The Fountainhead

Jul 09, 2007

Jason Pettus rated it

· review of another edition

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 234 likes

· see review

Oct 16, 2007

Taylor rated it

· review of another edition

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

Shelves: fiction, own, recommended, favorites, desert-island-picks, the-power-of-love

Note, Feb. 2011: The feedback I've gotten on this review is kind of funny. I'd like to make one thing clear, and that is that I'm far from a Rand worshipper. I can't get onboard with her whole way of life, from the personal to the political level. I will say, though, that I think her attitudes, when applied to the creative arts, are important. When you create something, I think it's fine to disregard trends and making other people happy. When you create, the person you should keep foremost in mi...more

like 71 likes

· see review

Nov 28, 2007

Ryan rated it

· review of another edition

This book is the equivalent of a drunk, eloquent asshole talking to you all night at a bar. You know you should just leave and you could never explain later why you didn't, but you just sit there listening to the guy ramble on. It's all bullshit, and his arguments defending, say, his low-key but all-consuming misogyny aren't that good and don't even really make sense, but just for a second you find yourself thinking, "Huh, the man might have a point..." before you catch yourself and re...more

like 148 likes

· see review

Apr 12, 2007

Brendan rated it

· review of another edition

As literature, I found the book dry, predictable, and overwrought. As philosophy, I found it circular, wholly unfounded, and completely contradicting reality.

This book is like a net set for unsuspecting minds. It breaches their defenses with a twisted logic, attempting to preclude any conclusions but the ones it sets forth.

Of course, it follows a natural flow from the author's assumptions: power, will, and self-determinism are the foundations of all life. Nothing matte...more

like 40 likes

· see review

Apr 08, 2009

Eric_W rated it

· review of another edition

I had not really paid much attention to Ayn Rand, darling of the conservatives (very surprisingly, actually) until I began reading her biography. When I asked around to see who had actually read any of her work, I found only a few, but lots of opinions about Rand herself. Often those comments ascribed beliefs to Rand that were at opposite poles of the spectrum, from conservative to radical, individualist to Nazi fascist. Obviously another case of what I call the “De Toqueville syndrom...more I had not really paid much attention to Ayn Rand, darling of the conservatives (very surprisingly, actually) until I began reading her biography. When I asked around to see who had actually read any of her work, I found only a few, but lots of opinions about Rand herself. Often those comments ascribed beliefs to Rand that were at opposite poles of the spectrum, from conservative to radical, individualist to Nazi fascist. Obviously another case of what I call the “De Toqueville syndrome,” where everyone pretends to have read a famous book and to know what the author stood for, but has no firsthand reading knowledge. Her biography revealed a complex and very interesting individual, so it was time to dig into her works personally.

The Fountainhead tells the story of Howard Roark, an architect. Thrown out of Stanton School of Architecture for his refusal to adhere to the standards of the past (the dean views Roark as a rebel who opposes all the rules of architecture and his society’s view of art that is representation of what has been revered in the past) and for turning in assignments that represented a complete break from the past. The conversation with the dean, who tried to persuade Roark to come back into the fold, represents the central theme of the book, the conflict between those who are realitycentered against those who define their lives through the eyes of other people. Roark seeks employment with Cameron, an architect whose designs tried to incorporate using the advantages of new materials, e.g., a skyscraper should look tall, not just like a twenty-story brick building trying to look like a renaissance house. Cameron began to design buildings the way he wanted rather than how his clients demanded. His business dwindled to nothing, but he was sought out by Roark.

Following Cameron’s retirement, Roark seeks employment as a draftsman in a large architectural firm, where he gets a break by sketching a house that breaks with tradition completely but is just what the client wants. Roark is a brilliant but struggling iconoclast, while his rival and former classmate Peter Keating rises to the top of his profession by using obsequiousness, manipulation, and deception. His primary concern is how he is perceived by others. He designs by copying from the past, never thinking independently. Both men are in love with Dominique Falcon, a brilliant, passionate woman, who falls in love with Roark, admires his genius, but who is convinced his genius has no chance in a corrupt world. The villain of the book is Ellsworth Toohey, an architectural critic of note, who denounces Roark for his failure to adhere to the accepted standards of the day. Toohey believes that the individual must sacrifice his independence to the will of others, i.e. society or the group. Toohey is employed by Gail Wynand, a publisher whose paper caters to the lowest common denominator to gain power. He comes to admire Roark and must then decide whether he will continue to pander to popular taste or live according to his higher standards. Rand and her novels have been vilified by the left-wing as reactionary and praised by conservatives as brilliant and influential.

