Status
Available
Call number
Publication
A Signet Book
Pages
704
Description
Here is the story of an intransigent young architect, Howard Roark, of his violent battle against a mindless status quo, and of his explosive love affair with a beautiful woman who worships him yet struggles to defeat him. In order to build his kind of buildings according to his own standards, Roark must fight against every variant of human corruption.
Description
The revolutionary literary vision that sowed the seeds of Objectivism, Ayn Rand's groundbreaking philosophy, and brought her immediate worldwide acclaim.
This modern classic is the story of intransigent young architect Howard Roark, whose integrity was as unyielding as granite...of Dominique Francon, the exquisitely beautiful woman who loved Roark passionately, but married his worst enemy...and of the fanatic denunciation unleashed by an enraged society against a great creator. As fresh today as it was then, Rand’s provocative novel presents one of the most challenging ideas in all of fiction—that man’s ego is the fountainhead of human progress...
The Fountainhead is a 1943 novel by Russian-American author Ayn Rand, her first major literary success. The novel's protagonist, Howard Roark, is an individualistic young architect who designs modernist buildings and refuses to compromise with an architectural establishment unwilling to accept innovation. Roark embodies what Rand believed to be the ideal man, and his struggle reflects Rand's belief that individualism is superior to collectivism.
Roark is opposed by what he calls "second-handers", who value conformity over independence and integrity. These include Roark's former classmate, Peter Keating, who succeeds by following popular styles, but turns to Roark for help with design problems. Ellsworth Toohey, a socialist architecture critic who uses his influence to promote his political and social agenda, tries to destroy Roark's career. Tabloid newspaper publisher Gail Wynand seeks to shape popular opinion; he befriends Roark, then betrays him when public opinion turns in a direction he cannot control. The novel's most controversial character is Roark's lover, Dominique Francon. She believes that non-conformity has no chance of winning, so she alternates between helping Roark and working to undermine him. Feminist critics have condemned Roark and Dominique's first sexual encounter, accusing Rand of endorsing rape.
Twelve publishers rejected the manuscript before an editor at the Bobbs-Merrill Company risked his job to get it published. Contemporary reviewers' opinions were polarized. Some praised the novel as a powerful paean to individualism, while others thought it overlong and lacking sympathetic characters. Initial sales were slow, but the book gained a following by word of mouth and became a bestseller. More than 6.5 million copies of The Fountainhead have been sold worldwide and it has been translated into more than 20 languages. The novel attracted a new following for Rand and has enjoyed a lasting influence, especially among architects, American conservatives and right-libertarians.
This modern classic is the story of intransigent young architect Howard Roark, whose integrity was as unyielding as granite...of Dominique Francon, the exquisitely beautiful woman who loved Roark passionately, but married his worst enemy...and of the fanatic denunciation unleashed by an enraged society against a great creator. As fresh today as it was then, Rand’s provocative novel presents one of the most challenging ideas in all of fiction—that man’s ego is the fountainhead of human progress...
The Fountainhead is a 1943 novel by Russian-American author Ayn Rand, her first major literary success. The novel's protagonist, Howard Roark, is an individualistic young architect who designs modernist buildings and refuses to compromise with an architectural establishment unwilling to accept innovation. Roark embodies what Rand believed to be the ideal man, and his struggle reflects Rand's belief that individualism is superior to collectivism.
Roark is opposed by what he calls "second-handers", who value conformity over independence and integrity. These include Roark's former classmate, Peter Keating, who succeeds by following popular styles, but turns to Roark for help with design problems. Ellsworth Toohey, a socialist architecture critic who uses his influence to promote his political and social agenda, tries to destroy Roark's career. Tabloid newspaper publisher Gail Wynand seeks to shape popular opinion; he befriends Roark, then betrays him when public opinion turns in a direction he cannot control. The novel's most controversial character is Roark's lover, Dominique Francon. She believes that non-conformity has no chance of winning, so she alternates between helping Roark and working to undermine him. Feminist critics have condemned Roark and Dominique's first sexual encounter, accusing Rand of endorsing rape.
