The Fountainhead

by Ayn Rand

published

September 1st 1996 (first published 1943) by Signet

edit

binding

Mass Market Paperback, 720 pages

characters

Howard Roark, Peter Keating, Ellsworth Toohey, Gail Wynand, Dominique Francon

setting

United States

isbn

0451191153 (isbn13: 9780451191151)

description

The Fountainhead has become an enduring piece of literature, more popular now than when published in 1943. On the surface, it is a story of one...more

find at: Amazon | Half.com | Barnes & Noble | Abebooks | more...

discuss this book

topics	replies	views	last activity
Objectivism	14	84	29 days ago, 08:59AM
Objectivism & Capitalism	1	16	09/08/2008 06:35PM
Anti-socialism?	8	85	05/07/2008 08:08AM

new topic

groups with this book

view all groups »

friend reviews (0)

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

lists with this book

The worst books of all time

851 books | 3419 voters

Best Books of the 20th Century

808 books | 3400 voters

More...

other reviews (showing 1-20 of 31795)

all | this edition

Jason rated it:

07/09/07

Would you like to hear the only joke I've ever written? Q: "How many Objectivists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?" A: (Pause, then disdainfully) "Uh...one!" And thus it is that so many of us have such a complicated relationship with the work of Ayn Rand; unabashed admirers at the age of 19, unabashedly horrified by 25, after hanging out with some actual Objectivists and witnessing what a--holes they actually are, and also realizing that Rand and her cronies were one of ...more

Like this review? yes (76 people liked it)

19 comments

cory rated it:

09/17/08

Read in September, 2008

recommends it for: exoteric dancers

Just a few pages left so i'm sending in my review...

I read most of "The Fountainhead" before the entire scandal broke out surrounding the truthfulness of objectivism. Even before obtaining the knowledge that the book was not 100% truthful, I found it to be an overdramatized and unrealistic account of what real life architects and and newspaper men are like. In many scenes in the book I felt as though Roark was self aggrandizing and in some parts even glorifying the experience of be...more Just a few pages left so i'm sending in my review...

I read most of "The Fountainhead" before the entire scandal broke out surrounding the truthfulness of objectivism. Even before obtaining the knowledge that the book was not 100% truthful, I found it to be an overdramatized and unrealistic account of what real life architects and and newspaper men are like. In many scenes in the book I felt as though Roark was self aggrandizing and in some parts even glorifying the experience of being a martyr. He portrayed rags to riches architects as rough and rugged, people that have been around the block more than once. Although there is definitely some truth to this, the other side of it is that architecture firms are an incredibly sad place to visit. They are filled with lost souls who due to their brain chemistry, life experiences and poor luck have no other choice or options but to take certain jobs and social positions. (People rarely volunteer to create columns written for housewives, it usually takes a severe "rock bottom" to get them there.) I feel as though Rand's book would have been a lot more powerful had she excluded the sensationalism that seemed to flood the book, much of this represented in her writing style (overly wordy thoughts and extra pages for dramatic effect.)
After the scandal was revealed and Rand’s book was found to be less than it seemed to be, my immediate reaction was sadness. I view this to mean that Rand has truly not discovered herself, a step that naturally most authors have is to "make a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves." This book is a reflection that Rand obviously still has some work to do. (Not that all of us don't..we just didn't write such books.)

On a positive note, I will say that "The Fountainhead" did give some people a push to seek careers in architecture and anything that is able to motivate someone is valuable, no matter the reason behind it.

furthermore, most of us have heard of this controversial book. it takes an open minded person to read this and to remember it is just fiction. but it brings up a lot of important questions about society, and the loss of love and the respect of women.

I don't care if I am the only one who likes this book. it is my own truth, and i will think what i want to think. Ayn Rand didn't LEAD me or anyone else. She OPENED our minds. Simply and importantly. She was just a catalyst for different thinking. that is a good thing... Poorly written or not.

if you finish the book you will notice that Rand even makes it clear to readers through her characters’ words, that she doesn't want to destroy love because it has done so much good for so many people, and if it works for them, let's let them continue to do what works for them. but find your own path.

if you were or are an architect ask yourself about the topics in this book. They are so eye opening. Keating having a baby? totally possible...never thought of it before. never thought of it. is it true? who knows. Things like this are happening all the time today...Weapons of Mass destruction in Iraq? sound familiar? Maybe the papers in the story repressed information LIKE this because it was a threat to the government. totally possible. The people with wealth creating the newspaper slants with a political agenda to wipe out uniqueness? actually this seems to be a fact. women being oppressed due to the fear of men in power losing their power...never looked at it that way. but this seems to be a fact too. is it helpful in broadening my perspective of the fact that modern society is just a religion made by fallible people. it sure is. does it open my mind to other thoughts like individualism, the worthlessness of the proletariat, and want to take the truths from all of them, and then THINK FOR MYSELF and figure out my own truth. it sure does...and that is what this book has probably done for many other people. why do you think Ayn Rand’s book was on the bestseller list for so long...obviously it was doing some good

overall I feel like everyone LOVES this book, but I was kind of underwhelmed. I know that the subject matter affects the quality of writing, but I could not get into this writing style. At all. I felt like it was totally affected and contrived. She was going for this "fable/parable" style, but it seemed to fail miserably. The parable-like quality was totally contrived, and I thought the "moral" was pretty stupid.