Frankly, I cannot understand how conservatives can be so enamored of this work that celebrates independence and the rejection of tradition and “normal” morality. She celebrated atheism, a kind of free love, very strong women, and a rejection of parental values and social norms. She abhorred the subordination of reason to faith, of surrendering one’s own thinking to the beliefs of others. She despised the religious believer who without questioning adopts the religious beliefs of his parents, conforming without thinking. Morality becomes something practical and relative. For example, Roark dynamites a government building project that has been altered, so he can gain access to the courts since the government cannot be sued. Roark really doesn’t care what other people think. He has such strong personal will that he will just do what he thinks is right. He also pals around with one of the construction workers who admires him because he is the only architect that understands construction, and, indeed, Roark makes the point that he loves engineering and building.

That sounds more like sixties liberalism than what I hear conservatives espouse. Rand is clearly a romantic who believed that man can live up to an ideal, and reason can help them achieve the independence and the happiness that depends on that independence. What infuriates liberals, as far as I can gather, was her unfailing adherence to capitalism. I suppose conservatives latched on to her vigorous rejection of collectivism, no doubt related to her childhood experiences under Communism. This is not to say Rand celebrates nonconformity for its own sake. That is simply another form of conformity because it’s living one’s life in reaction to the standards of others. The conformist must learn the beliefs of others to adhere to them; the nonconformist must learn the standards so as to avoid adhering to them. Both groups are psychological dependents. Rand celebrates the independent thinker, the individualist who lives on his own terms. The individualist creates his own standards and adheres to them regardless of what others do or think. He has a commitment to reason and facts. Roark represents the great innovator struggling against a profoundly conservative society against the traditionalist who says, “It was never done this way, so it can’t be good.” The climax of the book is Roark’s speech to the court when he is on trial. “I wish to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others. . . The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing.” He represents a complete rejection of altruism, “the doctrine which demands that man live for others and place others above self.”

It’s truly a shame when books and authors get labeled as “conservative” or “liberal,” “communist” or “democrat” and then judged on the basis of the label. Read the book; make up your own mind!

(less)

like 36 likes

· see review

Mar 27, 2008

dead letter office rated it

· review of another edition

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...morethis 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 27 likes

· see review

Mar 14, 2011

Bird Brian rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: literature-20th-century, feelin-rand-y

SCENE OPENS IN A PSYCHIATRIST'S OFFICE. TWO MEN FACE EACH OTHER IN COMFORTABLE-LOOKING ARMCHAIRS.

Dr Williams (DrW): Howard, I want you to understand that even though you were acquitted for destroying the Courtlandt housing project, the court has ordered you to these sessions because they are concerned you may be a danger to the public. Some of your colleagues think you may be insane.

Howard Roark (HR): Insane? Pffft- they wish! They just can't handle my genius. If they pos...more

like 32 likes

· see review

Dec 24, 2008

brian rated it

· review of another edition

yesterday i spent the day mainlining bookface and discovered that one of the most reviled books on the site was the fountainhead. i can think of a few reasons:

1) for some reason or other, as humans, it feels good (perhaps a marker of personal progress?) to reject or condescend to that which we once loved. (a corollary of our love of schadenfreude, of watching the fall of the rich/powerful/famous?) (see also: catcher in the rye and on the road)

2) as an overwhelming majorit...more

like 28 likes

· see review

Sep 14, 2010

Sparrow rated it

· review of another edition

Recommends it for: I'd read Atlas Shrugged instead

Recommended to Sparrow by: Ayn Rand

Shelves: disturbing, reviewed

THIS HORROR STORY IS TO SCARY FOR ME IT HAS A CREEPY GINGER KID AND HE RAPES ANN COULTER BECAUSE SHE WANTS HIM TO!!1! THEN THEY HAVE A LOT OF TICKLE FIGHTS AND BUILD SUM HOUSES THATS ALL i REMEMBER.

like 37 likes

· see review

May 09, 2011

Brad rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: guiltiest-of-pleasures, personal-mythology, too-honest

So there was this girl I loved, deeply loved, and our love was key to the end of my first marriage. We didn't cheat physically, although there was no avoiding or denying the intellectual and emotional cheating that just being in each others' presence elicited, but my partner/wife felt that something was wrong with our "friendship," and she was right.

