The Fountainhead

published	September 1st 1996 by Signet
first published	1943
binding	Paperback
isbn	0451191153 (isbn13: 9780451191151)
pages	720
characters	Howard Roark, Peter Keating, Ellsworth Toohey, Gail Wynand, Dominique Francon
setting	United States
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 [close] 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 man, Howard Roark, and his struggles as an architect in the face of a successful rival, Peter Keating, and a newspaper columnist, Ellsworth Toohey. But the book addresses a number of universal themes: the strength of the individual versus the collective opinion of the masses. The confrontation of those themes, along with the amazing stroke of Rand's writing, combine to give this book its enduring influence. [close]
date added	10-03-06 edit book

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

discuss this book

topics	replies	last activity
Anti-socialism?	8	05/07/2008 08:08AM
Objectivism	7	30 days ago, 01:35PM

new topic

groups with this book

friend reviews (0)

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

lists with this book

Best Books Ever

345 books | 205 voters

The worst books of all time

241 books | 411 voters

More...

other reviews (showing 1-20 of 26721)

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 (54 people liked it)

14 comments

Taylor rated it:

10/16/07

bookshelves: desert-island-picks, favorites, fiction, own, recommended

Read in October, 2007

recommends it for: those who are ambitious and feel out of place in society due to their lack of regard for much of it

This book is remarkable.

Basic plot: howard roark (individual) & peter keating (copycat). roark constantly fights with society but manages to survive, keating gets lifted up by society and then destroyed by it (can you say celebrities?). this is the plot at its most rudimentary - naturally there's more to it.

I understand the comments about Objectivists being assholes and I respond to that in two ways - firstly, does this not prove her point about how people respond to/treat individual...more This book is remarkable.

Basic plot: howard roark (individual) & peter keating (copycat). roark constantly fights with society but manages to survive, keating gets lifted up by society and then destroyed by it (can you say celebrities?). this is the plot at its most rudimentary - naturally there's more to it.

I understand the comments about Objectivists being assholes and I respond to that in two ways - firstly, does this not prove her point about how people respond to/treat individuals who live for themselves? secondly, there's an exaggeration in here. simply look at the relationships in the book - the fact that they exist. in its purest form, the most egotistical, self-centered person wouldn't bother entering into a relationship or get married, because it would imply having to consider another person (or making someone a doormat, which would go against the philosophy, because part of it is that one will exist for themselves without enslaving others - Roark refuses to let Dominique submit to something she wouldn't be happy with). Ayn Rand got married, objectivists in The Fountainhead get married - it's not that they're portrayed as not caring about anyone (exaggeration!). The best example of the objectivists' relationships is the quote from a scene where Roark and Wynand (publisher of the most powerful newspaper chain) are on the yacht, and Roark says something along the lines of "I'd die for you, but I won't live for you," which makes a lot of sense.

People get their panties in a bunch over something that should be made distinct - there's people (individuals) and there's society (the collective of people, supposedly driven by a majority of thought). ayn rand's theories apply as much to society as they do the individual. this is more a story of two individuals' fights with society than fights with each other. yes, the focus is on people giving the most significance to their own thoughts and desires, but they DON'T ignore others completely. they have friends, relationships, lovers. clearly, they care about other people (Roark's treatment of Wynand after the trial is a particularly good example of this). there's just not a blind caring, blind trust, blind affection, a blind desire to help, and there's the firm thought that one should affirm themselves through their own standards, not those of others. this isn't a bad thing!

Like any philosophy/school of thought, you have to pick and choose from this, and there's no reason why you can't take all of the personal motivation and apply it without feeling like you're screwing over everyone you know. Again, it's a matter of exaggeration, and I don't think you have to embrace this to its most extreme measures to appreciate, understand and want to employ it. Putting yourself first doesn't mean putting everyone you know last. It's not a black or white situation.

There are so many things in this that ran parallel to my thinking, the way that I've lived my life, the way that I see my life and the people in it - there were times when the similarities made me feel fantastic from knowing that they were reflected somewhere, and other times they were so close they scared me, especially in Dominique (mostly at the beginning).

I feel like I can't continue living my life as I was before. I feel like a fraud for going back to my job. I continually had to set it aside for a few minutes after a chapter because I wanted, needed to think about what I had just read. The last 100 pages were particularly hard to get through because of that. My brain turned to mush - in a good way. It's a lot to take on, but I feel better about myself for having done so.

