The Fountainhead
by Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff
|
List Price: Our Price: $3.99 You Save: $6.00 (60%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.01 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of The Fountainhead
Book Review: Ramblings on Ayn Rand's Works
Summary: 4 Stars
FountainHead and Atlas Shrugged are two books, especially the former, that have gained the status of Modern Classics. The thoughts expressed below are, well, my general thoughts on the two most popular works of Ayn Rand.
After I finished reading FountainHead, the character that impressed me the most was Gail Wynand, the next being the iconoclast Ellsworth Toohey. I found the final monologue, if monologue is the word I am looking for, of Toohey to Peter Keating and the defense of Roark(for those who have not read the book, Howard Roark happens to be the Hero of Fountain Head) in the climax the most impressive parts of the book. It is definitely a book that is a must read for any bibliophile worth his salt. In fact, each of the characters sketched out by the writer in Fountain Head have something definite and unique. In stark contrast to this, Atlas Shrugged has most of the characters, the Heroes of the book, very similar to one another and after the point to be put across is put across, the theme repeats itself again and again and the writer tends to get excessively didactic. I must, at this point, confess that the 90-odd page radio speech by John Galt, in Atlas Shrugged, took a lot out of me, leaving me practically a spent force by the time I finished the Chapter ''This is John Galt speaking''. The sheer size of the book Atlas Shrugged is very intimidating. Anyway, I managed to read that, spreading it over a period of nearly four months.
Ayn Rand happens to be one of the most compelling and influential writers I have ever read. Though it is highly difficult to rise up to the standards set in her philosophies they definitely influence the reader immensely. The philosophy she professes though hard to live up to and emulate definitely sets standards to the way an ideal man has to live. I do not presently remember, but a writer or critic once pointed out that after reading Fountain Head, one would feel that the rest of the writers through the generations have written their works while sitting on the potty or something to that effect. Though I would say that saying so is going a bit too far, it definitely gives an idea as to how powerful Ayn Rand's writings are.
Delving for a while on the cover illustration of FountainHead, I have this little theory of mine that it shows the picture of the Titan Prometheus from Greek Mythology, stealing fire from Gods, which, as the legend goes, he gifts to mankind and for doing so Zeus punishes him by chaining him to a rock and leaving eagles (another version says it is vultures) to gnaw at him. The illustration in a way, I think, encompasses, or is symbolizes the word I really am looking for, the idea of the Creator, the first to go on an un-laid path only to get pilloried, inviting the world to point the finger of disdain and scorn, the idea Roark so convincingly presents in his defense.
In Ayn Rand's own words, the philosophy of objectivism sums up to this:
''My 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.'' In a nutshell, one sees the Earth in the eyes of Ayn Rand as a place where there is no room for those wallowing in mediocrity. Well, that, if you practically look at, sends most of us packing to the outer space with a copy of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy; but then, that is neither here nor there. The nearest antonym to ego, according to her, is altruism. Her theories severely pan the concept of Collectivism and glorify Individualism and the Virtue of Selfishness. In this context, it doesn't need a rocket scientist to understand her views on Soviet Communism vis-a-vis American Capitalism. It would be of interest to psychologists to know that the writer was a Russian immigrant to the United States.
The Ayn Rand Stereotype:
Ever observed? All her heroes have to possess lean frames with athletic builds and angular faces (Hank Rearden, Francisco d'Anconia, John Galt, Howard Roark). All the bad guys should be fat with flabby masses of flesh falling off their bodies (Peter Keating, James Taggart, Ellsworth Toohey et. al.). All her heroines (Dagny Taggart, Dominque Francon) have to invariably sleep with all her heroes. Of course, in pointing out the last observation, i don't mean to say that Dagny Taggart from Atlas shrugged goes out all the way to sleep with Howard Roark who appears in FountainHead.
PS: Err... possibly this review is more comprehensible for those who have read Ayn Rand's works.
Book Review: A Great Work of Literature
Summary: 5 Stars
"The Fountainhead" is a great rarity; a well-written and successful philosophical novel. Though Ayn Rand becomes occasionally too didactic, I realize that she was concerned that some readers would be unable to see the points she was making. I did find this novel humorous at points, as Rand placed Howard Roarke, her protagonist, in contrast to his environment so that Roarke appeared to be in control of his environment. Those who understand this novel will find humor in many places. I am unsure of how much of the humor was intentional and how much was unintentional.
