Jason's review
The Fountainhead
by Ayn Rand
Okay, but what about the book?
Perfect. Thanks.
you must member of the intelligentsia.
That's hilarious, because I read this book when I was nineteen and thought I had attained enlightenment.
You couldn't have captured the experience of reading this book through the years any better than you did.
Omg, yes. That's pretty damn close to my experience with this book. I read her when I was 16 and now I look back with with a mixture of horror and nostalgic fondness. I just can't hate her completely though because she was the spring board for me into a whole world of philosophers and economists - all of whom did it better than her.
"Horror and nostalgic fondness." I think that's a pretty good way to describe Ayn Rand.
FOR SURE. That's it, that's it.
lol. thanks for that review. i just finished this after being told for at least 2 years that i should read it...but i think i waited too long. i found the philosophy awful at 23, but i might have loved it at 18.
I'll disagree.
I've worked with many groups and collectives ever since I made the very individualistic decision to drop college at 18, I havent read the book until now, at 23, and I rated this book high.
I have lots of ideas about her philosophy, but, from a distance, the main one is that she represents an extreme stance. The tactics of an extremist in philosophy and politics is not that of total persuation, nor is that what I think she ever hoped to achieve (nor did she ever achieve it). The tactic is that of swaying of the public collective subconsience. To me, the fact that it greatly influences 18 year olds is is totally irrelevent, so do MTV reality shows.
Extremist stand stong behind their view with the hopes that the individuals in the general public pick out a couple of their points and relate to them. In perspective (good and bad philosphy aside), what she did was marvalouse. The presentation is captivating and her writing is just great. You can use her book as a piece for a debate, and that's her influence, and its' value.
As far as horrifying: When you look around, dont you see how deeply ingrained individualism is in our society today? "Army of One", the US private sector's stronghold, Presidency: we choose from two, which ONE do we like best? (it's not parlimentary, it isnt a group we choose to be represented by whomever represent them best, it's a hero), and the hero- the long lived archetype, the parental "you can do anything you set your mind to", and on and on. There's no denying that the ideas she presented where there before her and grew stronger in the times afterwards. But, look at the family unit in the 50s, and then what happened in the 60s? it's almost as if she was just slightly before her times. Today, our sociaty is arguably too individualistic. But that's a whole other book.
With a book like this, I think it's petty to evaluate the exactness of her philosophy. Even regardless of the fact that 60 years have passed in a very shifting century, to me, what's most valuable is the whole of what she did , and more importantly, how she did it. It is undenyably strong.
Anyway, she gifted all the socialists in the world at the time with a challenging debate, and there's nothing better than a strong argument to force you to strenghthen your stance.
Her philosophy is horrifying.
The book is read by many and has been over 60+ years, so from the perspective of being a cultural touchstone for many people, teens or otherwise, and being a good book to spark debate, it is wildly successful; I'm glad it exists. I'm even about to read Atlas Shrugged just to get clearer on her ideas because I reacted so strongly to this one.
I think that it might impress teens who have not learned that cooperation and compromise in business often makes projects better and more interesting, especially if each player is strong and asserts their own perspective while working in conjunction with others. I believe that Rand views compromise and coordination as like mashing strong individuals together into a unrecognizable, faceless, tepid oatmeal of insipid social re-reflections. Like how she describes that building projects that Roarke blows up. But she is wrong. Those people did not actually coordinate on the building, but only socially between themselves and it is possible to throw around ideas on a building that makes something better than one person would design.
There is nothing petty about evaluating her ideas the way she sets them forth. A few points drawn by the masses from her extremes are still going to reflect that extreme. I think what she sets forth and upholds as the best kind of human being is awful. Also, the emotional sado-masochism that runs through it, especially in a book about ideal human beings, gives me the "heebie-jeebies."
Horrifying? Really?
I feel like you're missing the point a little. First of all, I'm 29 and just read this for the first time. Although I'm not a teenager, I did really love this book. Not to say I'm going to become an Objectivist, but I found the ideas and the story interesting.
Talking about cooperation making things better -- I don't think Rand was pointing out instances where brillant minds join together to create greatness. She's pointing out that one genius mind created something wonderful, and through "cooperation" it was destroyed and made unrecognizable. They added things for the sake of adding things, not to improve or make more useful.
I think being the age I am and working in the corporate world has given me an even deeper understanding of this. When you have a project (creative or otherwise), and then you watch it get destroyed and unnecessarily altered by every executive and department head that thinks he/she needs to make his/her mark on it. It's ridiculous.
The whole "every man is an island" part is fairly depressing to me, and I don't know anyone is able to operate without concern for others' opinions. However... it's not that Roark doesn't want anyone in his life. He just doesn't "need" them. That's the difference. I think it's a positive idea that we could take from this.