C--- and I had been in love for a couple of months, and it was the night before I was leaving for my anniversary trip. I was ...moreSo there was this girl I loved, deeply loved, and our love was key to the end of my first marriage. We didn't cheat physically, although there was no avoiding or denying the intellectual and emotional cheating that just being in each others' presence elicited, but my partner/wife felt that something was wrong with our "friendship," and she was right.

C--- and I had been in love for a couple of months, and it was the night before I was leaving for my anniversary trip. I was meeting my partner/wife for a weekend of Shakespeare plays, good food and theoretical love making (which never happened), and I was having a final cast party at our home after the summer production of one of my plays. My partner/wife was already near Stratford, Ontario -- home of Canada’s Shakespeare Festival. She was at her family reunion, and at the time I had no idea she was with her lover (I later discovered that their affair had spanned countries and years); I felt paradoxical Catholic guilt for my pseudo-adultery and the liberation of being freshly in love as I sat at my backyard pool and let my feet brush C---'s in the cool water under the moonlight.

That night she told me of her love for Ayn Rand's Fountainhead, a book I'd long ignored, supposing it and its politics were not for me. She opined about Objectivism and selfishness, and I was intrigued as only one in love and full of their own selfishness could be. So when I reached my first airport bookstore in DC the next day, I sought a copy of Fountainhead and bought it during my layover. It became a constant companion during the rest of my trip.

The next day I began racking up the largest cell phone bill I've ever produced, talking to C--- at all hours of the day and wherever I happened to be: once I was on the edge of a field full of dairy cows, often I was at the local pub imbibing Black & Tans, and the rest of the time I was in my cousin's empty house (he was on a camping weekend, and I was staying there until I hooked up with my partner/wife) amidst his kitschy Elvis memorabilia. When I wasn't talking to C---, I wrote, I watched bad T.V., and I alternated between Rendezvous with Rama and Fountainhead. Somewhere in those three days I rented Boondock Saints (another favourite of C---'s), and then, as if fate were taking a hand, I turned on the CBC and caught the documentary Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life. Coincidence, but a fascinating one that made me enjoy and love the book more than it deserved.

And I did love the book. I’ve never read it again -- and I really disdain Objectivism -- but there was a clarity in Rand’s prose that was captivating. She goes on and on, but she does it beautifully, which makes me understand why her ideas are so beloved by those on the other side of the political membrane. She propagandizes like Goebbels. She makes you want to believe. Hell, she even makes rape seem acceptable (ish). And as long as you don’t pay too much attention to what she said and focus, instead, on how she said it, the Fountainhead is a masterpiece.

If it weren’t for C--- I don’t know that I’d have given this book another thought, but there was a C---, and this book means something more to me than it should. How bizarre is man?(less)

like 20 likes

· see review

Dec 05, 2007

Tamara added it · review of another edition

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...moreThis 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 13 likes

· see review

Sep 09, 2007

Chris added it · review of another edition

Shelves: books-i-discuss-as-if-ive-read

I hated Anthem so much that I vowed never to read another book by Ann Rand, but I still talk about how much I hate all of her other books, too. That's how much I disliked Anthem. I also think I have the right to hate The Fountainhead without having read it because:

a) Ayn Rand is a horrible writer. Everything I've seen by her is badly written and I don't like badly written books.

b) Ayn Rand thought she was a philosopher and injects her silly "objectionist" poi...more

like 13 likes

· see review

Dec 29, 2007

Skylar Burris rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy, libertarian

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 ...moreThe 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 that have alleviated 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.