Twelve publishers rejected the manuscript before an editor at the Bobbs-Merrill Company risked his job to get it published. Contemporary reviewers' opinions were polarized. Some praised the novel as a powerful paean to individualism, while others thought it overlong and lacking sympathetic characters. Initial sales were slow, but the book gained a following by word of mouth and became a bestseller. More than 6.5 million copies of The Fountainhead have been sold worldwide and it has been translated into more than 20 languages. The novel attracted a new following for Rand and has enjoyed a lasting influence, especially among architects, American conservatives and right-libertarians.
Collection
Language
Original language
English
Original publication date
1943
Physical description
704 p.; 6.8 inches
ISBN
0451191153 / 9780451191151
Similar in this library
Media reviews
[Miss Rand] has written a hymn in praise of the individual and has said things worth saying in these days. Whether her antithesis between altruism and selfishness is logically correct or not, she has written a powerful indictment.
User reviews
LibraryThing member Ganeshaka
The Fountainhead is best read before you're fifteen. That way, if you conclude "Dude, Ayn Rand is an awesome writer!", adults will merely smile - and ask you to turn your baseball cap around so that the brim points forward. And to concede a point, when you're an adolescent, a 695 page rant IS
But if you're older, and aware that life is nasty, brutish, but principally and always SHORT...improvise this Cliff Notes-multimedia-crack pipe hit instead:
1) Load your iPod with four or five versions of "My Way" (start with Sinatra, and end with Sid Vicious) , while listening
2) Google a dozen or so images of Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings,
3) oogle a bit of soft S/M fetish porn, preferably with red haired male and leather booted female,
4) scan through the Lady Chatterley's Lover Wiki, pausing at the "Themes" section, AND
5) finish off your intellectual foray with a rock of crystal meth.
Your "head" should now be spinning in the same place as if you had spent three or four days slogging through The Fountainhead. The elation will be almost unbearable. Don't let it turn to pain. Find a cliff, get naked, laugh, and jump off.
And don't forget to check for the water-filled quarry, Dude!
Show More
awesome.But if you're older, and aware that life is nasty, brutish, but principally and always SHORT...improvise this Cliff Notes-multimedia-crack pipe hit instead:
1) Load your iPod with four or five versions of "My Way" (start with Sinatra, and end with Sid Vicious) , while listening
2) Google a dozen or so images of Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings,
3) oogle a bit of soft S/M fetish porn, preferably with red haired male and leather booted female,
4) scan through the Lady Chatterley's Lover Wiki, pausing at the "Themes" section, AND
5) finish off your intellectual foray with a rock of crystal meth.
Your "head" should now be spinning in the same place as if you had spent three or four days slogging through The Fountainhead. The elation will be almost unbearable. Don't let it turn to pain. Find a cliff, get naked, laugh, and jump off.
And don't forget to check for the water-filled quarry, Dude!
Show Less
LibraryThing member Pdore
Everyone hates Ayn Rand these days, and there are some pretty good reasons why. For one thing, her disciple Alan Greenspan is one of the prime culprits in our current economic mess. For another, she saw nature as, essentially, the means to create gigantic sky scrapers. She was proudly reactionary
But what is undeniable is that Rand was passionate. And if you can get past whatever offends you in her best novels (and there is something for everyone), you may find that she knew more about passion, in all of its forms, than anyone who ever wrote. She gained notoriety for the intense (and sometimes bizzare) encounters between her characters. There are romantic acts and declarations that are shocking for their brutality, both physical and emotional.
But her real genius was in her passion for accomplishment. No one writes about work the way that Rand does. Not the monotonous grind of day to day labor, but the vital and sometimes violent act of creative work. For Rand (like Thomas Mann, but much more viscerally), to do was to be. She describes the ecstasy of creation like God on the first day. And if that's what you're looking for, there are precious few other places to get it.
Ayn Rand will annoy, offend, and sometimes bore you. But no other writer can make you burn like she can. This is her best one.
Show More
and absurdly conservative.But what is undeniable is that Rand was passionate. And if you can get past whatever offends you in her best novels (and there is something for everyone), you may find that she knew more about passion, in all of its forms, than anyone who ever wrote. She gained notoriety for the intense (and sometimes bizzare) encounters between her characters. There are romantic acts and declarations that are shocking for their brutality, both physical and emotional.