Anybody think Rand simply exaggerated to make a point? I mean, take the ideas, dilute them considerably and then you will get something sensible out of it. Otherwise, they are unrealistic, overdone and useless. Without the hyperbolic delivery, it seems, the book would not have made such a good read.
The joke, though, is pretty good, Jason :)
you have summed it up perfectly.
I first read Ayn Rand when I was 16 -- it was Atlas Shrugged and not Fountainhead which is the more common first read -- and I remember being quite appalled by it. Before you jump to conclusions, it was not the greatness and hugeness of her ideas that left me appalled, it was more the shoddy writing and characterization. Ok, I admit, at 16 I couldn't have pin-pointed exactly what left a bad taste in my mouth, but I subsequently attempted to read Fountainhead but couldn't finish it and did manage to complete We the People. And over the years, I've developed this theory that the book-reading public can be neatly divided between those who love Ayn Rand and those who detest her, and that it somehow also broadly reveals your outlook towards life and people. It's certainly not for realistic, practical and ultimately cynical people who know only too well how the world works, for sure.
I disliked this book even when I was young!
aw, you gotta go through that rebel "I'm my own person and damned if I'm not always right" stage when you're young. you totally pegged the reading experience, but like most manifestos, I take what's worthy from it, and leave the rest: It's good to believe in yourself. Just don't become petulant when you realize you aren't god's gift to mankind.
You don't say anything about the book at all here, which is a pity because it is about standing by ones principles in the aesthetic rather than political realm.
Your point about Rand's role in the red scare is a fair one. I was actually reading Dalton Trumbo's "Additional Dialogue" at the same time as I was reading this and for a while I even stopped reading the Fountainhead in "protest" against Rand's role as a "friendly" witness before the UnAmerican Activities Committee.
However, in fairness to Rand, it's worth remembering that she had come to America from Lenin's Soviet Union and was both frightened and appalled to hear people who should have known better describing the Leninist (by then Stalinist) dictatorship from which she had fled as a "Noble Experiment."
Now then, about this book...
Dead on.
Jason's review
The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
Jason's review
rating:
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 the guiltiest parties when it came to the 1950s "Red Scare" here in America. Here in Rand's first massive manifesto-slash-novel, we meet the theoretically ultimate Objectivist -- architect Howard Roarke, who is so just completely sure of what he should be doing with his constructions, he won't even participate in his industry at all unless his client gives him complete and utter control over the final project; which is why Howard Roarke barely ever completes any projects over the cours...more
Okay, but what about the book?
Perfect. Thanks.
you must member of the intelligentsia.
That's hilarious, because I read this book when I was nineteen and thought I had attained enlightenment.
You couldn't have captured the experience of reading this book through the years any better than you did.
Omg, yes. That's pretty damn close to my experience with this book. I read her when I was 16 and now I look back with with a mixture of horror and nostalgic fondness. I just can't hate her completely though because she was the spring board for me into a whole world of philosophers and economists - all of whom did it better than her.
"Horror and nostalgic fondness." I think that's a pretty good way to describe Ayn Rand.
FOR SURE. That's it, that's it.
lol. thanks for that review. i just finished this after being told for at least 2 years that i should read it...but i think i waited too long. i found the philosophy awful at 23, but i might have loved it at 18.
I'll disagree.
I've worked with many groups and collectives ever since I made the very individualistic decision to drop college at 18, I havent read the book until now, at 23, and I rated this book high.
I have lots of ideas about her philosophy, but, from a distance, the main one is that she represents an extreme stance. The tactics of an extremist in philosophy and politics is not that of total persuation, nor is that what I think she ever hoped to achieve (nor did she ever achieve it). The tactic is that of swaying of the public collective subconsience. To me, the fact that it greatly influences 18 year olds is is totally irrelevent, so do MTV reality shows.
Extremist stand stong behind their view with the hopes that the individuals in the general public pick out a couple of their points and relate to them. In perspective (good and bad philosphy aside), what she did was marvalouse. The presentation is captivating and her writing is just great. You can use her book as a piece for a debate, and that's her influence, and its' value.
As far as horrifying: When you look around, dont you see how deeply ingrained individualism is in our society today? "Army of One", the US private sector's stronghold, Presidency: we choose from two, which ONE do we like best? (it's not parlimentary, it isnt a group we choose to be represented by whomever represent them best, it's a hero), and the hero- the long lived archetype, the parental "you can do anything you set your mind to", and on and on. There's no denying that the ideas she presented where there before her and grew stronger in the times afterwards. But, look at the family unit in the 50s, and then what happened in the 60s? it's almost as if she was just slightly before her times. Today, our sociaty is arguably too individualistic. But that's a whole other book.