I give it such a high rating because I like novels that truly make me think and reconsider my assumptions, whether I maintain or reject them as a consquence. I am glad I did not read Rand when I was a teenager and not yet a Christian, as I'm afraid her Objectivism might have taken a cultish hold of me; she has a way of speaking to (and perhaps luring?) the independent-minded student who feels the pressure of intellectual conformity. I give it four stars also because I read it at a time when I found fiction difficult, and it brought back my love of reading. (less)

like 11 likes

· see review

May 18, 2008

Jojo Bananas added it · review of another edition

Recommends it for: people who are too full of themselves to care what I think about this book

If you like your characters rendered in stunning Black and White, without all that pesky grey in between, this is the book for you. With characters as self-centered and unbelievable as they are unlikeable, is it any wonder that architecture students who are encouraged to read this end up so full of themselves? I wouldn't use it to prop up the short leg of the couch. I throw my poop at it.

like 14 likes

· see review

Jul 19, 2007

Brandon rated it

· review of another edition

the one star:

i didn't get around to reading this book until the blizzard a couple years ago in new york. i was in a particular mood, woke up at 3am and decided i had to get out of the apartment, so i grabbed the copy i'd bought a couple days before and suited up to go down to yaffa. it was nice, the snow fell gently at that point, the waiter and i had a great conversation when he saw i was reading the book, i got pulled in, read until past sunrise there, started looking up at the bui...more

like 8 likes

· see review

Jun 27, 2007

Max Ostrovsky rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: classics, fiction, philosophy

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...moreI 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 10 likes

· see review

May 20, 2011

Mariel rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: betterthanmasterandmargarita

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

like 7 likes

· see review

Aug 09, 2008

Manzoid rated it

· review of another edition

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...moreThis 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 27 likes

· see review

Mar 06, 2008

Max rated it

· review of another edition

I recall that most people read Ayn Rand in high school, which is the ideal time to embrace protagonists who refuse to compromise their originality and are assaulted on all sides for their greatness. Having skipped several grades in public school I missed some of these formative books so I'm reading them as an adult. More than 50 years have passed in architecture, capitalism, and the glorification of the mediocre, since Rand wrote The Fountainhead, which is why its philosophies are more suited fo...moreI recall that most people read Ayn Rand in high school, which is the ideal time to embrace protagonists who refuse to compromise their originality and are assaulted on all sides for their greatness. Having skipped several grades in public school I missed some of these formative books so I'm reading them as an adult. More than 50 years have passed in architecture, capitalism, and the glorification of the mediocre, since Rand wrote The Fountainhead, which is why its philosophies are more suited for the high school mind than the adult reader. Her characters aren't human, they are symbols to illustrate her early philosophy. Howard Roarke, her hero and übermensch, is a man who cannot exist in real life. He is perfect, and his enemies try and destroy him because he is perfect. What we know of 50 years of capitalism and architecture is that style means nothing, whether modern, classic, brutalist, original, or stolen. Buildings are erected by faceless corporations, or by eccentric wealthy. There is enough room and real estate for both the Keatings and the Roarkes, and the Ellsworth Twoheys of the world don't mean a thing. Sad, really, because Twohey is a villain truly worth hating - the blowhard intellectual ass who seeks to destroy originality by elevating the mediocre and placing the good of others above the good of self so he may rule the plebes. Rand's notion that altruism is basically evil communism (embodied in Twohey) is amusing, because her model of success relies on everyone being rich (or having rich benefactors). My goodness - if only everyone were rich we'd all be happy! It's no wonder than Alan Greenspan was all crushed out on the woman. I'll admit at times I wished that Twohey would meet a horrible end - to have his hands cut off, his tongue cut out, so he would be forced to witness Roarke's triumphs and be powerless to do anything but watch without comment. But Rand's novel isn't plotted that way - nothing really happens other than ideas battling one another. There are no consequences to anyone's actions. And it is for that reason that The Fountainhead reads more like a television show; characters that do not change, who occupy the same sets, encircling one another and talking about themselves. That's what makes it a mediocre novel - Rand's place in history is now better suited to television - and I'm talking Oxygen, Lifetime, or Hallmark channel.(less)

like 7 likes

· see review

Sep 18, 2007

Dave rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: fiction, philosophy

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 read...moreOverall, 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 14 likes

· see review

Jun 18, 2008

Foodpie rated it

· review of another edition

This book is easily described as garbage. Poorly imagined, poorly conceived and poorly written it is only exceptional in the lengths it will go to justify the morally, ethically and socially reprehensible behavior of the central character who's vaunted genius amounts in the end to nothing more than being a willful disobedient ass. He is neither original or exceptional, he is simply an ass, and is treated as an object of admiration for it. A thoroughly disgusting piece of writing.

like 16 likes

· see review

Apr 24, 2011

Mike (the Paladin) rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: classics

***** SECOND REVIEW ********

As promised I took a second look at this book, I will leave the original review below this one.