But her real genius was in her passion for accomplishment. No one writes about work the way that Rand does. Not the monotonous grind of day to day labor, but the vital and sometimes violent act of creative work. For Rand (like Thomas Mann, but much more viscerally), to do was to be. She describes the ecstasy of creation like God on the first day. And if that's what you're looking for, there are precious few other places to get it.
Ayn Rand will annoy, offend, and sometimes bore you. But no other writer can make you burn like she can. This is her best one.
Show Less
LibraryThing member hjjugovic
The tendency when reviewing a book is to compare it in quality to books you've read before, and that's where reviewing Rand's books becomes very tricky. There is simply nothing else like her out there. This is a long, difficult book, and yet there are no extra words. This book is worth the effort
Show More
if only because it is one of SO FEW that do not glorify personal sacrifice or altruism or diminish mankind in any way. If you want to think about something DIFFERENT, then this book is for you. It does not have the suspense of Atlas Shrugged, but it also lacks the ridiculous speaches and repetition. Impossible to describe or categorize - you have to experience this book on your own. Show Less
LibraryThing member PastorBob
Earlier than Atlas Shrugged, and a stronger story, this is a novel about the rights and freedoms of the creative individual. The modernism will fade into history. The humanistic thinking will prove empty. But the cry for human beings to create, work and succeed unfettered will always ring true. And
Of particular interest in this book is the way in which Rand struggled with what it was to be a strong woman. By the time of Atlas Shrugged, she's working the question out, but in the Fountainhead, her female character cannot own her own desires . . . I wonder what she would have written, if her pen hit the paper a half a century later?
Show More
the need for governments to protect our individual freedoms, and so never to give in to the pressures of those who would take or control others, is not only essential - but is a growing crisis that demands attention. Of particular interest in this book is the way in which Rand struggled with what it was to be a strong woman. By the time of Atlas Shrugged, she's working the question out, but in the Fountainhead, her female character cannot own her own desires . . . I wonder what she would have written, if her pen hit the paper a half a century later?
Show Less
LibraryThing member ecw0647
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
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!
Show More
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!
Show Less
LibraryThing member teewillis1981
How do you review Ayn Rand? One of the most beautiful minds I have ever had the pleasure of exploring. Ayn Rand is a pillar of human ability and strength. If you can attempt to cast aside your ideas of what humanity should be, then this book will take you for a ride.
LibraryThing member bigtent21
"Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" are becoming more relevant as we head into 2009. Large Government Buyouts and Regulation are the scourge of Atlas Shrugged and the outright sponsoring of mediocrity predominates The Fountainhead. Rand can be long-winded, but these two books are must reads
Show More
regardless of your own personal beliefs. Show Less
LibraryThing member jwhenderson
I have always enjoyed reading books about heroes and this was one of my favorite discoveries. When I was in high school I read this story of Howard Roark and found a representative of individualism with whom I could identify. In lucid direct prose Ayn Rand narrates a story of an architect with
Show More
principles who will defer to no one in the pursuit of his life goals. He suffers, but is vindicated and stands as a hero to all who would think and create and produce. Show Less
LibraryThing member FMRox
Architecture and objectivism.
LibraryThing member NanceJ
This was my first introduction to Ayn Rand, and I really enjoyed it. I have trouble fully understanding her philosophy of objectivism, and I don't think I fully agree with it, but I liked the way she worked it into the plot of a novel. I don't really know how to describe her writing style, but it's
Show More
very distinct. Show Less
LibraryThing member TakeItOrLeaveIt
gone through your Ayn Rand stage yet? OMG i'm reading this hot russian ladies interpretation on the ideal society and she's sweeping away. OMG-123 the characters are so far from real life and so perfect in everyway. 666 pages later...OMG wait a minute...that's...absurd. but...well...oh Ayn Rand.