With a book like this, I think it's petty to evaluate the exactness of her philosophy. Even regardless of the fact that 60 years have passed in a very shifting century, to me, what's most valuable is the whole of what she did , and more importantly, how she did it. It is undenyably strong.
Anyway, she gifted all the socialists in the world at the time with a challenging debate, and there's nothing better than a strong argument to force you to strenghthen your stance.
Her philosophy is horrifying.
The book is read by many and has been over 60+ years, so from the perspective of being a cultural touchstone for many people, teens or otherwise, and being a good book to spark debate, it is wildly successful; I'm glad it exists. I'm even about to read Atlas Shrugged just to get clearer on her ideas because I reacted so strongly to this one.
I think that it might impress teens who have not learned that cooperation and compromise in business often makes projects better and more interesting, especially if each player is strong and asserts their own perspective while working in conjunction with others. I believe that Rand views compromise and coordination as like mashing strong individuals together into a unrecognizable, faceless, tepid oatmeal of insipid social re-reflections. Like how she describes that building projects that Roarke blows up. But she is wrong. Those people did not actually coordinate on the building, but only socially between themselves and it is possible to throw around ideas on a building that makes something better than one person would design.
There is nothing petty about evaluating her ideas the way she sets them forth. A few points drawn by the masses from her extremes are still going to reflect that extreme. I think what she sets forth and upholds as the best kind of human being is awful. Also, the emotional sado-masochism that runs through it, especially in a book about ideal human beings, gives me the "heebie-jeebies."
Horrifying? Really?
I feel like you're missing the point a little. First of all, I'm 29 and just read this for the first time. Although I'm not a teenager, I did really love this book. Not to say I'm going to become an Objectivist, but I found the ideas and the story interesting.
Talking about cooperation making things better -- I don't think Rand was pointing out instances where brillant minds join together to create greatness. She's pointing out that one genius mind created something wonderful, and through "cooperation" it was destroyed and made unrecognizable. They added things for the sake of adding things, not to improve or make more useful.
I think being the age I am and working in the corporate world has given me an even deeper understanding of this. When you have a project (creative or otherwise), and then you watch it get destroyed and unnecessarily altered by every executive and department head that thinks he/she needs to make his/her mark on it. It's ridiculous.
The whole "every man is an island" part is fairly depressing to me, and I don't know anyone is able to operate without concern for others' opinions. However... it's not that Roark doesn't want anyone in his life. He just doesn't "need" them. That's the difference. I think it's a positive idea that we could take from this.
Anybody think Rand simply exaggerated to make a point? I mean, take the ideas, dilute them considerably and then you will get something sensible out of it. Otherwise, they are unrealistic, overdone and useless. Without the hyperbolic delivery, it seems, the book would not have made such a good read.
The joke, though, is pretty good, Jason :)
you have summed it up perfectly.
I first read Ayn Rand when I was 16 -- it was Atlas Shrugged and not Fountainhead which is the more common first read -- and I remember being quite appalled by it. Before you jump to conclusions, it was not the greatness and hugeness of her ideas that left me appalled, it was more the shoddy writing and characterization. Ok, I admit, at 16 I couldn't have pin-pointed exactly what left a bad taste in my mouth, but I subsequently attempted to read Fountainhead but couldn't finish it and did manage to complete We the People. And over the years, I've developed this theory that the book-reading public can be neatly divided between those who love Ayn Rand and those who detest her, and that it somehow also broadly reveals your outlook towards life and people. It's certainly not for realistic, practical and ultimately cynical people who know only too well how the world works, for sure.
I disliked this book even when I was young!
aw, you gotta go through that rebel "I'm my own person and damned if I'm not always right" stage when you're young. you totally pegged the reading experience, but like most manifestos, I take what's worthy from it, and leave the rest: It's good to believe in yourself. Just don't become petulant when you realize you aren't god's gift to mankind.
You don't say anything about the book at all here, which is a pity because it is about standing by ones principles in the aesthetic rather than political realm.
Your point about Rand's role in the red scare is a fair one. I was actually reading Dalton Trumbo's "Additional Dialogue" at the same time as I was reading this and for a while I even stopped reading the Fountainhead in "protest" against Rand's role as a "friendly" witness before the UnAmerican Activities Committee.
However, in fairness to Rand, it's worth remembering that she had come to America from Lenin's Soviet Union and was both frightened and appalled to hear people who should have known better describing the Leninist (by then Stalinist) dictatorship from which she had fled as a "Noble Experiment."
Now then, about this book...
Dead on.