I still find the rape scene in this book repulsive, even though AR wrote once that "if it was rape it was rape by engraved invitation." I point out that Dominique herself CALLED it rape. She goes on about her own self loathing and wanted to shout out that she had been raped. Dominique is painted as a character so world weary and despising of...more***** SECOND REVIEW ********

As promised I took a second look at this book, I will leave the original review below this one.

I still find the rape scene in this book repulsive, even though AR wrote once that "if it was rape it was rape by engraved invitation." I point out that Dominique herself CALLED it rape. She goes on about her own self loathing and wanted to shout out that she had been raped. Dominique is painted as a character so world weary and despising of society that she could only (finally) be aroused by a man who could "take her". Both Dominique and Roark are described as having condescension and violence as "positive" traits.

Okay, so I waded through this huge pretentious, self congratulatory, patronizing tomb. Having read more than this by AR I've got to say that while she hits the nail squarely on the head in some ways she takes the hard lessons life taught her and got many wrong answers. To her compassion is the same as weakness. The word "compassion" has nothing but negative connotations. She cannot (and I truly believe it's "cannot" as well as "will not") see the difference in willingly giving help and being compelled by law to give up your living to those who "won't" work. The fact that there are many (and I admit possibly even most) who when given help will simply do nothing but keep asking for a hand-out extrapolates out for her that ever giving help is simply enabling loafers. She saw all unselfishness as weakness and all who acted unselfishly as hypocrites.

One can only wonder how she would have looked at Mother Teressa...probably as a weak dupe...or the world's greatest can-person who never got caught?

Personally I like Atlas Shrugged better as far as an actual novel goes. Dominique is such an odd personality that while I know AR was basing her on herself, she was just too odd. I mean am I the only one who finds a woman who can't get aroused unless she's physically assaulted as a protagonist a little troubling? Oh well, beating a dead horse I suppose.

The book has good points and AR is a good writer of prose, at times, but not consistently, at least that's my take. I will raise the rating to 2 stars, mainly because the 1 star rating was visceral reaction to a scene where the male protagonist rapes the female protagonist.

************** Original review below this line *******************

How do I rate this book??? I believe that while Ms.Rand has some huge holes in her reasoning she also had some insights. I think this is a book everyone should take a look at (especially now). I would hope we can differentiate between the valuable and the dross. Read this book (and her other works) with an open and also a critical mind. She has some important insights into human nature and the way humans think and the way the world actually works. She simply carries some of it to a place where it doesn't apply. For example, those who produce will come to a point where they will stop alloying themselves to be stripped of the rewards of their work and thought, it's human nature. On the other hand her view of those who need help and the spiritual side of life are somewhat wanting. she seems to be heavily influenced by Nietzsche.

I prefer Atlas shrugged to this novel. You can see Ms. Rand in the heroines of both books. In Atlas Shrugged she (Dagny Taggart) "trades up" in her romantic relationships each time she meets a "stronger" man who better exemplifies Ayn Rand's ideal (representing her philosophy "objectivism"). In this book, the heroine (Dominique Francon) is or "appears to be" raped by the "strong hero" Howard Roark. I say "appears to be" because even though to many readers and reviewers of the book at it's publication and since it is an obvious rape (and that includes me) Ms. Rand wrote that "if it was rape, it was rape by engraved invitation." I found this so distasteful that I completely lost my taste for this book and put it down.
(less)

like 4 likes

· see review

Feb 20, 2008

Dan rated it

· review of another edition

Ever read a book that changed your life as a kid, I mean totally reconfigured your perceptions of life and how it should be lived? Yeah, me too. This was one of those books for me. It blew me away as a kid. My hero was Roark and his rugged individualism and integrity. Upon rereading this 50th anniversary hardback edition as an adult, I was appalled at this amoral tale. Roark is a sociopathic monster whose integrity is blind and callous. The Objectivism that Rand uses to undergird this story seem...more

like 11 likes

· see review

Dec 13, 2007

Emma Ryan rated it

· review of another edition

I read the Fountainhead, the famous book by Ayn Rand that almost everyone else in the country read long ago, before me, and "LOVE love love love love loved" it, well after I should have.