LibraryThing member hammockqueen
writing is superb and reading ayn rand has showed me what good writing is. I can't describe it but I know it when I read it. I read 298 pages, or 1/2, and quit bec. I saw the similarity to atlas shrugged and the long suffering but brilliant man and the woman who is subdued by him and yet still she
Show More
spends all her time trying to ruin him. What the heck! I'd recommend one or the other of her books, but not both. Show Less
LibraryThing member Alera
This is by far one of my favorite reading experiences to date. The material was provoking, evocative, intelligent, and philosophical. Above all else within this novel is packaged a wonderful story with characters, while archetypes, that manage to feel truly tangible. The Fountainhead is the story
Show More
of a man fighting for what he believes in. But above that, it's the story of every man who has ever gone against the status quo. It's a story not for the revolutionaries, but for that first man who sparked the change, whatever that change may be. It's an utterly fascinating work of literature and something I believe everyone should read at least once. Show Less
LibraryThing member LisaMaria_C
I'm an admirer of Rand's ideas and writing and I've rated her other novels five stars. Although I certainly find this one worth reading--I like Rand's style and think her ideas are worth considering--I have too many problems with the protagonist of this novel, Howard Roark, to rank this novel
First, the reasons I do think this novel worth a read. Rand's ideas are still provocative nearly 60 years after its publication. I can certainly understand how her paean to individualism could appeal, particularly to those trying to set a course in their lives. I actually like Rand's style--lyrical at times, compellingly readable and quotable.
Two quotes in particular stand out in my mind. One is the best put down I ever read in fiction. Roark's adversary in the book is Ellsworth Toohey, who has done everything to destroy Roark. After Toohey's done his worst, he asks, "Why don't you tell me what you think of me, Mr. Roark?" Roark answers, "But I don't think of you." Perfect. And not just as a "line" but thematically as well, given the novel is about how a people are the well-spring of their own success and failure and those who try to bring them down ultimately irrelevant.
The other quote that springs to mind is telling especially given those who accuse Rand of being Nietzschean. "A leash is only a rope with a noose on both ends." It's a thought of Gail Wynand, one of Rand's most poignant characters in the mold of a Pulitzer or Hearst--a newspaper publisher who sought power and influence by pandering to the public only to find who really has the power when it matters.
So yes, parts of the book do speak to me, but then there's the problem with Roark. Two in particular, and here below be spoilers, so be warned.
**SPOILERS**
The first problem is the infamous rape of Dominique by Roark. Rand said of the scene that if it is rape, it's "by engraved invitation" and a Rand devotee I brought this up to pointed out Dominique never says no. Nevertheless she does struggle, physically resist. If a word is not said, is it because a victim might feel she won't be heard? Dominique herself calls it rape.
On the other hand the depiction of the act itself implies a consent in her reactions--so maybe what we have here is just "rough sex." Although I still might find this whole encounter between Roark and Dominque disturbing, I might in those terms give Rand the benefit of the doubt. Although even if I do, Dominque is for me the most problematical and inexplicable of Rand's characters.
But then there's Roark's central act in the book--his blowing up of the public housing project. He defends himself in his trial and is said to choose jurors who'd be the kind who are unforgiving, and they acquit him. Problem is I can't acquit Roark, and can't believe the jury, particularly this jury, could have or should have. The deal he made with Keating was unenforceable and Roark knew that when he undertook to design the building. Those who built it certainly never knew the side deal Keating made. And for all that the book depicts Roark as taking care there would be no casualties--well blowing up a building because it didn't hew to his designs? I know Rand is of a romantic rather than naturalistic school but it is still the act of a terrorist, and the acquittal for me strains credibility even in a pre-9/11 world. Indeed, I'd argue the act violates several principles Rand espouses in her books--such as persuasion, rule of law and contract over force. This character and central act is the cornerstone of the novel itself--and it's not one I find sound. So yes, three stars to indicate the novel is worth reading, but in my estimation still deeply flawed.
Show More
highly.First, the reasons I do think this novel worth a read. Rand's ideas are still provocative nearly 60 years after its publication. I can certainly understand how her paean to individualism could appeal, particularly to those trying to set a course in their lives. I actually like Rand's style--lyrical at times, compellingly readable and quotable.
Two quotes in particular stand out in my mind. One is the best put down I ever read in fiction. Roark's adversary in the book is Ellsworth Toohey, who has done everything to destroy Roark. After Toohey's done his worst, he asks, "Why don't you tell me what you think of me, Mr. Roark?" Roark answers, "But I don't think of you." Perfect. And not just as a "line" but thematically as well, given the novel is about how a people are the well-spring of their own success and failure and those who try to bring them down ultimately irrelevant.