At just over 700 pages long, it's a bit of a beast, but it's worth every word, and it really only took me 2-3 weeks to get through, which is pretty quick considering I read only on my subway rides.

p.s. the movie isn't very good...less

Like this review? yes (6 people liked it)

3 comments

sahiga 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)

add a comment

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

add a comment

Max rated it:

06/27/07

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)

4 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)

add a comment

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 (3 people liked it)

add a comment

Tamara added it (review of isbn 0452286379)

12/05/07

bookshelves: fiction, to-re-read

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 (5 people liked it)

add a comment

Skylar rated it:

12/29/07

bookshelves: libertarian, literature, 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 (3 people liked it)

add a comment

relyt rated it:

05/12/08

Read in January, 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)

add a comment

Janet rated it:

03/28/08

bookshelves: fiction

Ayn Rand sets forth her philosophy of "objectivism." She shows it in this book, through one character named Peter Keating, an architect, who seemingly achieve greatness by copying others but somehow give the illusion of originality and creativity. In order to achieve "greatness," Keating was literally willing to sell anything, including his wife. Thus despite wealth and apparant achievement, his life was empty. Rand begins to formulate her values that altruism is an evil beca...more Ayn Rand sets forth her philosophy of "objectivism." She shows it in this book, through one character named Peter Keating, an architect, who seemingly achieve greatness by copying others but somehow give the illusion of originality and creativity. In order to achieve "greatness," Keating was literally willing to sell anything, including his wife. Thus despite wealth and apparant achievement, his life was empty. Rand begins to formulate her values that altruism is an evil because a society which seeks to achieve this must do so at someone's expense and therefore leads to collectivism. In the person of Ellsworth Toohey, a flamboyant newspaper columnist, she shows how the power hungry manipulate the masses by setting a standard of mediocrity which fosters collectivism. The hero, Roarke has a passion for his work and is uncompromising in his creativity in accomplishing his professional goals. He does not compromise these goals despite enormous pressures to do so. Rand believed that there is only black and white in moral issues; there is no gray.

The book is a powerful example of what choosing to travel the road less traveled can lead to...being alone sometimes poor, but also a sense of completeness of being in harmony with one's stated values. Powerful food for thought about how far one can go in living their ideals.

Favorite quote from the book, page 678:
"Throughout the centuries,there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. The goals differed, but they all had this one thing in common: that this step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received - hatred"

"No creator was prompted by a desire to serve his brothers, for his brothers rejected the gift he offered and that gift destroyed the slothful routine of their lives. His truth was his only motive. His own truth and his own work to achieve it in his own way. A symphony, a book, an engine, a philosophy, an airplane or a building - that was his goal and his life. Not those who heard, read, operated, believed, flew of inhabited the thing he created. The creation, not the users. The creation, not the benefits others derived from it. The creation which gave form to his truth. He held his truth about all things and against all men.

His vision, his strength, his courage came from his own spirit. A man's spirit, however, is his self. That entity which is his consciousness. To think, to feel, to judge, to act are functions of the ego.

The creators were not selfless. It is the whole secret of their power - that is was self sufficient, self motivated, self generated. A first cause, a fount of energy, a life force, a Prime Mover. The creator served nothing and no one. He had lived for himself.

And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement."

For me, like Atlas Shrugged, it was another book that helped me explore what I felt my own vision was and whether I had the courage to pursue it, as Roarke did.
...less

Like this review? yes

add a comment

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 B...more

Like this review? yes (7 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

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)
1 comments

Max rated it:

04/18/08

Read in March, 2008

This is a brilliant book. I don't agree with all of Ms. Rand's philosophy certainly, but I can't help wishing that more books were written so intelligently.

For me, the main flaw of Ms. Rand's philosophy is that some of the philosophy the she espouses contradicts some realities that I consider fairly evident. Ms. Rand's heroes are self-made men and women. They begin in poverty, but drag themselves to the top of their professions through their determination and hard work. The implication o...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)
1 comments

Katherine rated it:

10/09/07

Read in September, 2007

Intense may be the best word for this book. Not in the sense that it was action packed and suspenseful, but that it was a heavy book that was a mind-load to read - an intense experience. Meticulously thought out and particularly designed, The Fountainhead clobbers you with Rand's philosophical doctrines. Sometimes this is amazing and revelatory, sometimes it's spelled out a little too much and you're left feeling like Rand's chewing your food for you. Overall though, it was amazing. Rand'...more

Like this review?