Moral: everything you want and need is far from home. Don’t take chances....less

Like this review? yes

1 comments

Max rated it:

06/27/07

bookshelves: classics, fiction

I did not like The Fountainhead as much as Atlas Shrugged. Atlas Shrugged was more of a page turner. There were very specific character goals that drove that story. The Fountainhead had a gradual buildup to a very climactic courtroom scene. The Fountainhead took the reader on a very linear journey, but never going beyond the basic story of a man who wants to succeed. Of course there are more nuances than that, but that is the basic essence. Atlas Shrugged takes a more epic approach and raises mo...more I did not like The Fountainhead as much as Atlas Shrugged. Atlas Shrugged was more of a page turner. There were very specific character goals that drove that story. The Fountainhead had a gradual buildup to a very climactic courtroom scene. The Fountainhead took the reader on a very linear journey, but never going beyond the basic story of a man who wants to succeed. Of course there are more nuances than that, but that is the basic essence. Atlas Shrugged takes a more epic approach and raises more issues and more awareness of the world around you. As Ayn Rand has said, The Fountainhead was the story of man, while Atlas Shrugged was a story of society. And, of course, society is going to have more things going on in it.
Both stories revolve around a central character, the perfect man. In The Fountainhead, this man is Howard Roark, Architect. While being "perfect" in the Ayn Rand sense, he seems more human than the counterpart in Atlas Shrugged, John Galt, Destroyer, who is more of a god in that story. Even the speeches made at the end by both men are as different. Roark's speech is approachable, readable, understandable and relates directly to the reader. The reader is instantly drawn in. John Galt's Speech, however, is a massive didactic and at times condescending speech that as a reader is a major undertaking in a book as involved as Atlas Shrugged. But the audiences were different for the men. Roark spoke to men who he chose to listen to him. Men who were logical thinkers; cold and objective. Galt spoke to the radio masses; basically sheep. He had to find 42 different ways of saying the same thing, just so the people could understand him. Beyond the speeches these men are different in their presentation in the book. Roark begins and ends the story. Galt is a mystery for the majority of Atlas Shrugged. He is mythic and godlike. Referenced, but never known and understood with the constant elusive and almost meaningless quote "Who is John Galt?" That book really focuses on Dagny Taggert, a rare very strong female character. Atlas Shrugged is really her story, her failing quest to save a world that doesn't understand its own danger from a destroyer. Both she and Galt are a matched pair, similar in philosophies, drive and dedication, but different in their approach. Dagny was relentless in trying to hold the world together, even though the world tried to stop and undermine her at every turn. Galt did not actively seek out destruction. He merely illustrated that without the exploitation of people like Dagny, it will not and can not survive. He simply withdrew himself from being exploited.
One thing that Ayn Rand really impresses me with is that while she gets a kick out of creating and describing and telling the story of the perfect man, she incorporates some of the strongest women I have ever read in literature. As Dagny is in Atlas Shrugged, Dominique was in The Fountainhead. While not as strong or dominate as Dagny, Dominique finds her own niche in the story as the perfect female and satirizes what society usually paints as the "perfect female." Besides being physically attractive she is smart beyond normal comprehension. When trapping herself in a meaningless marriage and playing the part of the "perfect wife," she performed her womanly duties; everything when the husband wanted. Did he love this "perfect wife?" He was miserable because who would want to date a robot who did everything he wanted. She exhibited no personality or thought of her own and was perfectly compliant with everything everyone wanted from her....specifically to show how miserable they can be by simply using her.
Fountainhead is a brilliant novel. Ayn Rand has found a way to share her philosophies in a way that is entertaining and enlightening and only a rare trace of didacticism. The Fountainhead shows a very true if not menacing picture of how evil altruism can be. ...less

Like this review? yes (5 people liked it)

5 comments

Johannes rated it:

04/24/08

bookshelves: literature

I read this book for the first time when I was 16 years old, in the summer between 10th and 11th grade. Up until that point in my life, I had never questioned any of my values: my values were my parents' values and that was that. This book made me open my mind to other possibilities, and since I didn't have a job or anything else to do (I was at my summer home in Holland and mostly spent my days riding my bike along the Vecht), I gave a lot of time to thinking about this book. To say that its...more I read this book for the first time when I was 16 years old, in the summer between 10th and 11th grade. Up until that point in my life, I had never questioned any of my values: my values were my parents' values and that was that. This book made me open my mind to other possibilities, and since I didn't have a job or anything else to do (I was at my summer home in Holland and mostly spent my days riding my bike along the Vecht), I gave a lot of time to thinking about this book. To say that its effect on me was profound would be an understatement. Since that time I have reread The Fountainhead on several occasions.

Let me say now that I am not an Objectivist and I do not think that Ayn Rand has "the correct" view on life (or that there is one, simple "correct" view). On the other hand, neither do I think that all her ideas are completely without merit. If you need always to agree with the author, don't read this book. If you like thinking about new ideas, even if you ultimately reject them, pick it up soon.

Rand's characters are criticized as being "flat." I don't think this is a fair representation, as they do change and develop during the course of the book. What is true is that the characters are people second and representations of ideas first. The hero, Howard Roark, is rather inhuman because he is Rand's idealization of man. The master villain, Ellsworth Toohey, is similarly inhuman, but he is far more interesting than Roark because, whereas Roark is blunt and forthright, Toohey is clever and manipulative. The other characters in the book, who lie between these extremes, are very human because they find themselves in moral dilemmas as they are pulled in various degrees by the forces represented by Roark and Toohey. Dominique Francon, who spends the novel engaged in an internal war between the social values that are thrust upon her and her innate sense of right (Roark must battle with society externally but has no internal conflict -- he is "perfect" from the beginning). Gail Wynand fights this same battle, but he must deal not only with social values but also the part he has played in shaping them. Peter Keating is a victim, but by being a victim he propagates his weak, immoral values and thus becomes one of the villains.

