I should have not hesitated. I literally could not put this book down. While the language is somewhat stillted and archaic, the characters are interesting, well developed, complex and conflicted. All the elements needed to produce an interesting story.
The story concerns several people: Howard Roark: A man of absolute principles. A genius at his work, and unbending in his desire to do it "HIS WAY." Peter Keating: Just the opposite. No scruples, and a third rate architect. Dominique: A Puzzle. Always seems to do the opposite of what she really wants. Ellsworth Twohey: An intellectual snob. Out to rule the world because the "masses" need him. Gail Wayland: Publisher. A tortured confused man. In many ways more the center of the story. The story is basically about the triumph of genius against the lowest common denominator of society and the battle against mediocrity and committee rule. Each character is explored in depth and made interesting.
If you were put off by Atlas Shrugged, you should read this, they are very different.
I highly recommend this.
Rating:
Summary: The best novel ever written.
Review: If there is any piece of literature that accurately reflects the best in humankind it is this one, and this is done using only one character. It might perhaps be difficult at first to accept that the incredible achievements of the human species could be exemplified in only person, but the author succeeds in doing so in this book, giving the reader a character that is both likeable and very human. Howard Roark stands in clear contrast to the other three in the book, who represent the temporary flaws in human conduct. The character and actions of these other three reflect what is most rare in human experience. Their outlooks and goals are shown in the story to lead to physical or emotional disintegration, a consequence of their sustained efforts to follow paths that deviate from those that are most resonant with the human psyche. The author's message is clear: sustained behavior such as that practiced by these individuals leads to severe dysfunction. The sly manipulations of Ellsworth Toohey leads to his disgrace; the parasitism of Peter Keating results in his mental breakdown; and the power cravings of Gail Wynand make him powerless. Toohey fails because he overestimates his abilities to charm and mesmerize, and underestimates the power of a mind that cannot be bought, that cannot be corrupted, that is creatively rich and dogmatically rational. Keating fails because he cannot comprehend, and has no understanding, of what it truly takes to achieve greatness. Seduced by fame and recognition, his mind polluted by the pettiness of social climbing and the hitchhiking of another's ideas, he cannot sustain, tragically, any measure of human dignity and self-esteem. Wynand fails because he is seduced by the quantity of his readers and is ultimately fooled by their independence. He gives in to the crippling monster of cynicism, wiping out forever any chance at obtaining the real power of personal integrity and focused intelligence. Roark succeeds because of his deep awareness and understanding of the essential needs of human experience. Creative accomplishment, originality of ideas and goals, and sustained concentration are the proper tools of the human mind, and like food and water, these cannot be ignored. Roark has penetrating insight into what it means to be really human. He is comfortable with himself and with others who believe the same. He knows that conflict will arise when interacting with those that don't, but he knows that such conflicts are temporary. A mediocre mind cannot compete with a competent one. Deception cannot compete with truth. Roark stands on his building at the end of the story, and this ending is appropriate. He symbolizes the many in human history who have stood on the buildings of art, literature, science, philosophy, technology, and music. The names of these individuals don't always get put in the history books, but the impact of their genius is overwhelming. Although they may be unknown, they are not rare, and it is these individuals who move the world.
Rating: 
Summary: Average - Philosophically Moot
Review: This book is unnecessarily long. It is only a little interesting. No one really claims that this is great literature, but the following are claims that generally praise the book: 1. It is inspiring
2. It is philosophically admireable Claim 1 is subjective and possibly true for some. But claim 2 is just plain mistaken. Rand's novels are at most some type of applied philosophy in fictional form. At worst they are repeated batterings of a wild worldview. Anyway I can't recommend spending money on this. Afterall, there are tons of legitimate philosophical works out there, and most self-help books are probably more effective than this for motivating. But don't take my word for it. If you're still compelled to read this then go for it. Maybe you'll like it for some unique reason.
Rating: 
Summary: Where's the big deal
Review: When I see people around me who claim their lives have changed after reading this book, it is understandable. Objectivism is a great relief - you don't have to worry about other's opinions because they are imperfect and dumb and you are the caretaker of this universe. Of course except for the ideal case where each one of us inherently owned the outstanding qualities which Rand has suggested and would automatically blend into the harmony of the resulting world. The qualities that Rand has suggested are courage, confidence and quest for perfection(absolute sense?).
Rand created Roark's character to exemplify that perfect individual but he fails to impress, mainly because of the way Rand created him. Roark could have been more human, talkable( I actually mean it )
and less rigid and could have still retained the qualities Rand thinks are required to make you perfect. His relationship with Dominique is the worst thing I can imagine. It is impossible to be deeply in love with someone if you havent experienced the like-love-emotions with others. Otherwise it would turn into a dangerous obsession, an adjective which doesn't go with "perfect".
Dominique is worse than a Bimbo. How can anyone like a man whose first move is sexual exploitation ? Her character is degrading to women.
Roark's and Dominique's future togetherness depended on her marriage to Keating and Wynand (who Rand thinks were insignificant to Roark's life ? ) . Roark needed Dominique and Dominique needed these men. Whatever was Dominique's logic for marrying these men, her objective was the same - to have Roark. So at least she is one character for sure who cannot propagate Rand'd theory. How can Rand being a woman create a character like Dominique is beyond my understanding ?
This book isn't a fantasy ;it is supposed to illustrate and exemplify a philosophy , and therefore it is expected to be based on logical thinking and observation of real humans,not imaginary charcters in an imaginary world. -Proma Ray
Rating:
Summary: Life Changing and Life Saving
Review: I am a high school student. This is the most inspiring work I have ever read, and it has encouraged me to turn my life around. It is not meant to read like a novel. Rand means The Fountainhead to be a work of philosophy. The characters are unrealistic, but they are prototypes and help carry out her philosophy.
Rating:
Summary: it's about a selected few in this world
Review: The ascent of humanity rests on the shoulder of the few; the descent on the many who are represented and dumbed down by a few like Wynand. For thos who doubted why creating/discovering something new for our world required a life of hardship and danger, Corpenicus was a good example. Sure, no women would attach herself to a fool and illogical person like that. But the chosen few probably don't care about those women either. The book is written for a few MEN, not meant to be read by women or woman-like men. For these men, their life is to create and lead the society to a brighter future. They couldn't care less about women's notion of happiness. A man does not live according to the wish of a woman. It's simple as that. People should not take the book literally. To take it literally and criticizes its faults based on that is foolish at best.
Rating: 
Summary: well written, but completely psychotic
Review: Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead" is brilliantly written. But that's where the brilliance ends. The characters are completely unbelievable. If you've read this you know that Roark claims that he doesn't care at all, about anything but himself. He claims that he doesn't need anything but himself and his art. If that is true, why was he so unhappy when Dominique was with Wynand? I don't understand the characters at all. I know a lot of women and none of them would risk their own happiness the way Dominique did. The only character with genuine emotion is Wynand.
Rating: 
Summary: Repetitive and lacking in imagination
Review: I knew Ayn Rand first as the founder of Objectivism and later as a novelist. I think her capacity as the latter leaves a lot to be desired. Repetitively used is the "tell-me" (v.s. "show-me") style of narrative: lacking in imaginative language both in the descriptive and intellectual context. It becomes obvious early on what the message is: "individuality is great, blind conformity, not so great". It becomes more and more obvious in the next 20 times the point is iterated, to the point of tiring. Objectivism aside, I feel there could have been more eloquent,subtle and ultimately effective ways to write a novel as a work of (intellectual) fiction. As a reader, I didn't care much for the characters, and that's a Bad Thing(TM) in my judging of books.
| 