The book is 800 long pages, and I labored through it for about a month, including a week haitus when I couldn't take it anymore, and finally found some chapters at the very end that captivated me enough to say I couldn't put the book down (maybe 50 pages, total).

This book is com...more

like 7 likes

· see review

Sep 06, 2007

Rishabh rated it

· review of another edition

This work serves as a fantastic introduction to Rand's inane philosophy - Objectivism (more about this in bit). Extremely gripping and never trite, The Fountainhead is a heady mixture of Rand's simplistic psychological and philosophical insights. The characters are, without exception, fascinating: Howard Roark - the unconventional architect who lives for and in his work, Dominique Francon - the yet more unconventional and passionate lover, Peter Keating - the seeker after all that is conventiona...moreThis work serves as a fantastic introduction to Rand's inane philosophy - Objectivism (more about this in bit). Extremely gripping and never trite, The Fountainhead is a heady mixture of Rand's simplistic psychological and philosophical insights. The characters are, without exception, fascinating: Howard Roark - the unconventional architect who lives for and in his work, Dominique Francon - the yet more unconventional and passionate lover, Peter Keating - the seeker after all that is conventional, and hence (in Rand's mind) worthless, and (my favorite) Ellsworth Toohey - the Evil, brilliant, and power-hungry schemer. These (and other) well-etched characters, paradigms of what they stand for, become Rand's vehicles for expressing her take on the nature of the ideal man, the purpose and summum bonum of life, and other such important things that Rand seems singularly unqualified to expound on. Her story-telling skills and style of writing are undoubtedly distinguished; however, philosophy is not Ms.Rand's forte. In any case, this book was an interesting, thought-provoking read, even if one perusal of it was adequate for me to become all-round mocker of Objectivism.

Now to the philosophy behind this work. Ms.Rand seems to deify rationality without offering a reasonable explanation. Why are individuality and rationality the greatest and most glorious things? Ms.Rand says so; perhaps it "feels right" to her. Why, and based on what proof or rigor, does no god exist (Objectivism is an atheistic philosophy)? Ms.Rand says so; perhaps she conducted all kinds of scientific experiments and came up with the definitive answer to this quintessential philosophical problem. Just like in the case of her denunciation of homosexuality: "Because it involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises, but there is a psychological immorality at the root of homosexuality. Therefore I regard it as immoral... Morally it is immoral, and more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion, it is disgusting." Such sophistication of reasoning and opinion would do George Bush proud. To cut this potentially loong tirade short, I have no respect for Ayn Rand's pseudo-rational philosophy. While I like a few ideas here and there - her support of Capitalism and the individual's rights -, on the whole, I think it's a wannabe rational but actually shallow philosophy that, from the viewpoint of rational content, might as well be consigned to flames.(less)

like 6 likes

· see review

Aug 10, 2007

Jrule rated it

· review of another edition

Yes 5 stars, why? Because whenever i rethink about this book i become speechless.
The lessons it taught me and the life it showed me are invaluable. So whatever you may find below are the mixed emotions which i could withdraw out of it.
This books helps you realize the pain and agony of a person who stands on his own beliefs, defying the society rules and so called modern world culture.
So today whenever i see a person fighting with the world just for his own beliefs and his own ...more

like 12 likes

· see review

Aug 07, 2007

Maria rated it

· review of another edition

Recommends it for: people with too much time on their hands

Egads, I hate this book. I first read it 6 years ago when I was 16, and I thought to myself, this book is an enormous pile of compressed dog feces. However, because I'm aware of the fact that our judgement at the age of 16 is not necessarily quite so excellent as most of us liked to think it was, I decided recently to reread it, and see if I understood what other people saw in this book.