Atlas Shrugged is considered Rand's seminal work, but I rank this book higher. I confess this may have something to do with the situation under which I read and the impact it had on me personally. However, I also think that as a work of philosophy and as a work of fiction, The Fountainhead is superior. As a work of philosophy, Atlas Shrugged is more polished, but it does not fill any holes left by The Fountain. Rather, it ignores them: Rand manages to gloss over some problems so that the reader might not know they are there. By contrast, The Fountainhead more honestly demonstrates the weakness of the philosophy. For example, Rand associates beauty with functionality. While I doubt many people would deny that such a thing as beauty in function exists, it is absurd to limit the word "beauty" to this meaning. In Atlas Shrugged, Rand simply avoids stating this as plainly as she does in The Fountainhead, so the reader may not realize this weakness in her position. I prefer the unpolished honesty of The Fountainhead.

As a work of fiction, Atlas Shrugged is simply preachy. If fiction is to be, as Rand says it should be (and I agree), the translation of an abstraction into the concrete, she does not entirely succeed with Atlas Shrugged. A great deal of what she writes there reads more as a treatise than as a work of literature. The Fountainhead succeeds because the ideas are conveyed with actions and dialogue, interactions between competing forces, and rarely long monologues such as are found in Atlas Shrugged.

Ayn Rand is about as well known for her brevity as her modesty, but despite the fact that this book is most immodest both in tone and length, I recommend it strongly.
...less

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

1 comments

Dave rated it:

09/18/07

bookshelves: fiction, philosophy

Read in October, 2004

Overall, this is not only great fiction, but Rand also has some great ideas which are presented with an uncanny amount of clarity.

The architectural profession serves as the backdrop for the story. The story itself is quite interesting; either Rand did a great deal of research or she did a good job faking it. I maintained a complete disinterest in architecture before reading the book, but still found myself actively engaged while Rand discussed the matter. I wonder how many young readers are ...more Overall, this is not only great fiction, but Rand also has some great ideas which are presented with an uncanny amount of clarity.

The architectural profession serves as the backdrop for the story. The story itself is quite interesting; either Rand did a great deal of research or she did a good job faking it. I maintained a complete disinterest in architecture before reading the book, but still found myself actively engaged while Rand discussed the matter. I wonder how many young readers are steered towards the profession after reading this book for the first time.

With the exceptions of a few monologues that went on a bit too long, the story kept me engaged for the entire 700 pages. The characters are well developed; I found myself attached to some while despising others. There is adequate conflict to keep the plot moving.

While I understood the motivations of the actions carried out by Dominique and Roark, the actions themselves bordered on the edge of the extreme. At various times in the book, both engage in acts of violence and destruction which don't seem completely rational. These issues aside, it's a very well written book.

As to the philosophy.....

Rand's message is fairly clear. She doesn't abstract the message at all. In fact, she grinds it in as thoroughly and as clearly as she can.

The book provides us with Howard Roark as Rand's idea of an ideal man. He never falters in his convictions. He remains completely independent and relies on nobody. His only interest is to his work; to the manifestation of his creative genius. He doesn't care what others think - he only cares about his own productive achievements. He is an egotist - a term which carries a positive connotation in her book. She argues that it's the egotistical desire of man that build great civilizations.

“All that which proceeds from man’s independent ego is good. All that which proceeds from man’s dependence upon men is evil.”

The book is full of weaker people like Peter Keating. Keating lives through the thoughts and feelings of others. He is completely dependent upon others to justify his existence. Through Roark and Keating, Rand asserts that dependence upon other men is evil in nature. Keating lives not for himself, but for others. Rand has a title for such people - second handers. He can't do what he desires, as he is constantly worried about how others think of him.

In a world where self-interest is ideal, acts of altruism are counterproductive and should be despised. At first I was lost on this point, as it didn't seem to me that altruism was necessarily all bad. I see no problem with people giving of themselves to people they love. I also don't see a problem with my donating money to various charitable endeavors. After reading The Fountainhead, I now see that such acts are not altruism.

Altruism is the unselfish concern for the welfare of others - a state of complete selflessness. When I give to those I love or to causes I believe in, my actions are selfish. I provide for my family because I hold them to be the most important thing in my life. That check to the local SPCA goes towards providing a better life for animals, a cause I place some value in. Charity and kindness are not altruism; they're actually quite selfish acts.

However, to an extent society seems to feel that I should give to those who are less fortunate with no care for myself simply because the intended recipient is deemed to need such assistance by those who insist that I give it. Most social welfare programs are like this. I am forced to pay taxes on my earnings, which are then distributed to others via a variety of social programs despite the fact that I have no interest giving in such a fashion. This is nothing more than forced altruism....less

Like this review? yes (4 people liked it)

2 comments

Stephanie A. rated it:

12/28/07

Read in June, 2006

recommends it for: people who are not angry and misanthropic

As an architecture student with no field experience, I can't testify to the accuracy of this book. Given that over half a century has passed since its initial publication, and that Ayn Rand herself only spent a few months working in an architecture firm, I'm pretty sure this isn't the most reliable account of the profession. But the book strongly and admirably revolves around architecture. Rand fuses her philosophy, Objectivism, with the contrasting aesthetic ideals and gritty reality of buildin...more As an architecture student with no field experience, I can't testify to the accuracy of this book. Given that over half a century has passed since its initial publication, and that Ayn Rand herself only spent a few months working in an architecture firm, I'm pretty sure this isn't the most reliable account of the profession. But the book strongly and admirably revolves around architecture. Rand fuses her philosophy, Objectivism, with the contrasting aesthetic ideals and gritty reality of buildings and the people who make them. Contrary to what I'd heard, this book is well-written. It isn't a masterpiece of words by any means, but it is definitely a book I like to pick up again and again and search within for the passages that struck me from the beginning.