The other quote that springs to mind is telling especially given those who accuse Rand of being Nietzschean. "A leash is only a rope with a noose on both ends." It's a thought of Gail Wynand, one of Rand's most poignant characters in the mold of a Pulitzer or Hearst--a newspaper publisher who sought power and influence by pandering to the public only to find who really has the power when it matters.
So yes, parts of the book do speak to me, but then there's the problem with Roark. Two in particular, and here below be spoilers, so be warned.
**SPOILERS**
The first problem is the infamous rape of Dominique by Roark. Rand said of the scene that if it is rape, it's "by engraved invitation" and a Rand devotee I brought this up to pointed out Dominique never says no. Nevertheless she does struggle, physically resist. If a word is not said, is it because a victim might feel she won't be heard? Dominique herself calls it rape.
On the other hand the depiction of the act itself implies a consent in her reactions--so maybe what we have here is just "rough sex." Although I still might find this whole encounter between Roark and Dominque disturbing, I might in those terms give Rand the benefit of the doubt. Although even if I do, Dominque is for me the most problematical and inexplicable of Rand's characters.
But then there's Roark's central act in the book--his blowing up of the public housing project. He defends himself in his trial and is said to choose jurors who'd be the kind who are unforgiving, and they acquit him. Problem is I can't acquit Roark, and can't believe the jury, particularly this jury, could have or should have. The deal he made with Keating was unenforceable and Roark knew that when he undertook to design the building. Those who built it certainly never knew the side deal Keating made. And for all that the book depicts Roark as taking care there would be no casualties--well blowing up a building because it didn't hew to his designs? I know Rand is of a romantic rather than naturalistic school but it is still the act of a terrorist, and the acquittal for me strains credibility even in a pre-9/11 world. Indeed, I'd argue the act violates several principles Rand espouses in her books--such as persuasion, rule of law and contract over force. This character and central act is the cornerstone of the novel itself--and it's not one I find sound. So yes, three stars to indicate the novel is worth reading, but in my estimation still deeply flawed.
Show Less
LibraryThing member papamoll
Had I read any review of that book before, I would not have picked it up. A book description starting with objectivism, idealism , philosophy and so on in the very first phrase is an obvious killer. I didn't know what to expect and I was hooked in a snap. Love, love, love the book, the complex
Show More
characters, Ayn R's ability to break down her characters ideals and views into a language that guides the reader into philosophical thinking and doesn't drown him/her in it. It's complex, and yes there are chapters that take some backbone to read through them, but it's worth it and gives the reader that very rare end feeling of having accomplished something and having been illuminated just a little bit by a great MIND. Show Less
LibraryThing member evanplaice
A simple sequel to the original (Atlas Shrugged) to promote the same dull superficial ideological dogma as the first with extra smut scenes added to tickle the same sex-deprived generation of men who grew up watching hippie orgies but didn't have the clout/opportunity/balls to join in on the
Fortunately, more recent generations have tested the ideas of independence among female culture (with both positive and negative consequences) and disproven the idea that markets correct themselves if individuals are allowed the freedom to act selfishly without oversight (just look at the current economic downturn).
At best, I'd describe this novel as simple reinforcing dogma to assert the conscience of individuals seeking such an ideology to justify their actions. It's mindless repetition and lack of depth reads more like religious dogma or consumer marketing than the deeply insightful and analytical perceptions that you'd commonly expect from quality philosophical literature.
The smut breaks the ice and the repetition drives it home.
Show More
fun.Fortunately, more recent generations have tested the ideas of independence among female culture (with both positive and negative consequences) and disproven the idea that markets correct themselves if individuals are allowed the freedom to act selfishly without oversight (just look at the current economic downturn).
At best, I'd describe this novel as simple reinforcing dogma to assert the conscience of individuals seeking such an ideology to justify their actions. It's mindless repetition and lack of depth reads more like religious dogma or consumer marketing than the deeply insightful and analytical perceptions that you'd commonly expect from quality philosophical literature.
