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 mind is you. As for the other stuff, I still agree with everything I wrote originally, which is that there are aspects of the rest of her teachings that are compelling and that are worth sampling from. But adapting someone else's principles whole hog kind of go against the very basic idea this is built upon, which is examine yourself, and what you want, and I have a hard time believing that so many people want exactly the same things she wanted. Originally, when I wrote this review, Goodreads had a much shorter word limit, and I remember running out of space. I can't remember what else I was going to say, but this will have to suffice. (Also, no, I'm not okay with the rape, kthanx.)Original review:This book is remarkable.Basic plot: Howard Roark (individual) & Peter Keating (copycat). Roark constantly fights with society but manages to survive, Keating gets lifted up by society and then destroyed by it (can you say celebrities?). This is the plot at its most rudimentary - naturally there's more to it.I understand the comments about Objectivists being assholes and I respond to that in two ways - firstly, does this not prove her point about how people respond to/treat individuals who live for themselves? Secondly, there's an exaggeration in here. Simply look at the relationships in the book - the fact that they exist. In its purest form, the most egotistical, self-centered person wouldn't bother entering into a relationship or get married, because it would imply having to consider another person (or making someone a doormat, which would go against the philosophy, because part of it is that one will exist for themselves without enslaving others - Roark refuses to let Dominique submit to something she wouldn't be happy with). Ayn Rand got married, Objectivists in The Fountainhead get married - it's not that they're portrayed as not caring about anyone (exaggeration!). The best example of the Objectivists' relationships is the quote from a scene where Roark and Wynand (publisher of the most powerful newspaper chain) are on the yacht, and Roark says something along the lines of "I'd die for you, but I won't live for you," which makes a lot of sense.People get their panties in a bunch over something that should be made distinct - there's people (individuals) and there's society (the collective of people, supposedly driven by a majority of thought). Ayn Rand's theories apply as much to society as they do the individual. This is more a story of two individuals' fights with society than fights with each other. Yes, the focus is on people giving the most significance to their own thoughts and desires, but they DON'T ignore others. They have friends, relationships, lovers. Clearly, they care about other people (Roark's treatment of Wynand after the trial at the end is a particularly good example of this). There's just not a blind caring, blind trust, blind affection, a blind desire to help, and there's the firm thought that one should affirm themselves through their own standards, not those of others. This isn't a bad thing!Like any philosophy/school of thought, you have to pick and choose from this, and there's no reason why you can't take all of the personal motivation and apply it without feeling like you're screwing over everyone you know. Again, it's a matter of exaggeration, and I don't think you have to embrace this to its most extreme measures to appreciate, understand and want to employ it. Putting yourself first doesn't mean putting everyone you know last. It's not a black or white situation.There are so many things in this that ran parallel to my thinking, the way that I've lived my life, the way that I see my life and the people in it - there were times when the similarities made me feel fantastic from knowing that they were reflected somewhere, and other times they were so close they scared me, especially in Dominique (mostly at the very beginning).I feel like I can't continue living my life as I was before. I feel like a fraud for going back to my job. I continually had to set it aside for a few minutes after a chapter because I wanted, needed to think about what I had just read. The last 100 pages were particularly hard to get through because of that. My brain turned to mush - in a good way. It's a lot to take on, but I feel better about myself for having done so.At just over 700 pages long, it's a bit of a beast, but it's worth every word, and it really only took me 2-3 weeks to get through, which is pretty quick considering I read only on my subway rides.P.S. The movie isn't very good...
I certainly did like this book, and yet I have an easier time pointing at things that should make me dislike it. That is not the case; I most definitely liked it.This is a book that presents an ideology. That is what makes it interesting. Individualism versus collective aspirations/altruism. Egotism versus the social good for many. Every word has side connotations; every word choice needs to be analyzed / discussed to reach a balanced and a fair evaluation of what is the ideal. Ayn Rand is here presenting her view of the ideal man. In the end there quite simply are those who are more individualists and those who work best in groups. I belong to the former group, and so this book was inspirational to me.Did you know that Greenspan adored Ayn Rand?Here come the negative aspects of the book that should have, but didn't, make me dislike it. The book is not realistic. The characters are too simplified; their personality traits are exaggerated. In this book you can point to the different characters and each one stands for a certain kind of person. One is only concerned with what others think of him – (Peter Keating, whom I absolutely detested). He is not the most evil, but I detested him most. Still I wanted him there in the book. Honestly, there truly are people like this; every time he spoke or did something he reminded me of a person I know! And here I could laugh at him. And then there is Howard Roark - he is the individualist and my hero. OK, maybe he is too good to be true, but I loved him anyhow. Dominique Francon, she threw me totally. I spent hours trying to figure her out. (Did I mention this book is very long; the audiobook lasts for 32 hours!) She is not realistic..... but by the end I wouldn't say there couldn't exist such a person. You simply have to see what she does at the end. All these characters, and there are more, balance each other and keep you wondering - how will this ever end?! Will it come to a slow fizzle or an explosion? The book is set in the 1920s and 30s in NYC. It was first published in 1943, but the trends prevailing certainly existed for a decade or two longer! It reminded me of the 1950s. The role of media and journalism was as relevant then as it is today. However historical events are barely mentioned, the Depression is covered in only a line or two, and this is a book about the building industry, very much affected by depressed economic conditions of that era! Roark was an architect. Although the book perfectly depicts NYC at this time and place it does not cover international world events. Again, this just didn't bother me!There isn't much humor, and that which is employed is satirical in tone. You laugh at the antics of people, not the kind of humor that usually appeals to me. I was just too darned interested in figuring out the whys and hows and what was going to happen to care!Sometimes the text gets kind of preachy; the author is expounding her views. This is a book about ideology. Either it speaks to you or it doesn't. It is just that simple. The narration by Christopher Hurt gets five stars. I LOVED the voices he used for Peter (he made me cringe with displeasure), for Peter's mother (oh my, dear little Petey), for Howard (my hero) and for Ellsworth Toohey (he is bad but sounds so suave and good....and that is just how he should sound). You most often recognized who is speaking just from the tone employed.I need to add one more thing. There are good AND evil individualists. In real life, nothing is simple. The ideology presented is interesting, and the mix of characters makes you curious to see how the story will end, and what does that say about the ideology itself?