There are four parts to this book. I loved the first and last; I absolutely hated the middle. Somewhere during those two middle parts, I realized the chief flaws of this book:

(1) It is overlong-- too much expository writing, too much impossibly philosophical dialog. Characters banter back and forth for hours. Actually, I shouldn't even call it banter. It's more like debate, essay versus essay.
(2) The characters are horrible. Don't get me wrong-- I admire how much thought Rand put into them. They are carefully, fully realized. However, after hundreds of pages of diatribe, I almost couldn't stand it anymore and would certainly have stopped reading if I hadn't liked the first part so much. I suppose a lot of this has to do with her philosophy. If you subscribe to Objectivism, you'll like the people Ayn Rand wants you to like.

Speaking of which, I've read a lot of reviews on Amazon that warn against this book as giving validation to angry, misanthropic teenagers. That's perfectly understandable. Excerpts from Rand's diary declare Howard Roark, the protagonist, 'man as he should be.' I'm going to go off on a tangent here, but I think this character is worth discussing for a bit. He's an orphan, he has no friends, and when we meet him, he's just been expelled from architecture school for producing radical designs (from the descriptions, European Modernism, although his character is much more extremist Frank Lloyd Wright). This is all part of an instant-sympathy ploy, of course. But Roark does not want friends. He does not care what other people think of him-- and when I say that, I mean he really doesn't care. I won't reveal what happens, but let's just say he remains inhumanly stubborn throughout.

True, by the rules of Objectivism, Howard must be self-made and self-contained, which Rand definitely gets across. What she fails to do is humanize him. Much of this has to do with the improbability of his situation. He obviously has no respect or concern for anyone else, yet he's an architect. Ideal man or not, Howard Roark is really a sociopath whose sole redeeming quality is his brilliance. What kind of architect says, "I don't plan to build in order to have clients. I plan to have clients in order to build"? I wouldn't have such a huge problem with this if architecture weren't the crux of this story. The nature of the profession requires some amount of humanitarianism. Architects build for other people. Architects must cooperate with other people. No one goes into architecture for the money. For the prestige, maybe, but even that's questionable. I think Ayn Rand mixed up art and architecture somewhere in the creation of Howard Roark. Artists don't have to answer to anyone; architects do.

A better writer, or a writer less concerned with indoctrination, may have been able to draw a more sympathetic Howard Roark. Still, this book is worth reading. It's fascinating, different, and sometimes quite exhilarating when it isn't bashing you over the head with despicable characters and philosophical convictions....less

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

1 comments

Rachel rated it:

(review of isbn 0452286751)

04/04/08

bookshelves: philosophy

Read in April, 2008

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

I picked this up because one of my favorite authors, Terry Goodkind, agreed with Objectivism; his Sword of Truth series dealt with similar themes that I read in "The Fountainhead." It was amazing to me the similarities of character between Howard Roark and Richard Rahl, between Dominique Francon and Nicci, the Mistress of Death. Howard and Richard are both heroes, the ideal man, unshakably standing for their right to be free to live their life as they see best instead of being forced...more I picked this up because one of my favorite authors, Terry Goodkind, agreed with Objectivism; his Sword of Truth series dealt with similar themes that I read in "The Fountainhead." It was amazing to me the similarities of character between Howard Roark and Richard Rahl, between Dominique Francon and Nicci, the Mistress of Death. Howard and Richard are both heroes, the ideal man, unshakably standing for their right to be free to live their life as they see best instead of being forced to live the life others want them to live. In this case, Howard Roark fights to build as he wishes; and for Richard Rahl, he fights to stop the Imperial Order from exterminating people with magic all in the name of the 'greater good'.

If you've never read the Sword of Truth series, you'll see Objectivism come out most clearly in Terry Goodkind's "Faith of the Fallen" when Nicci tries to force Richard to confront the reality of the common man, to live 'as they do', poor, talentless, stripped of magic, and living such a hard life that they 'need' help from others. What happens is that Richard becomes a slave to these others, to the 'greater good'. None of the wages he earns, he ever sees, and it goes to people deemed less fortunate than him. We get a good look at these other people, and find people living without purpose, pride, or dignity; people who expect things given to them; people who hate others for being greater than them; people who murder and allow murder for the 'greater good'.

Like Dominique Francon's grand realization at the end of the book, so to does Nicci realize what the Imperial Order stood for was evil and wrong. She watches how Richard Rahl breaks out of this slavery and shows people that man is not something ugly, small, and undeserving. Through a great statue he builds out of marble (I saw the similarity between this statue and the one Steve Mallory made for Howard Roark; the statue of Dominique Francon), Richard convinces a great many people in that enslaved, downtrodden, miserable city to rise up and fight for their right to live as free thinking men, to work for no one but themselves and their own happiness; to be slave to no one.

It's an uplifting message, and I believe that is why Ayn Rand ended her book as she did. Dominique Francon rises up the construction elevator alongside Howard Roark's greatest and tallest building in New York City, rises above the whole world, and sees Howard Roark, the ideal man, at the top who worked for this. So to does Terry Goodkind end his series in a similar vein; Richard Rahl's last words are "Rise up and live."