The smut breaks the ice and the repetition drives it home.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Schmerguls
On June 9, 1951 I said "Started The Fountainhead. It seems like Arrowsmith, done up in slick style without the Lewisisms. It is so predictable. Like Dr. Arrowsmith, we have Howard Roark--idealist architect, who is, up to where I am, working for an old idealist rebel. Howard is quite a guy--totally
Show More
undeveloped as yet in my reading. He seems like a distant rock of granite. The quirks Rand uses to put over this picture are amusing." On June 10: "Interesting reading in The Fountainhead. I knew it wasn't like Sinclair Lewis. The writing, i.e., but I couldn't think who it was. But it is much like A. J. Cronn. The Citadel seems the model, except that the ideals here are very radical. The book is eminently readable and so I go right along, admiring nobody overly much. Of course Howard Roark is the hero but he is such an impossible of existence character." On June 13: "Reading in Fountainhead. Obvious. But the whole thing reminds me of Aldous Huxley--it isn't quite so talky, but almost. I liked Huxley, but Rand is boresome because she is but a poor similar. Rand characters are such unlive people, and they infuriate me. Roark is worst because he is a totally nonexistant person. The whole picture painted in The Fountainhead is an inane simplification." On June 15: "Finished The Fountainhead. Ugh. Roark ends up with Dominique and poor Gail Wynand is disgusted and alone. What a lot of hash. The attack on altruism gets violent at the end, and Rand builds it up into an all-consuming bogeyman. Then she preaches up the egotist as the creative force of the world. No egotist has ever helped the world one bit by being an egotist. Everything, to be anything, must be done not for one's self, but for another. True love is the highest form of altruism. A selfish person needs must be an unloved and unloveable person. Rand is crazy and doesn't know it." Show Less
LibraryThing member AlCracka
I learned that Ayn Rand is an *ssh*l*.
LibraryThing member smooney1202
Philisophical struggle between two men's lives that are slightly intertwined, one man exemplifying "staying true to one's self" and the other exemplifying "doing what is expected/what gets the biggest payoff". Wasn't sure that I would like this, but not even two chapters in I was completely hooked
Show More
and could not put this down. A must read. Show Less
LibraryThing member thompschomps
I was pleasantly surprised at how into this book I got. It reads well and the characters are believable in relation to her philosophy. Howard Roark is one of my new literary heroes. She brings up many obvious truths that are often hard to detect in real life, although I'm not sure I completely
Show More
agree with her philosophy. Definitely makes you think differently. I am excited to read her other books and learn more about it. Show Less
LibraryThing member RoseEllen
This book is amazing and disturbing. Rand makes a good argument, though I still don't really agree with her, I do agree with Howard Rourke, if that makes any sense. I listened to it on audio (Blackwell Audio - borrowed/downloaded from the public library). It took quite some time because I kept
Show More
losing my place. I think this is one that needs rereading/relistening several times to get a better fix on the places where the reader's first impression may not actually be what Rand intended. Also, perhaps reading hardcopy now that I have listened might be helpful. It is a remarkable book. And, it is not a book about architecture... Show Less
LibraryThing member kevinryan12
the greatest book I have ever read.
LibraryThing member Lady_Lazarus
Not sure if there's hope for humanity after I read this, though I think it's supposed to be hopeful book. The feeling it leaves behind reminds me of Hannah Arendt. The feeling is not as strong and pure as with Arendt since there's quite a lot of excess disturbing the most important idea in The
Show More
Fountainhead (for example the politics and admiration of capitalism). However, thought-provoking book. Show Less
LibraryThing member CliffordDorset
This book comes with a reputation, Ayn Rand is said to have influenced many of the people of power on both sides of the Atlantic with her policy of 'Objectivism', and the glorification of self-interest. I found that any preconceptions I might have had along the lines of what such words mean to me
Show More
were quickly dashed. It occurred to me that the philosophy she expounds in complex detail will have different meanings for people of different backgrounds and experience, and this feeling became stronger as I made my way through the book. The book demonstrates that words such as 'egotism', 'self-interest', 'altruism' are capable of many interpretations once they are applied to the way people interact. The book tells an architectural tale in which genius is obliged to co-exist with mediocrity, and how the two may conflict; indeed the book takes the view that conflict is inevitable. However, 'genius' is seen here as an absolute, as is an individual's capacity for understanding. Such concepts underpin the work, but above such things 'The Fountainhead' tells a powerful story which contains much of the unexpected and excites strong personal feelings about the principal characters. Despite its length I found it difficult to put down, and I feel enriched by it. Show Less
LibraryThing member atomheart
maybe, the greatest book ever written...
Subjects
Awards
Call number
FIC A4 Ran