Fountainhead

Rating:
Summary: The Fountainhead
Review: I thought the Fountainhead was the most compelling and fascinating book I have ever read. However, it is somewhat uneventful at times, and a difficult book to plow through. I would recommend this book to you if you are an intellectual who is interested in being introduced to thought provoking material, and concepts which will enhance your insights. I suggest that if you decide to read the Fountainhead, skim through the speeches and extra information which is not pertinent to the plot, so that you will not become bored. Then, after you have finished the book, go back and read the parts you didnt give your full attention. This way, you will get a lot more out of Rand's ideas, but not lose interest.

Rating:
Summary: Simply Brilliant
Review: A lot of people who die hard "collective responsibility" types are threatened by Rand's ideas in her masterwork The Fountainhead.

Some fools actually are naive enough to believe Ayn Rand would have been a fan of America's new batch of hard right conservative commentators and talk radio and TV news pundits. Are you guys high? Here's a quote from Ayn on an old Donahue interview, "I'm not a conservative, today's conservatives are worse than today's liberals". Amen.

Howard Roark is the ultimate individualist. Strong, content, creative, very much alive, and with a deep love for his flawed America. The latter trait is something that eternally baffles the majority of the collectivists. Many of them passionately despise America and can't tolerate anyone who believes otherwise.

The book seems to have a love affair with the way the world was before FDR's Great Society programs and his skyrocketing of American tax rates. A time where you had to sink or swim on your own merits without government help. And if you sunk it was your responsibility and your alone to get back up again. There's a certain appeal in this. The tough individualist, living under a bare bones government, no government programs, having a government flat tax where everybody pays the same, etcetera, where government doesn't interfere in your pocketbook or your private life. But, sadly, many who espouse this view such as the Christian Reich are simply a kindler, gentler version of the Taliban. Ayn Rand would point out that today's conservatives are all in favor of big government programs such as faith based initatives, idiotic government witch hunts to root out homosexuals in the Armed Forces, tell people who they can sleep with, what movies they can see, what books they can read, what music they can listen to, what drugs they can put in their body, and on and on.

But I digress. The Fountainhead is marvelous book. I liked Atlas Shrugged but found it about 200 pages too long, John Galt also needed more characterization. But check out the Fountainhead, it isn't perfect, but it's close!

Rating:
Summary: Really disturbing...
Review: I have just finished reading "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" back to back, and man, am I glad I'm finally finished. I had to check them out to see what all the hype was about, and it's clear that many of the comments here about Rand being a bit mentally afflicted were definitely true. You actually feel dirty reading some of this stuff. It's that sick.

What disturbs me most about Rand's novels is her twisted idea of romantic love. The heroines are frigid, emotionless robots who only enjoy sexual encounters if they're being treated like garbage the whole time. They're slapped, shoved and snatched around, their arms are being twisted, and they love it. They wouldn't have it any other way. It's disgusting. Dominique Francon seems to only enjoy it if she's lying completely still and unresponsive the whole time. The heros are also cold and robotic, except they enjoy knocking the women around. It's completely joyless. If Rand was trying to create erotic love scenes, she sure missed the mark. When the couples are just spending time together outside of the bedroom, they talk about how the woman enjoys being treated as the man's property because the man is just so perfect and godlike. Otherwise each one seems to just intuitively know what the other is thinking. There is no playfulness, no laughter, no anger or tenderness or any other genuine feeling involved, as you'd have in an actual relationship. They feel no actual need for each other, because that would be weak, so they drift in and out of each other's lives over periods of several years. This is Rand's idea of being in love? Obviously she never experienced the feeling. Because of this, you can't bring yourself to care whether the two "soulmates" get together in the end or not.

The characters in this book are completely unlikeable, except for Gayle Wynand, and of course anyone who's read this knows how he ends up. I thought there was much more depth to his character then anyone else in the book. You got an idea of what made him the hard-nosed guy that he was, and you saw that he had genuine feeling for Dominique, even though the part where he builds a house in the country to keep her away from other people was a little much. I didn't understand the appeal of Roark at all. By the description given, he didn't seem all that physically attractive (not that that matters, but he IS supposed to be the perfect man, right?), and his so-called individualism didn't inspire me at all. It seemed like most of the time he was just doing completely illogical things in order to be difficult. He didn't strike me as very bright or charismatic, and I certainly don't understand why anyone would worship him. Dominique basically has no personality that I can tell, except that she also does silly and illogical things, like dumping a basically decent husband because he wouldn't let his business be run into the ground to save her hero Roark. As for Keating, one minute you loathe him, the next you feel sorry for him. But you never actually like him. Toohey is just ridiculous with his "I'm going to take over this newspaper...and RULE THE WORLD!!" speeches. He's not exactly a villain who strikes fear into the heart. I wasn't even sure he WAS the villain until halfway through the book. Not that I need to have it spelled out for me right away, but I do like to have some sense of who I'm supposed to be rooting for or booing, especially when I'm 400 pages in. The characters were just so flat for the most part that I really couldn't be sure. Oh, and Roark's big speech with the "not guilty" verdict at the end? Total cheese. Some of the dialogue throughout the entire novel is so cheesy that you can't help laughing (Like Roark saying the guy who discovered fire was put to death? How did he know that?).