Next, about the relationship between Dominique and Howard. I couldn't understand the violent sexual edge Dominique had about it. I read an essay I found online where Ayn Rand explains that Howard Roark did not rape Dominique, and for a while I was convinced since later in the book, especially during Gail Wynand and Howard Roark's brotherly relationship, we see how much Dominique and Howard loved and respected each other. But then Ayn Rand has Dominique confess at the end to Gail that Howard raped her. Now I'm just confused and not sure what Ayn Rand meant. This is why I'm giving the story 4 stars instead of 5.

Lastly, a word about Peter Keating. Yes, he fell hard and how very sad it is to see what a selfless life can lead to, but I think the greater tragedy was in Catherine, who Peter should have married had he followed his wishes instead of Ellsworth Toohey's. She became so selfless that she lost her life; she felt empty and cruel to me.

Overall, this book had a million themes you could pick through; it was quite long, but I definitely think it was worth the study. I hope people interested in Ayn Rand will pick up Terry Goodkind's books; you'll see the same philosophy throughout. ...less

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

1 comments

Tamara added it (review of isbn 0452286379)

12/05/07

This book made me so angry at the characters that I stopped reading it. Maybe partially because I could relate to the poor girl who got walked all over whose boyfriend dumped her for the shallow, self-destructive, beautiful rich girl.

I read “We the Living” and then “Anthem” also by Ayn Rand. I liked both of those short novels. "We the Living" was a heartbreaking riches to rags story where the main character tries to support her and the love of her life by dating a wealthier...more This book made me so angry at the characters that I stopped reading it. Maybe partially because I could relate to the poor girl who got walked all over whose boyfriend dumped her for the shallow, self-destructive, beautiful rich girl.

I read “We the Living” and then “Anthem” also by Ayn Rand. I liked both of those short novels. "We the Living" was a heartbreaking riches to rags story where the main character tries to support her and the love of her life by dating a wealthier man (again typical theme but it worked for this one.) "Anthem" (like "Animal Farm" in the fight for freedom to not just be another number but be an individual).

“The Fountainhead” however I disliked. First, I had a hard time getting into the book, I re-read and re-read pages my eyes glossing over like a fog was rolling into them. I was bored to near sleep within the first few pages. Do I care that Roark swims naked? Nope. Do I care that Roark creeps people out with his lack of emotion? Nope.

I would have liked Howard Roark’s character if the starving artist with integrity bit wasn't so over the top (hello! Musical theatre much? Over gesturing!).

Peter Keating is the mama's boy from hell with no real personality he just sucks up to the major architects and when he gets stuck on a project he sneaks off and begs Roark for help on design.

Ellsworth Toohey, has no real talent other than public speaking and manipulation. But of course he sees himself as a "nice guy". You know I'm pretty Leary whenever someone tells me that they are a nice person in real life - because that usually means - they have to tell me because otherwise I would have never guessed it. Nice people don't go around announcing that they are nice they show it through their actions. Ellsworth Toohey's actions are purely manipulative.

Dominique Francon’s character is typecast the typical bored rich girl who hates everything in society and is self-destructive. She reminds me of a few 16-22 year old girls that I have come into close contact with. You know the ones that are skinny, sarcastic, and act like they don't care about anything except for hair, nails, make-up, boys, and whatever s cool in hipster land. When beneath the surface they are insecure, abuse drugs and/or alcohol, struggle with anorexia or bulimia, etc. I kind of picture her to look like Paris Hilton and act like Nicole Ritchie.

I stopped reading it mid way through the summer because I got so angry at the characters. I actually slammed the book to the ground. And if I wasn’t such a book lover than I would have also jumped and down on top of it as well. The characters seem two dimensional. The Fountainhead creates a very cold or non existent emotional setting. Emotions are hide and not shared to such an extent that innocent bystanders get very hurt.

Of course true-objectivists have said that the story gets better and to stick it out but really I think this one is going to the swap shop. Sorry guys and gals I'm not an "objectivist" and I never claimed to be. NEXT! ...less

Like this review? yes (7 people liked it)

add a comment

Skylar rated it:

12/29/07

bookshelves: libertarian, philosophy

Read in January, 2001

The Fountainhead is a tale of both defeat and triumph. It is depressing and exalting, inviting and repugnant. And its philosophy, like all great lies, is more than three-quarters true.

In this lengthy novel, Ayn Rand presents her ideal man and her philosophy of objectivism. The philosophy rejects mercy, altruism, charity, sacrifice, and service. These proclaimed virtues are portrayed as either weaknesses or as tools of subjugation. Her philosophy is a sort of extreme capitalism applied ...more The Fountainhead is a tale of both defeat and triumph. It is depressing and exalting, inviting and repugnant. And its philosophy, like all great lies, is more than three-quarters true.

In this lengthy novel, Ayn Rand presents her ideal man and her philosophy of objectivism. The philosophy rejects mercy, altruism, charity, sacrifice, and service. These proclaimed virtues are portrayed as either weaknesses or as tools of subjugation. Her philosophy is a sort of extreme capitalism applied to every aspect of life; as with Adam Smith’s invisible hand, if men pursue their own selfish interests, mankind will ultimately benefit. Altruism, Rand argues, forces men to keep others subservient, so that they may make themselves righteous; it has been the root of the greatest evils in the world (Communism, Nazism, etc.); but egoism has resulted in creations with have alleviate the sufferings of man for generations to come.

Her philosophy is most succinctly expressed by her architect hero Howard Roark, who says, “All that which proceeds form man’s independent ego is good. All that which proceeds from man’s dependence upon men is evil.” Rand's philosophy stands in stark contrast to the collectivism which was then sweeping the world in an ocean of blood. Collectivism "has reached,” says Roark, “a scale of horror without precedent. It has poisoned every mind. It has swallowed most of Europe. It is engulfing our country.”