I still have absolutely no clue. After slogging through it for a second time, I still think that ...more

like 9 likes

· see review

Jun 09, 2008

Eveline rated it

· review of another edition

A book that was difficult to read. From the first pages I disliked all the characters. The supposedly kind characters are portrayed as pushovers and wimps, so equally unfavorable. Rand tries to make you believe that the hero of her story is to be admired. The more characters were introduced the more unlikable and extreme Rand's Objectivism shines through like a dark light. What an obnoxious world she is revering in this story. That is perhaps too unkind. (not that any of Rand's fans would care)...more

like 6 likes

· see review

May 10, 2008

Yulia rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: repelled-by

It's difficult to find a book as disturbing and unappealing in its content, prose, intent, or sheer mass. Those who admire Rand actually frighten me.

I suppose it could be more offensive if it were published as a water-proof beach or bath book in non-recyclable plastic. I await that edition with bated breath.

like 9 likes

· see review

Sep 04, 2009

Laurel rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: classics, fiction

Oh, Ayn Rand. How I wish I could enjoy your books more than I do.

This is my second go at a Rand book. My first was Atlas Shrugged. I liked this one a lot more, but I pretty much hated Atlas Shrugged, so I'm not sure how much that says. :) I'm starting to think Rand may be an acquired taste.

It's not her writing I have trouble with. In fact, I was impressed with how much her book kept my attention despite it's length (about 800 pages, or 26 CD's). She's clearly an inte...moreOh, Ayn Rand. How I wish I could enjoy your books more than I do.

This is my second go at a Rand book. My first was Atlas Shrugged. I liked this one a lot more, but I pretty much hated Atlas Shrugged, so I'm not sure how much that says. :) I'm starting to think Rand may be an acquired taste.

It's not her writing I have trouble with. In fact, I was impressed with how much her book kept my attention despite it's length (about 800 pages, or 26 CD's). She's clearly an intelligent and thought provoking author. It's also not her philosophy of objectivism I struggle with, per se, even if I don't agree with it. In Rand's own words (from Atlas Shrugged), her philosophy "in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

Hmmm. While I differ with this viewpoint (I do think it's vitally important to follow one's passions, creativity and ideals, but not above all else or at the expense of others), that in and of itself would not be enough for me to dislike a book. I think it's more that her philosophy is so.... well, pervasive. It consumes every page, and there's not much subtlety to be found. You know where Rand stands, and you know where her characters stand. Which is all well and good. But as others have pointed out, the end result is that the majority of her characters (though quite vivid) are not very likable. They are selfish, self-absorbed, self-important, and all things related to the self. While I realize this is part of the point, it made it hard for me to relate to, admire or even sometimes care what happened to them. While this is also arguably in part the point (society doesn't tend to favor people who stray from the norm and relentlessly follow their own ideals).... that didn't make it any easier for me to like the characters. And, maybe this doesn't make me much of an intellectual reader, but I like to emote and relate (at least to some degree) to the characters I'm reading about. Especially if I'm going to spend 32 hours with them.

All that being said, I did like the book overall. It is well-written, well-developed, fast-paced and thought provoking. It was also revolutionary for its time. And while I disagreed with some of the ideas of man and reason as supreme to all else (isn't there enough egotism in society already?), I still enjoyed hearing the arguments for argument's sake. And as stated earlier, I did appreciate and agree with some of the points made on the importance of creativity, reason, non-conformity and the pursuit of happiness/following one's convictions. I can see why so many love it, especially if the ideas ring true for you. I can also see why so many people hate it. It's worth checking out, if not just for the controversy.
(less)

like 8 likes

· see review

topics	posts	views	last activity
Best Character in Fountainhead and why?	43	230	Feb 09, 2012 06:31am
Should I Move On?	62	269	Dec 30, 2011 04:46am
her philospophy	9	53	Sep 25, 2011 05:26pm
Objectivism	29	146	Sep 24, 2011 07:40pm
Anti-socialism?	12	143	Aug 26, 2011 07:10am
Objectivism & Capitalism	14	58	Aug 13, 2011 06:21am

title link	preview: The Fountainhead
avg rating	preview: The Fountainhead Goodreads rating: 3.81 (81101 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/225221.The_Fountainhead?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1266500163m/225221.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/225221.The_Fountainhead?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand[/url]

The Fountainhead

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (77)

Genres

Readers Also Enjoyed

About Ayn Rand

Books by Ayn Rand

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About The Fountainhead

Quotes from The Fountainhead

Groups That Shelved The Fountainhead