There are several principal characters in this 700+ page book. Howard Roarke is an architect. Roarke believes in himself and is a creator. Rand uses Roarke as her example of the "perfect" man. Rand contrasts Roarke primarily with Peter Keaton. Keaton is an adapter of technology. He "borrows" his architectural concepts from historic styles rather than focusing on the practical and having form follow function. Keaton panders to popular styles. Roarke designs plans that are functional and fit within their environment. The beauty of Roarke's designs is in their functionality and how each design fits its environment. Unfortunately, repetitive design is valued, and creativity is not.
There are several other significant characters in this book. Ellsworth Toohey is a newspaper columnist. Toohey exemplifies mediocrity. Toohey is manipulative and power hungry, but is so subtle in his machinations that few people recognize Toohey for what he is. I was fascinated that Toohey seemed to want a worthy opponent and lamented that his opponents were unable to see what Toohey was doing. Toohey's comments and actions imply that Toohey seeks socialism or communism, but he wants to be the absolute dictator. Toohey seems to have all the worst characteristics of communism and fascism.
Gail Wynand is the owner of a chain of newspapers. Wynand is a self made man. Wynand is quite similar to Roarke in many ways, though it takes us a long time to discover the similarities. Both men eventually come to admire each other.
Dominique Francon is very important to the novel. She appears cold-hearted, though she is not. She becomes a connection between Keating, Wynand and Roarke. However, Dominique realizes that she will likely destroy nearly everyone she contacts. Rand uses Dominique as a tool for continuity throughout the novel and to aid in contrasting the characteristics of the three men in Dominique's life.
What is "The Fountainhead" about? It is about one man pursuing his quest for what he believes to be right, regardless of what most of the world thinks. Rand hypothesizes that if that man is correct, and has an objective ideal as his goal, that eventually the rest of the world will recognize the validity of that man's (or woman's) viewpoint and follow along. "The Fountainhead" is against the average, against mediocrity, against collectivism, against rule by committee, and against the manipulation of people by those whose only purpose is to seek power over other men. "The Fountainhead" is for individualism, for creativity, for following your own path and for objective truth.
Ayn Rand tried to keep her explanations relatively simple. She characterized people as those who lived through others and those who lived for themselves. However, I think there could be a third category, which Rand likely classified as the second category. As we know, not every person is highly creative. But, an average person may well recognize the creativity of a person such as Roarke, and admiring such creativity, does what they can to bring that creativity to realization. I would call this third category a person who facilitates the creator.
The first time I read "The Fountainhead," I considered the book profound. I looked at the world, and myself, in a different perspective. This book is easy to read, but it is not light reading. The book requires a lot of thought, and you may find that you disagree with Rand or you may be disappointed. If you are a potential Howard Roarke, it is unlikely that you will read this book at all. For the rest of us, "The Fountainhead" is a great work of fiction that embodies what many of us like to believe is the basis of the United States. While there may be a little cowboy in us, there is a lot of pioneer spirit, which was founded on a strong sense of individualism. We can only hope that these ideals remain with us in the future.
I hope you find this book as incredible as I did. Enjoy!
Book Review: Interesting and idealistic
Summary: 4 Stars
Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead", like her "Atlas Shrugged" (which I had previously read), is a fast, interesting, thought-provoking if overly idealized read. Above all else, it's very strongly written, clear in its intentions and consistent in its characterizations. It is, while being most noted as a vessel for a particular philosophy (Rand's "Objectivism"), first and foremost an oustanding literary work. I would strongly recommend it for anybody interested in politics, philosophy or social issues - positive or negative, it's sure to get a response.In this novel, Ayn Rand takes us into the lives of Howard Roark and Peter Keating, two aspiring architects who choose differing paths when forced to market their skills in the world - Keating choosing that of populism and pleasing the masses, while Roark chooses that of individualism and self-sufficiency. Other characters become involved in shaping the story and characters, including Ellsworth Toohey, a socialist newspaper columnist who coddles Keating and gives support to various "mediocre" artists; Dominique Francon, an independent, free mind who influences both of the lead characters; and Gail Wynand, the owner of several newspapers whose content he continues to ignore until it's almost too late. The story largely follows the two leads, Roark and Keating, as they adapt to the market with Rand's unique philosophical discourse espoused strongly in the final 50-100 pages as the resolution nears.
As a story, it's one with few faults. It flows quickly and remains true to its ideals. Rand's writing is, while overly idealized (okay, okay, so nobody in the real world goes on these kinds of idealistic rants seemingly at random places in normal dialogue), on a whole very readable and descriptive. The plot culminates well, even if the motivations of the some of her characters and her arbitration of "hero" and "heroic" are sometimes open for questioning. The only plot point I would question is the resolution to the legal battle near the end, which while serving Rand's ideological point, has no semblance of realism at all. That verdict would simply not happen. Anywhere. Ever.