I feel sorry for Ayn Rand, because it seems she was just a massively insecure person, with no ability to connect with other people. So, to make herself feel better, she decided to throw together a so-called philosophy justifying her complete lack of love or empathy for anyone at all. Unfortunately, she attracted a lot of other miserable people who have decided to worship her as some sort of all-knowing sage. I also feel sorry for them. I'm no student of philosophy, as you can probably tell since I have focused on the novel aspect instead of the idealistic one. But it seems as if most people would be level-headed enough to see that the very principles that Rand constantly condemns, are in fact the principles that make life in a hard world bearable. They're an undeniable part of mankind's being. If you take away man's love for his fellow man, you take away the part of him that makes him man, and he becomes an animal. If every man (and woman) lived only for himself, it would not be a pretty world. If you don't realize that, you need to grow up. Or get some therapy and medication, quickly.

Rating:
Summary: A Bible for the Religion of Objective Positivism
Review: It would be very easy to reject this massive work as a simplistic product of yet another humanistic evangelist. The worldview is more black and white than the Koran. Parts of the plotline don't work. The romantic dynamics are silly. And there are other pretty transparent weaknesses (more below). But the truth is that buried in almost a thousand pages, and underneath some laughably cardboard characters, there is an absorbing story here.

First off, not all the characters are weak. The protagonist, an unorthodox architect, is a sensible and dedicated hero worthy of respect. His fundamentalist dedication to Reason is strange, and in some ways robotic, but he is a likeable fellow. Be warned: his expressions of the Reasoning Self are disturbing and sometimes criminal and they inevitably place him in conflict with society as a whole. But not to worry, reassures the author, it's all for a good Reason.

Mr. Objectivist is surrounded by some pretty fascinating supporting characters as well. The character problem becomes evident about half way through the book when we recognize that most characters are not so much persons as caracitures of a various ideological perspectives. Their interactions often become predictable and irritatingly pedantic.

This problem is amplified in the climax of the novel, a scene in which our rational hero is confronted in a courtroom by the legal implications of his behavior choices. This scene degenerates into a sophomoric lecture on the moral superiority of rationalism and the human spirit. Which isn't a spirt, it's a consciousness. Except it's a Reasoning Consciousness. With Purpose. And that's what makes it Good. You get the idea.

There are other baffling odddities. The symbol of objective purity is ... architecture and building design. Hmmm. That's a pretty subjective starting point.

Still, I didn't mind the book. It's written at a level for thinking adults, worthy of the priorities of its author. The plot isn't predictable. The key areas of architecture and New York elite culture are treated with humorous sophistication. Perhaps the best thing is that the worldview is not hidden, which allows for some critical evaluation if that's your bent. Just be warned, this isn't light reading and doesn't pretend to be.

Rating:
Summary: What exactly do we consider deep??
Review: The "To be Fairs"
- I was unable to bring myself to actually finish this book.
- I don't know anything about architecture.
- I don't know much about the general attitudes towards non-conformity at the time the book was written, as I was not yet born.

That much said, I found this book to be dreadful.

I feel that I can generally overlook my personal feelings on a given "philosopy" and appreciate the depth of thought that another person has put into his/her ideals. I simply found Ms. Rand to have a sophmoric lack of depth.

The template Rand used to exemplify her philosophy was architecture. I found it insulting that Rand expects her readers to accept classical architecture as inherently evil simply because it is aestheticly pleasing to most people (popular). "What's popular is not always right", but this is a bit extreme. I realize architecture is not the beginning and end of Rand's Objectivism; I think only that she could have used a basis for argument that is (ouch) a bit MORE controversial (after all, her philosophy is controversial in the extreme- why not go for the gusto??).

The main character, Roark is repugnantly unlikeable (I won't hash into this subject as it has been well addressed in other reviews). Which makes the book difficult to read. Those who are obstinant for the sake of obstinance alone (teenagers mostly) may identify more with Roark and find this book to be "profound". Well good for them, everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion ( : )Tee hee).

My advice is this: If you want to read philosophy on individualism through thought and self-discovery, read Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse. If you want to know what self-serving behavior REALLY is (objectively) read The Moral Animal: Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Life by Robert Wright, you may be surprised.

Rating:
Summary: An Unsuccessful Attempt to Brainwash Me into an Objectivist
Review: I read "The Fountainhead" on a friend's recommendation and was thoroughly disappointed. I found that it read like a textbook--a textbook that could have had its point across in 100 pages rather than 700.

The characters in this "novel" are completely unbelievable. They speak only in philosophical terms, not like any human being I've ever heard, and have unbelievable or nonexistant motivations for their ridiculous actions. Towards the end of the book, Rand takes one last attempt to cram her philosphy down your throat (although it already has been attempted PLENTY of times) and the characters dictate their philosophy in pages and pages of unnecessary repetion. Perhaps if Rand had been a bit more subtle in her attempts to preach objectivism, she would have been more successful.