Roark aruges that “only by living for himself” can man “achieve the things which are the glory of mankind” and that “no man can live for another . . . The man who attempts to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves.” And yet Roark is himself the quintessential intellectual, who shares the same failing of the intellectuals who created Communism, Nazism, and the other “altruistic evils”; that is, he is capable of loving man in the abstract but incapable of loving him in the particular: “One can’t love man without hating most of the creatures who pretend to bear his name.”

The Fountainhead expresses an individualism that is uniquely American, and it is therefore surprising that The Fountainhead, as far as I know, has never been in the running for the title of “The Great American Novel.” Of course, although it emphasizes that individualism has made our nation great (and it has), it must of necessity ignore and dismisses another progressive force in our nation’s history: American Christianity.

So what about the story? Despite the copious philosophical dialogue, the story is not sacrificed to create an ethical treatise. The characters are fascinating, very well-developed, and the story is at times gripping. However, the relationship between our hero and heroine is never fully convincing to me, and I find it highly disturbing that Rand felt it necessary to make rape an essential and even positive element of their union. The story drew me in at first, and then began to lose me for several chapters, as Rand breaks one of the rules of good structure and does not begin developing a main character until over half way through the novel.

...less

Like this review? yes (4 people liked it)

1 comments

Manzoid rated it:

08/09/08

This book is a big epiphany-getter in American high school and college students. It presents a theme of pure, fierce dedication to honing yourself into a hard blade of competence and accomplishment, brooking no compromise, ignoring and dismissing the weak, untalented rabble and naysayers as you charge forth to seize your destiny. You are an "Army of One". There is undeniable sophomoric allure to this pitch. It kind of reminds me of all those teenagers into ninja stuff and wu shu and...more This book is a big epiphany-getter in American high school and college students. It presents a theme of pure, fierce dedication to honing yourself into a hard blade of competence and accomplishment, brooking no compromise, ignoring and dismissing the weak, untalented rabble and naysayers as you charge forth to seize your destiny. You are an "Army of One". There is undeniable sophomoric allure to this pitch. It kind of reminds me of all those teenagers into ninja stuff and wu shu and other Oriental mystical crap (supported by a cottage industry of silly how-to magazines and catalogs for throwing stars and whatnot). "I will forge myself upon the white-hot anvil of hard experience into a mighty warrior..." or some such.

I read "The Fountainhead" in college, and so did a bunch of classmates. I found that the people who were *really* taken with it tended to be borderline-pompous cretins who had some moderate talent in something -- art or music, say -- and thought that Ayn Rand had just given them permission to uncork their amazing true spirits, that only an over-adherence to social convention was holding them back from greatness. Uh, no... that's not what's holding you back from greatness...

It reminds me of how so many students "really relate" to Holden Caulfield, when the real Holden would think they were total phonies.

To be fair, Rand's ideas about the supremacy of self-reliance, the false comfort of altruism, the exaltation of a gritty and decidedly male competence, the sublimeness of pure laissez-faire capitalism... they are interesting to consider. Not making excuses, getting off your ass and working to become really good at something that's in line with your true nature, staying true to your personal ideals of what Quality is, not compromising those ideals for expediency, fear, or social pressure -- these are workable ideas in themselves. However, they are put on a ridiculously high and isolated pedestal in Rand's work.

If children did not exist in this world and life was entirely about your career, maybe I could agree a little more. But only a little. Her worldview is just too cold and transactional and rigid and productivity-oriented. She's a libertarian wet dream, I guess, and I feel the same way about them both -- some thought-provoking ideas there, but I don't see it working at all as a broad basis for any kind of world I'd want to live in.

Oh yeah, and to circle back for a bit to the actual novel -- the prose is wooden, and characters are flat, and it is twice as long as necessary. Maybe three times as long. It's basically a giant propaganda tract. But it has a surprisingly strong grip on a certain stratum of the American consciousness, so I think it's still an interesting read in that respect. In order to invest the time in it though, I think you have to be the literary equivalent of the film buff who eagerly takes in B-movies as well in order to savor their peculiar inverse contributions to the art form....less

Like this review? yes (5 people liked it)

2 comments

David rated it:

08/27/08

Read in January, 1975

recommends it for: Intellectually curious people

This was the book through which I first discovered Ayn Rand (along with a couple of her non-fiction works) way back when I was in my late teens. An old paperback version of this book was in a box of books that was dumped on me way back in 1975. I read it slowly over a period of time. At one point I stopped, angry with Ayn Rand when I discovered that she had been one of the "friendly" witnesses before the UnAmerican Activities Committee. However, it was such a compelling book that I...more This was the book through which I first discovered Ayn Rand (along with a couple of her non-fiction works) way back when I was in my late teens. An old paperback version of this book was in a box of books that was dumped on me way back in 1975. I read it slowly over a period of time. At one point I stopped, angry with Ayn Rand when I discovered that she had been one of the "friendly" witnesses before the UnAmerican Activities Committee. However, it was such a compelling book that I decided to read on.

Unlike Atlas Shrugged which spans a five year period, this book spans something like 20 years and has a less time-focussed plot. Whilst Atlas Shrugged - despite its length and time frame - was a vertical novel, this book was a horizontal novel, almost a saga, as it plots the slow but inexorable path of a man of integrity. Even in it its best passages, it is not as rich in its use of language as Atlas Shrugged, but at least it is almost entirely spared the overtly preaching passages that mar Rand's later Opus. Instead, it delivers its message through the events of the story. Such explicit "preaching" as there is in this book is more subtle: a few "confessions" by Ellsworth Toohey as to his real nature and motives and of course Roark's speech at his trial (where speeches are expected).