On an ideological level, this novel has the same strengths and weakness as her other major novel, "Atlas Shrugged". On the plus side, it's clear, well articulated, forceful and likely to please anyone with even a fleeting interest in her style of thinking, that individualism promotes greatness and collectivism promotes mediocrity and tyranny. Using the dichotomy of Roark and Keating, two idealized characters, she manages to stress this point well.
On the minus side, there is a great deal of this story which is idealized to the point where it loses some of its relevance in the real world. The world is not as even and completely divided as she paints it, with all individualists aspiring to individual greatness and all collectivists aspiring towards either a) complacency; or b) absolute power over complacency. There are a great deal of individualists who aspire towards hedonism and self-gratification and a great deal of collectivists who aspire towards general well-being. There are also people who don't seen individualism and collectivism as mutual exclusive philosophies, depending on the issue addressed. In that sense, the character of Ellsworth Toohey is somewhat of a strawman - he's meant to symbolize everything that associated with collectivism, but represents only Rand's interpretation of it, people who preach general well-being but seek personal power.
The philosophy, like all philosophies, also suffers from the leap from one or two, or a handful of, situations to a universal truth. In this case, she jumps individualism promotes greatness while collectivism promotes mediocrity (which is still questionable) to individualism is a superior moral philosophy to collectivism (she made a similar jump in "Atlas Shrugged" from individualism is superior to collectivism economically, therefore...). If you're willing to make the jump that great architecture is produced by individuals acting in their own interest not collectively, therefore low income housing is an abomination unless its built by people acting in their own self interest, then fine. Personally, I would keep different tiers of a philosophy's application (moral, economical, social, asthetic, etc.) separate. That asthetic greatness can be produced by one man acting for his own selfish good does not, to me, imply that all those who seek to help others are suckers.
Anyway, recommended reading.
Matthew D. Johnston
Book Review: Amid Acrimonious Controversy, A Great Book
Summary: 5 Stars
Ayn Rand was a talented writer, whether or not you agree with her philosphy. Alas, the Rand purists are offended by all reviews that are not uncritical praise, and the anti-Rand socialists are outraged by any that do not paint the author as unspeakably evil. Whatever happened to the idea of an open mind?In light of the foregoing, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that "the Fountainhead" is a great book for someone just looking for good fiction. It is a tale of competing schools of architecture in New York during the 1920s and 1930s, when capitalism was increasingly opposed by dialectical materialism and socialism.
Howard Roark, the main protagonist, is a lone eagle who desires to achieve on his own, applying his own modernistic style to architecture, to erect buildings that inspire a sense of joy while being a testament to the greatness of man.
Roark is opposed in his efforts by an assortment of traditionalist-architects, who oppose modernism in favor of the baroque styles of Roman and Greek architecture, and who heap scorn on any architect who steps outside this box. The traditionalists are supported by a socialist-journalist named Elsworth Toohey, who writes a column in the New York Banner, praising or criticizing the work of architects. Toohey has great influence on public opinion, and few architects or builders wish to risk his wrath and public humiliation, and so "go along to get along," much in the same way that political correctness works today.
Howard Roark refuses to be swayed by these strong commercial and societal pressures, and continues to design office buildings, homes and other structures in a way that pleases him. He suffers terrible adversity because of his principles and his vision, but over time emerges victorious.
I loved Ayn Rand's prose, her descriptions of New York and its skyscrapers. Her writing flows smoothly through the mind, painting pictures in the imagination, and is fresh and inspiring. I found her sentences expertly constructed and a joy to read.
The motivations of some of the characters, however, is not always easy to understand. Dominique Francon, for instance, loves Roark but feels compelled to destroy him; and when she no longer wishes to destroy him, marries someone lesser than Roark in an inexplicable act of self-contempt. The novel has other aspects that also strain credulity, such as Roark's long and preachy opening statement in his second jury trial, where he is little more than a talking-head for Ayn Rand's philosophy. (In fiction, this is called "author intrusion," and is to be avoided.)
I like Ayn Rand, and sympathize strongly with her support of individualism over group-think statism. Rand's philosophy jives closely with the writings of 18th Century British economist Adam Smith, who taught that every individual in pursuing his or her own good is led, as if by an invisible hand, to achieve the best good for all. Therefore any interference with free competition by government is almost certain to be injurious. I agree.
