The Fountainhead

Only thing that was keeping me from ever reading The Fountainhead were the dozen number of people who recommended it to me. It is a certified guaranteed winner as per most people (most of whom cannot frame a sentence without using words such as "nice" , "intelligent" ,"sweet" etc.) The Fountainhead is impactful,precise,gigantic in it's scope, the work of a mastermind. Ayn Rand shocked me(again) with her control over character definitions and flabbergasting logic. After I had finished reading Atlas Shrugged, I felt a bit cheated and robbed of my time. Don't get me wrong, "A.S" has my favourite book character of all time in Fransisco but it is the "giving in" nature of most characters in Atlas Shrugged that made it seem a bit too harsh to me.There is a certain preachiness in the words of John Galt that didn't really sell consequence. Moving on, about Fountainhead I'd like to say that it has the best and most well conceived perception of a human brain I've read. Some of my favourite characters in the book are Peter Keating, Gail Wynand (the best), Ellsworth Toohey (never has a character been this interesting in his villain own self) and the hero, Howard Roark. One very tactful and intentional foreplay of characters is the fact that they are all unique. You will never once in the book find a flaw or loophole in any of the characters. What I'm trying so hard to say will be better explained by examples. Howard Roark never says more than he thinks he must in this book and often says nothing when you'd expect him to talk. Gail Wynand doesn't ever give away his self respect into the hands of another and never begs anyone. Ellsworth Toohey never gets himself into trouble despite the mind riots he causes most lesser people in the book. Ayn Rand has an astounding quantity of mind. She shocks me repeatedly in this book by adding a shape to certain thoughts every 20 something year old guy goes through. I do not like the part where there is raw love between Howard Roark and Dominique because it seems a bit too barbaric and unrealistic for me to swallow. It's surprising how boring and dull the book became for a few pages when Roark and Dominique Francon meet. There is a certain sarcasm that the book displays in paragraphs containing comments made by the local people. Fountainhead was extremely funny in it's own silent subtle way at times. WHY IS IT BETTER THAN ATLAS SHRUGGED(to me)? I hope I do not offend anyone by comparing the two but like many readers have pointed out, most characters of The Fountainhead grow on you and towards the last few pages your pace of reading declines(intentionally). Gail Wynand with his practicality and adaptation skills makes more of a hero than any of the much exaggerated Atlas Shrugged Characters. Atlas Shrugged is an epic in itself but it doesn't manage to grip you like The Fountainhead does. Most books ignore the character details of the villains but in Fountainhead, Ellsworth Toohey gets a whole lot of pages dedicated to

Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead" is now more than sixty years old, yet it retains its relevance and urgency, Judging both from fellow reviewers, and from personal experience, every reader of "The Fountainhead" emerges either loving or hating the book. I personally find Rand's ideas uplifting, and though her philosophy is not entirely of her own creation, Rand's presentation is compelling and her formulation is clear and striking. Furthermore, for all the controversy Rand's philosophy may inspire, "The Fountainhead" is undeniably an entertaining and well-written book. That Rand is able to demonstrate her fascinating philosophical views in such a well-written and well-told story should be recognized as a tremendous feat. "The Fountainhead" tells the story of Howard Roark, a young architect who is, as Rand describes in an early manuscript, "a man who is what he should be." Roark is a self-contained human being, who lives entirely for himself-by his own definition of himself. Roark's buildings are considered both radical and offensive by many observers because he fails to pay homage to the styles of the past or to collaborate with anyone on any part of his designs. As Roark states at one point, he believes that buildings, like people, have one central theme or idea, and that idea cannot be compromised. The leading figure in opposition to Roark is Ellsworth Toohey, an "intellectual" with a particular specialty in architecture. Rand, in the same early manuscript, describes Toohey as "a man who never could be-and knows it." I take delicious delight in every word Toohey speaks; he is one of the most evil characters every created, and there is no doubt he is extraordinarily good at what he does. What Toohey does is attempt to destroy the heroic, self-sufficient men by setting forth as the moral ideal those men who live by everyone else's standards but their own, who are mediocre and could never achieve greatness, and who submit themselves to the collective will. The conflict between what Roark stands for and what Toohey stands for demonstrates quite clearly Rand's philosophy: in short, she upholds Roark as the ideal. This contrast can also help explain why some readers feel uplifted by Rand's philosophy while others are horrified by it. The heroic in Roark can be inspiring, but also somewhat menacing; Rand is very clear that it is not possible for everyone to achieve the ideal demonstrated by Roark. This runs counter to ideas most Americans have been instilled with since youth: egalitarianism and the accessibility of the American Dream. On this basis, it is easy-as several characters in "The Fountainhead" do-to dismiss Roark as an egotist and to hold up Toohey's intentions as benevolent and charitable. As this is a book review, it is not my intention to argue for Rand's positions-though I realize that my admiration for those positions is plainly evident. I mention these conflicting views simply in hopes that readers will approach "The Fountainhead" more