One of the interesting stylistic features is that this book both begins and ends with the name Howard Roark, thus bracketing the story with the protagonist's name. This is not accidental: it is part of the author's use of both linguistic and graphic symbolism. At the beginning Roark is standing naked on the edge of a cliff, looking down and thinking about how he can use natural materials to construct artificial structures. At the end of the book he is standing (fully clothed) at the top of a skyscraper in construction - a skyscraper of HIS design. This symbolizes his lifetime voyage from a man with nothing but what nature gave him to a man who had shaped the world around him and triumphed over it.

Indeed early in the story, Roark had explained his desire to be an architect in terms of his atheism: he didn't like the world in its natural form and wanted to change it. of course his arch-enemy Ellsworth Toohey also wanted to change the world. But he wanted to do so by changing human nature - or rather by exploiting certain aspects of it. Roark cared nothing about human nature - not even trying to persuade others to see things as he did. All he cared about was reshaping the physical world into something better, through the profession of architecture.

Only a minor note, some one - a critic of Ayn Rand I think - did make some comments about the characters' names. Howard Roark was like a "Hard Rock," Ellsworth Toohey, rhymed with the mocking pseudo-words "phooey" and "hooey", whilst Peter Keating rhymed with "cheating" (which he did to succeed professionally) and "bleating" (like the fad-following sheep that he was). Even Dominique was a portmanteau of "Dominant" (until she met Roark) and "Unique"! There may be some truth in this, but so what. Dickens used to do the same thing in jest - and Trevanian took it to new heights.

But to return to Ayn Rand - this book was good precisely because it was clear in its message yet subtle and not in any way bombastic - if you don't count what Roark did to Cortlandt....less

Like this review? yes

add a comment

Tyler rated it:

(review of isbn 0452286379)

05/12/08

Read in June, 2002

Lots of what people hear about The Fountainhead is driven by the personal desires people superimpose over the text, so I want to be as clear as I can in my review.

The book is not philosophy. It is a bildungsroman whose style loosely follows the Romanticism and Realism in 19th century novels. That is, the book is literature. Because it's an uneven work, I'll move from the bad to the good.

The novel is a study of the character of several individuals showing the consequences of the points o...more Lots of what people hear about The Fountainhead is driven by the personal desires people superimpose over the text, so I want to be as clear as I can in my review.

The book is not philosophy. It is a bildungsroman whose style loosely follows the Romanticism and Realism in 19th century novels. That is, the book is literature. Because it's an uneven work, I'll move from the bad to the good.

The novel is a study of the character of several individuals showing the consequences of the points of view one adopts in life. Because of this, character development is vital. And here we see the greatest weakness.

The characters do not particularly engage the sympathy of the reader. In the case of the protagonist, Howard Roark, this deficiency is near fatal. Ayn Rand did not deliberately sketch the character this way, as some suggest. It's clear she didn't create a three-dimensional character because she couldn't.

Character development has to be the hardest task in literature, so that's not surprising, especially given Rand's temperament. Howard Roark remains largely a cipher to the reader. I wouldn't know how he'd act if I met him. As a result, I don't know how to be sympathetic to his point of view based on his character alone. What jumps at me off the pages of the book is a striking failure by the author to comprehend even the basics of argumentation and persuasive writing. She has failed to sell me on Howard Roark, so to speak.

The action of the novel is a little better. Some parts fail because Rand fails to make the occurrences believable. She sometimes doesn't demonstrate the capacity to induce the "suspension of disbelief" that's essential to the enjoyment of a novel. But at other times, the action does seem plausible and even engaging. So it turns out that the action, rather than the character development, is what moves the novel along.

The best part of the novel is the hugely misrepresented theme. Here, Ayn Rand excels. Avoiding the soapbox so many see or fear, she holds the theme to a narrow point: the capacity of organizations to destroy individual talent -- the theme skewered by the current Dilbert cartoons. This is now called organizational psychology, but because the field has been unable to penetrate modern organizations to good effect, the final statement on the subject lies with literature, and Ayn Rand owns it. The theme is unique in literature, so here we have the real importance of the book.

Let me reiterate that the book is not philosophy, so potential readers should have no hope or fear in that respect. Many of the ideas that comprised Ayn Rand's later world view are either absent from the book or inexplicit. The fact that The Fountainhead makes a statement about some particular problem in society makes it no different from most other literature I've read.

I gave the book a 3 because the negatives and positives tend to cancel each other to an extent. What's more important, and what a numerical rating can't take into account, is that the book is an uneven work, not a uniformly mediocre one.

...less

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

2 comments

D-t rated it:

03/27/08

this review is bizarrely getting votes from people i don't know, so let me just reiterate that the text of the prediction is from mcsweenys, in case it's not clear that all i did was a little cutting and pasting.

instead of reading this book, just read ayn rand's superbowl prediction in mcsweeney's and you'll get the idea:

When he saw Bill Belichick in the hallway before the press conference, Tom Coughlin's face contorted into a whine. "It isn't fair!" he shrieked. "You have all the best players!" he whimpered. "What happened to helping your fellow man?!" he mewled. "You ... all you care about is winning!" he sniveled.

The muscular coach set his prominent jaw, and his hard, handsome eyes glistened. "Why, Tom," he asked with a smile, "isn't winning what the NFL is all about?"

Coughlin's face turned bright red as he flapped his effeminate hands in hysterical gestures. By this time, a large crowd of reporters had gathered. "But, but ... your players are the best in the league! Your offense is unstoppable! How am I supposed to go on the field with my weak players or my simple, predictable playcalling?? We'll be destroyed! I tell you it isn't fair! We deserve to be helped! This is social treason!"