Having said that, I do not believe that individual action (the "lone eagle" Roark approach) is always the most effective means of achieving success in every endeavor. There is the concept of synergy, where two or more individuals can produce more or create more than any one of them can do alone. This is the concept wherein "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts." The Beatles achieved more as a group than any one of them ever did alone. The value of teamwork is illustrated by professional sports, and the concepts translate well to the business world, as most creative, productive endeavors require cooperative effort. Individualism is the engine of creativity and capitalism, but a volunatary association of individuals united in a common purpose can often accomplish more than an individual acting alone. This is not a contradiction of either Ayn Rand or Adam Smith.
Howard Roark suffered much in his ascent to the top, but much of his suffering was avoidable or at least could have been mitigated by a better strategy, perhaps by seeking the assistance of a good publicist or marketer, the alliance of a competing journalist to Ellsworth Toohey, and by establishing a business network of professional association and cooperation with others who shared his modernist vision.
Ayn Rand's novel makes you think, and helps you determine where your own personal philosophy fits into the cacophony of competing ideals. But first and foremost, the Fountainhead is just good fiction. Enjoy.
Book Review: Drawing my own conclusions
Summary: 4 Stars
Having heard that Rand was the poster-child for unrestrained capitalism, I wanted to read The Fountainhead with a mind to hate Rand. When I finally had an opportunity to buy a used copy, a 50th Anniversary Edition, it was shamelessly full of in-my-face self-promotion and Ayn Rand marketing hype. Before I could even begin to read the story, she had two-strikes against her.
Inexplicably, I found myself liking the story, and even appreciating what Rand was trying to tell the reader through the voice and actions of her characters. It was also a fun read, a page turner for at least the first 400 pages. And, while there was a lot of tedium in the last 200 pages, the story climaxed fruitfully at the trial. I was climbing walls during Toohey's God-awful monologue in Peter Keating's apartment.
At extremes of believability in the four or five main characters, there was Wynand on the believable end of the spectrum, and Toohey on the list of the century's least believable characters of any novel. I felt that Rand had to satirize the Collectivist in order to scapegoat him. Ellsworth Monkton Toohey wasn't just satire, he was a caricature.
Keating, Roark and Dominique each had their shining moments, but Roark's didn't come until the end: Once, when Keating sold his dignity (yet again) for the Cortland Homes, and also at the trial. Before those flourishes of verbosity, it was as if Roark was unable to speak in complex sentences. If you had to ask yourself honestly, how was Roark any different from an idiot savant, you wouldn't be able to show that he was.
Though her characters wouldn't necessarily behave like people you or I might know, Rand used them effectively to teach her little lesson about where America seemed to her to be going. As for character types, I know Peter Keatings and Ellsworth Tooheys. My disgust for some of these people in my own life actually came into focus after reading The Fountainhead.
And, each of us have seen the bad and ugly side of capitalism, but compared with the prospect of losing individuality, creativity and the purity of our own excellence, I guess it is an idea worth defending. This review comes a day after reading that Osama is telling all Americans we must convert to Islam, and only then will he stop terrorizing us. Pause for thought.
The Fountainhead was predictable at every step of the way. I found myself saying, "Keating will stab this guy in the back and get his job," "Keating is going to ask Roark to do his work," etc, from start to finish. There was one event I didn't know how it was going to turn out, and that was what defense Roark was going to use at his trial, and the trial's outcome. But, even Guy Francon, Dominique's father kind of gave that away when she and he were talking over the phone. That defense, by the way, seemed rather brilliant to me. First, it explained satisfactorily why Roark did what he did; second, it was a genius bit of psychology to cause the jurors to think of themselves as Creationists and not Collectivists. Put in those terms, who could refuse?
Ironic that the Second-hand Man was so reprehensible to Roark, and yet he ended up marrying a second-hand woman. I conclude the whole dysfunctional relationship with Dominique could only be explained as Rand's sexual fantasy. After all, look at Roark: The strong, silent type. Red hair, sweats a lot, full of testosterone. Look at his antithesis, Toohey: diminutive, doesn't engage in anything physical, 100-percent cerebral.
If you can read The Fountainhead as a novel without getting carried away by the Ayn Rand philosophy merchandising, then there is no reason why it should not be an enjoyable, educational read.
Incidentally, I recently got to see some of Rand's world played out in real life. Two camps of people were promoting a new town flag, or condemning its artistic merits. The against side were invoking some pretty specious accusations, ones that seemed they couldn't substantiate, when questioned. A third man walked into the conversation from off the street. "Very nice," he said, making a statement of his own, without asking anyone what he should think. Later, another woman was asked, and she looked from face to face, unable to form an honest opinion all by herself. "I don't know, what am I supposed to think? Am I supposed to like this, or not? I'm not a history expert."