I feel the purpose of reading is to be challenged: ideologically, philosophically, politically, etc. Either those challenges will cause one to rethink one's beliefs or strengthen one's existing convictions. Either of these outcomes will produce, I believe, a better person - a thinker who is willing to encounter more than one argument, one side to any issue, and still retain opinions of one's own. I would also like to counter some of the comments that the book is simply a thinly veiled treatise on Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. If anyone read the introduction written by Rand she answers a fundamental question: "Was The Fountainhead written for the purpose of presenting my philosophy? ... This is the motive and purpose of my writing; the projection of the ideal man ... My purpose, first cause and prime motive is the portrayal of Howard Roark as an end in himself."What I understood from Rand's statement is that her ultimate goal is to present her characters - showing, through their actions and inactions, attitudes and convictions - and the good and bad points of their diverse perspectives on life. In interpreting the book, I feel one should focus on how one perceives the characters, not on what the afterward by Leonard Peikoff or any other outside source espouses.Form your own opinion of the philosophical ideas expressed in the book - do not rely on Piekoff's interpretation or the interpretation of this review or others. Read the book and analyze the characters on your own - pull from them what grabs at you - what relates to any of your life experiences. To me, that is the most effective way to think and read. Think critically and scrutinize closely and you will not fail to learn from most every part of life.This is how I approached the novel and I was not disappointed.

Read just about any four or five star customer review and you have a fine summary of this book. It is not necessary for me to repeat what has already been said. I myself would like to talk about the individual characters which keep me rereading this book as much as the philosophy does. Roark, Keating, Toohey (shudder), Dominique, etc., all represent facets of humanity, good and evil. But characters like Keating and Wynand are more complex than the characters in Atlas Shrugged. Yes, they are Randian archetypes but they have taught me much about human nature.Keating, had he a little more backbone, might have actually been able to make something of himself. Unlike the villains of AS, he was somewhat sympathetic. He was in love with Catherine, a woman who may not have possessed the glamor and poise of Dominique but who was right for him simply because they were happy when they were together. Fool that he was, he instead opted for what he thought he was supposed to, just as he chose architecture over his true calling, painting. His story is a lesson for all of us. To detractors of the book who call it contemptuous of people I say you don't HAVE to be this way. Don't be a Peter Keating. It is up to you.Ellsworth Toohey is a villain for the ages, somebody you just love to hate. I won't even describe him as a man. I relish the creepy, slimy feeling I get rereading the passages about him. Every patronizing, smarmy sentence that comes out of his mouth is designed to make one cringe. The fact that he DOESN'T seek out wealth, or even happiness, makes him all the worse. It is through him and this book that I learned what is evil: holding society and "the greater good" over the individual. Now, whenever I read or watch the news, I am acutely aware of the malice in people who would say they are trying to protect society when their actions result in harm to an individual, or worse, equate society with an individual as I recently heard from a prominent proponent of the death penalty. Again, he is a lesson to all of us: beware the Ellsworth Tooheys of the world. They are out there.Rand wrote Roark as the ideal man. He certainly is that. I could never expect to be as he is but I firmly believe that he is something to strive for. He had the courage of his convictions. He did not care what other people thought, except those whose opinions mattered to him, such as his mentor, Cameron. Such is the lesson I learned from him. If I find myself jealous or resentful of somebody, I asked myself what my weakness is because fear of one's own shortcomings is from whence hatred and jealousy arise.If it is difficult to relate to a man who does not even see you, as he is frequently described, consider for a moment why it is important for him to see you and why you feel your own worth is based on how others see you. Then consider the friends that he makes in the book, competent and intelligent people who feel about the world as he does. And finally co

This is one of the fastest paced books I have ever read. Ayn Rand's characters come to life as she paints very clear pictures of who they are and what they represent. She does this in spite of the fact that the dialogue is sometimes a bit wooden and stilted. In this novel, she sets forth her philosophy of "objectivism." She exposes those, such as a character named Peter Keating, an architect, who seemingly achieve greatness by copying others but somehow give the illusion of originality and creativity. In order to achieve "greatness," Keating was literally willing to sell anything, including his wife. Thus despite wealth and apparant achievement, his life was empty. Rand begins to formulate her values that altruism is an evil because a society which seeks to achieve this must do so at someone's expense and therefore leads to collectivism. In the person of Ellsworth Toohey, a flamboyant newspaper columnist, she shows how the power hungry manipulate the masses by setting a standard of mediocrity which fosters collectivism.This book is full of passion, including a flaming, complex romantic affair between individualist architect Howard Roarke and socialite Dominique Francon. Their relationship develops from one in which they each seek to assert power over the other while achieving sexual release to one of true love between genuine soul mates. Roarke also has a passion for his work and is uncompromising in his creativity in accomplishing his professional goals. He will not ever compromise these goals despite enormous pressures to do so. Rand believed that there is only black and white in moral issues; there is no gray. Therefore, giving in a little is not compromise but rather, selling out your values and giving in to evil. Roarke was not a man to sell out, he had the courage of his convictions.While setting forth her philosophy, Rand has also given us a novel which has a well developed plot. I found the novel to be gripping and I couldn't put it down. Following the career of Howard Roarke and the machinations of his enemies was fascinating. The plot had enough twists to provide surprises and to hold the reader's interest. This book is both an enjoyable novel as well as a challenging philosophical statement. I like Rand's philosophy and I love this book.