I gave the book two stars rather than one simply because I managed to finish the book and I suppose that's saying something for it. I did enjoy the two or three pages of action and I think I laughed once.

Rand is said to have been influenced by Victor Hugo however everything in her book goes against his subtle philosophy of self-sacrifice and love. She didn't fail completely however-she did manage to make me one of "Les Miserables."

Rating:
Summary: Philosophical overtones lack badly-needed subtlety
Review: Ayn Rand is very good at situational descriptions and setting. In this book, the overbearing/awe-inspiring effect Dominique has on the people around her is carried off very well throughout the book, as are the portrayals of Howard Roark, particuarly in the opening scene where he stands on a cliff and surveys the land around him.
As a whole, though, The Fountainhead really falls short. Yes, yes...it has an Important Philosophical Message to get across, which it does (many times) utterly without the grace that, say, Sartre's writings are capable of. Ayn Rand is quoted as having said that she always puts the story before the Message in her fiction, but she's mistaken, at least in this case.
This book is a good example of a novel whose ambition exceeds its content. Fundamentally, the reader is being told that he/she ought to feel no sense of responsibility to anyone or anything other than his/herself, or, rather, his/her creative urges. This is a little bit contradictory to Rand's other notion that the only worthwhile enterprise of the individual is create in a manner beneficial to other people (doesn't that sound a bit like her much-demonized altruism?), but I'll leave that alone here. It really doesn't take all the proselytizing that goes on in The Fountainhead to get its message across. It tries to be epic, but there just isn't all that much there.
And we aren't met with characters; we are met with Ideals. The walking, talking beings in this book fail to be interesting because they are impossible as real humans. This would be okay if the book were much shorter, but after the first several hundred pages it wears thin. And then the illusion breaks down further when two of the characters break into a thinly-veiled Socratic dialogue, for the purpose of expositing even more of the same thing all over again, as if the Message weren't already explicit enough.
Not that I would mind too much reading straight philosophy. The Fountainhead, though, should have been one or the other, philosophy or novel. The two elements' competing only serves to annoy. Ayn Rand just couldn't pull off, conceptually, the whole "ideas with legs" thing.

Rating:
Summary: ayn rand is right
Review: This is a glorious book. It should provide a beacon of hope and inspiration to anyone who has struggled to stay true to their own vison. I recommend it to anyone who works in a creative field, after reading this you will realize that you are NOT crazy or alone in your vocation and its consequences.

Beautifully written, with characters and scenery that are 3 dimensional and alive, the story rings clear like a church bell, even when re-visited over and over again. You will recognize these characters in the world around you, and so the Fountainhead will become more vivid and relevant.

Objectivism fails to answer some of life's questions to the same degree as any other philosophy, but its emphasis on independence, courage, hard work, creativity, truth, and the respect for the effort to live such ideas is important. Likewise Rand paints in believable colors the opposition to a person such as Howard Roark, and such opposition is alive and real. I have met a variety of Second-Handers, thankfully none so adept as Ellsworth Toohey.

Rating:
Summary: Very Interesting Characters
Review: Many people constantly compromise their most precious gifts in life in order to satisfy the wishes of the majority. In this story Rand reminds us that the only way one can come to greatness is if they first fight the masses. In order for something to be great, it must have at least a grain of originality. Forget the objective philosophy and see this book for what it is, a great story which recognizes the need for humanity to stand up for their beliefs and for their gifts. Many of Rand's philosophies are incorporated through this theme, but there are major flaws in my opinion with the belief that all greatness comes from pure egotists. No one is a pure egotist and no one is a pure altruist. Pure and simple, this is a great story that uses paradoxical characters who are so simple but appear very complex. It's definitely worth reading.

Rating:
Summary: ultimately overrated
Review: I have never quite understood Americans' obsession with Ayn Rand. I read Atlas Shrugged about 25 years ago and found it to be an overwritten bore. Some interesting points, but certainly not worth the effort of 1100 plus pages to pour through it all. Admittedly, the Fountainhead reads far better than Atlas, but it still suffers the typical Rand oversimplification plague: Her contention about the evils of collectivism is so wrought with emotion, that her dialog ends up being incredibly superficial. When the Stanton Dean contends that "everything worth doing has already been done" it just doesn't ring true. What 20th century person of ANY intelligence would ever say that phrase with a straight face? Collectivism or not, I have never met anyone who believes that, in or out of the education ranks.

The art of good writing is to show strong aspects of both sides of the debate. Ayn Rand is so fervently on one side, she actually derails her entire argument. Roark and Keating are nothing but bad caricatures, rather than flesh and blood characters. There's no depth to Rand's ideas. Even her introduction to the 25th edition (1968) has a lot sour grapes dripping all over it, although for what reason I am not so sure. I guess the 1960's were probably a bummer for Rand. The hippie generation's central theme was everyone getting together (hence, a form of collectivism, ouch, Ayn!).

Had Ayn Rand lived into this century, she probably would have been ecstatic with FOX NEWS and Rush Limbaugh (or Sean Hannity, for that matter) could have been her real life Howard Roark(s) model.