Belichick squared his broad shoulders as he stared Coughlin in the eye. The smaller man cowed and threw his hands to his face in a pathetic flail. "Tom," said Belichick, "I bet nobody has been honest with you in your entire life, so let me be the first. I was taught in the ways of strength. Yes, my men will win today. But it's because we've had the courage to act on our judgment, and the fortitude to trust our decisions. Long ago, we were faced with a choice—the same choice you faced. We chose conviction. You chose impotence. And now, today, you ask me not only to cut my wrists and bleed on your behalf ... oh no. You would also have me fund, design, and build the knife. You accuse me of social treason, and yet you beg me to betray myself." The beautiful man laughed a throaty, attractive laugh. "You are a coward, Tom, and a coward in this world deserves nothing."

With a great cheer, the reporters stood in unison and applauded.

Prediction: Patriots 326, Giants –27 ...more this review is bizarrely getting votes from people i don't know, so let me just reiterate that the text of the prediction is from mcsweenys, in case it's not clear that all i did was a little cutting and pasting.

instead of reading this book, just read ayn rand's superbowl prediction in mcsweeney's and you'll get the idea:

When he saw Bill Belichick in the hallway before the press conference, Tom Coughlin's face contorted into a whine. "It isn't fair!" he shrieked. "You have all the best players!" he whimpered. "What happened to helping your fellow man?!" he mewled. "You ... all you care about is winning!" he sniveled.

The muscular coach set his prominent jaw, and his hard, handsome eyes glistened. "Why, Tom," he asked with a smile, "isn't winning what the NFL is all about?"

Coughlin's face turned bright red as he flapped his effeminate hands in hysterical gestures. By this time, a large crowd of reporters had gathered. "But, but ... your players are the best in the league! Your offense is unstoppable! How am I supposed to go on the field with my weak players or my simple, predictable playcalling?? We'll be destroyed! I tell you it isn't fair! We deserve to be helped! This is social treason!"

Belichick squared his broad shoulders as he stared Coughlin in the eye. The smaller man cowed and threw his hands to his face in a pathetic flail. "Tom," said Belichick, "I bet nobody has been honest with you in your entire life, so let me be the first. I was taught in the ways of strength. Yes, my men will win today. But it's because we've had the courage to act on our judgment, and the fortitude to trust our decisions. Long ago, we were faced with a choice—the same choice you faced. We chose conviction. You chose impotence. And now, today, you ask me not only to cut my wrists and bleed on your behalf ... oh no. You would also have me fund, design, and build the knife. You accuse me of social treason, and yet you beg me to betray myself." The beautiful man laughed a throaty, attractive laugh. "You are a coward, Tom, and a coward in this world deserves nothing."

With a great cheer, the reporters stood in unison and applauded.

Prediction: Patriots 326, Giants –27

...less

Like this review? yes (9 people liked it)

add a comment

Lillie added it

09/21/07

Read in November, 2007

In a novel for anyone interested in political ideals and philosophical thought, Ayn Rand writes the tantalizing tale of a strong-minded architect who refuses to conform to the society around him. Howard Roark builds buildings the way he wants to, and really doesn't care about what anyone else thinks. While other men around him copy various ancient Roman, Gothic, and Greek designs, he bases his buildings off nothing else but what's in his own head. His designs are completely organic. ...more In a novel for anyone interested in political ideals and philosophical thought, Ayn Rand writes the tantalizing tale of a strong-minded architect who refuses to conform to the society around him. Howard Roark builds buildings the way he wants to, and really doesn't care about what anyone else thinks. While other men around him copy various ancient Roman, Gothic, and Greek designs, he bases his buildings off nothing else but what's in his own head. His designs are completely organic. If his employers won't let him design his way, or if he is asked to design any other way, he quits or lets himself be fired. It's not worth it to him. He doesn't need to impress anyone, or live up to anyone's expectations. He's not looking to make a name for himself. He builds because he loves to build, and no one can stop him from doing what he loves.
Rand creates Roark in the image of what she believes the ideal person should be like, and how they should live. She does this by contrasting him with characters she considers to be weak, and living with the wrong ideals, such as Peter Keating, a well-known and “successful” conformist. "The Fountainhead" is heavily based on Rand's radical and unusual political views on the world, and the entire book is basically representative of her ideas. You don't have to be interested in architecture to read this book, Rand merely uses the profession as a way to convey what she believes. Although, be prepared to encounter a lot of architectural jargon and countless details of the building process.
Rand believes strongly in the idea of selfishness, but a necessary sort of selfishness. She believes that people tend to spend too much time worrying about what others think. They stick to the status quo, and conform to society. Rand believes that every man should be for himself, and should live based on principles that make him happiest. This notion is really evident in “The Fountainhead.” Rand’s narrative voice is so present, you almost forget about who the characters are and imagine her sitting at her desk, formulating all of her ideas and writing them down. Most people would see this as a negative thing, they want to get “lost” in a book, but I found it very interesting that Rand’s voice was so strong. I couldn’t stop connecting each and every thing she wrote back to what I knew about her as a person.
Overall, “The Fountainhead” is a good read. I'm extremely interested in exploring different political ideologies, so it was great to be able to learn about one in a fictional form. I'm also very interested in Ayn Rand as a person, and this was an effective way to learn more about her. It can be slow at times, especially when Rand goes into great detail about different architectural aspects of buildings, which is something I'm not particularly interested in. Still, when you get to the core of the story, Rand’s political, social and philosophical views on life, it is well worth the wait.
...less

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

1 comments