What do You think about The Fountainhead (1996)?
Sheila, I hope that you were trying to mock rand, otherwise you were just acting as a "moocher" by superficially taking her thoughts and saying them back at other people. I enjoy what she writes as an intelectual exercise, I think thats what she really wanted her readers to treat her books as.
—Foodpie
If I were to suspect the artist of having written out of passion and in passion, my confidence would immediately vanish, for it would serve no purpose to have supported the order of causes by the order of ends.~ SartreIt is not literature. It is not philosophy. It lacks any understanding of how an economy functions. A childish affirmation of pure entitlement. It is just a rant told through a really bad piece of fiction.Ayn Rant.+++(the 4 stars rating was given at a very early and impressionable age)
—Riku Sayuj
Overall, this is not only great fiction, but Rand also has some great ideas which are presented with an uncanny amount of clarity.The architectural profession serves as the backdrop for the story. The story itself is quite interesting; either Rand did a great deal of research or she did a good job faking it. I maintained a complete disinterest in architecture before reading the book, but still found myself actively engaged while Rand discussed the matter. I wonder how many young readers are steered towards the profession after reading this book for the first time.With the exceptions of a few monologues that went on a bit too long, the story kept me engaged for the entire 700 pages. The characters are well developed; I found myself attached to some while despising others. There is adequate conflict to keep the plot moving.While I understood the motivations of the actions carried out by Dominique and Roark, the actions themselves bordered on the edge of the extreme. At various times in the book, both engage in acts of violence and destruction which don't seem completely rational. These issues aside, it's a very well written book.As to the philosophy.....Rand's message is fairly clear. She doesn't abstract the message at all. In fact, she grinds it in as thoroughly and as clearly as she can.The book provides us with Howard Roark as Rand's idea of an ideal man. He never falters in his convictions. He remains completely independent and relies on nobody. His only interest is to his work; to the manifestation of his creative genius. He doesn't care what others think - he only cares about his own productive achievements. He is an egotist - a term which carries a positive connotation in her book. She argues that it's the egotistical desire of man that build great civilizations.“All that which proceeds from man’s independent ego is good. All that which proceeds from man’s dependence upon men is evil.”The book is full of weaker people like Peter Keating. Keating lives through the thoughts and feelings of others. He is completely dependent upon others to justify his existence. Through Roark and Keating, Rand asserts that dependence upon other men is evil in nature. Keating lives not for himself, but for others. Rand has a title for such people - second handers. He can't do what he desires, as he is constantly worried about how others think of him.In a world where self-interest is ideal, acts of altruism are counterproductive and should be despised. At first I was lost on this point, as it didn't seem to me that altruism was necessarily all bad. I see no problem with people giving of themselves to people they love. I also don't see a problem with my donating money to various charitable endeavors. After reading The Fountainhead, I now see that such acts are not altruism.Altruism is the unselfish concern for the welfare of others - a state of complete selflessness. When I give to those I love or to causes I believe in, my actions are selfish. I provide for my family because I hold them to be the most important thing in my life. That check to the local SPCA goes towards providing a better life for animals, a cause I place some value in. Charity and kindness are not altruism; they're actually quite selfish acts.However, to an extent society seems to feel that I should give to those who are less fortunate with no care for myself simply because the intended recipient is deemed to need such assistance by those who insist that I give it. Most social welfare programs are like this. I am forced to pay taxes on my earnings, which are then distributed to others via a variety of social programs despite the fact that I have no interest giving in such a fashion. This is nothing more than forced altruism.
—Dave
