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: Say it Ayn't So!
Summary: 4 Stars
Ayn Rand's writings have been enormously influential, and to argue otherwise is an exercise in futility. Her reach in the field of politics counts Alan Greenspan as one her apostles. She's probably better known for "Atlas Shrugged," a massive novel written in the 1950's. Before "Atlas Shrugged" came "The Fountainhead," written in the 1940's. Rand was a screenwriter and a playwright as well. Ayn Rand died in 1982.This edition of the book is divided into three parts: an introduction with some explanatory notes written by Rand in the 1960's, the actual novel, and an afterword by Rand acolyte Leonard Peikoff, who is also Rand's legal executor.
On the surface, "The Fountainhead" is a deceptively simple tale about an architect struggling to make buildings on his own terms. There is much more here than this, however.
Rand uses the novelistic style as a vehicle for her personal philosophy. This philosophy, known now as Objectivism, places man squarely at the center of the universe. It is man who creates, but only certain men. The man who creates is an egotist, a man who creates solely for his own sake and for the sake of the work, without any influence from others. He does not share his work or collaborate. The rest of humanity is "second-handers," or parasites that feed off the misery of others. They do not create, but merely take from those who do to give to those who don't. These second-handers are usually found promoting a socialistic, or collective, society.
In "The Fountainhead," it is Howard Roark who is the creator. Roark is a genius that is guided by an inner force to build. His whole life is dedicated to creating monuments to man's greatness. While others resort to imitation, Roark creates and expresses new ideas. He refuses to change his plans to please others. He only respects others who share his worldview.
Arrayed against Roark is Peter Keating, a fawning, inept architect who turns to Roark to bail him out of tough spots when he needs help, only to turn against Roark at the first opportunity. Keating accepts awards and positions he doesn't deserve, is vain beyond belief, and is also a momma's boy (Peter wants to become a painter, but his mother talks him into becoming an architect). He does what he thinks others want him to do. He is not his own man, but a man of the collective mentality.
Ellsworth Toohey is the archenemy of the novel. Toohey is a pseudo-intellectual who works behind the scenes to create a "brotherhood of man" society. Toohey creates councils to debase literature, architecture, and theater. He writes a column in a newspaper and magazine promoting socialist values. His goal is the domination of the world with himself as a sort of "first citizen."
These are not the only main characters of the book, but they are the most important ones. There is Dominique Francon, a woman who shares Roark's outlook on life. She is so loyal to Roark that she works against him because she knows that if Roark succeeds, he'll be destroyed by society. Gail Wynand, a newspaper publisher with Roark's worldview, also emerges later in the novel. He too shares Roark's ideas, with an important exception revealed at the end of the story.
For the most part, I liked the book. Rand systematizes some beliefs I've held for awhile, especially on socialism and communism. She's dead wrong about second-handers not creating anything, however. These people have made much progress in the fields of political murder, torture, and penal institutions. Just look at the Soviet gulag system!
Her use of the novel format to express her ideas is good, and you can certainly tell Rand was a screenwriter. She creates believable social settings and atmosphere. My problems here are with the Dominique character; I just didn't like her. All too often, Dominique's presence led to over long dialogue and annoying situations. Be sure to pay attention to the first encounter between Roark and Dominique. It's an unusual take on sexual relations that I don't agree with.
I'll probably read "Atlas Shrugged" at some point, although I would rather read one of Rand's purely philosophical books. I'd like to see Objectivism fleshed out a little bit more than is done in this book. I do recommend reading this book because Rand is considered an important figure, and you should have an opinion about her work and her philosophy.
Book Review: Interesting theories--but the writing could have been better
Summary: 3 Stars
I had a mixed reaction to the book. On the one hand, I find the Objectivist philosophy to be fascinating. I was especially drawn to Howard Roark's determination to live life on his own terms--to be himself. This is one of the hardest things to do in life, and yet one of the most valuable. I am reminded of the quote by a MacArthur Foundation "genius grant" winner who said that "your own karma badly lived is better than another person's karma lived well." Additionally, I like the resolute opposition to forms of collectivism, including fascism and socialism/communism that Rand made part of her work. There are, of course, certain parts of the ideology with which I disagree. While I highly prize and value individualism, I sometimes got the feeling that Rand advocated the Balkanization of society--her individualism seemed that rampant to me. Additionally, I could never be an Objectivist, simply because I believe in the existence of God, and it is a belief that I have rationalized, and not just taken on faith. Perhaps I am just the latest person to accept the terms of Pascal's Wager, but in any event, my religious beliefs would conflict with Objectivism. I could never be Howard Roark--a man who was practically born without a religious brain center, according to Rand's own notes on the novel. Finally, I have some scorn for Objectivism's disdain for all things traditional and classical. I think it is fine if a Howard Roark wants to challenge tradition. But to entirely dismiss it altogether, as he does with architectural traditions and classical designs, is arrogant in the extreme. Tradition and the classics persevere not because they are sacred cows, but because they have survived centuries of trial and error. This is a fact Rand does not appear to appreciate.
I also could never be Roark because, quite frankly, he struck me as being the world's biggest jerk. He was flippant and dismissive of people who disagreed with him in the slightest, and since his was a decidedly minority opinion on life, his flippancy affected most people. I know that is how Rand drew the character, but I still found it off-putting. And then, of course, there is Roark's approach to romance, which . . . let's just say, is somewhat unorthodox. Rand was able to achieve the desired effect with other characters--I despised Toohey, was puzzled and dazzled by Dominique, saw Wynand as a tragic figure, and I think that Peter Keating is nothing short of pathetic. But Roark just struck me as an unlovable figure. And I don't understand how he suddenly achieves respect later on in the book, after being scorned at the beginning. No one really changes in their thinking about him. No one adopts his philosophy (at least not successfully). It is almost as if Rand has decided that Roark has done his penance, and should now achieve acclaim.
The other problem I had with the book is that Rand is a bad writer. At least in my view. I found her to have a tin ear for dialogue, and an even worse ear for inner monologue. Her characters struck me as being wooden and unreal. I would have given anything for some colloquialisms--which almost none of the characters seemed capable of. The dialogue and monologues appeared contrived, and made me roll my eyes several times. On a specific matter--and perhaps this is just the lawyer in me objecting (no double pun intended)--the courtroom scenes were entirely unrealistic, which annoyed me to no end. Also annoying was the fact that Rand appeared to set up two separate straw men--the Objectivist one, and the Collectivist one--and decided to knock one of them down. Her universally Manichean approach is something I don't agree with.
I suppose that the thing to bear in mind is that this is more a book about a philosophy than it is about a story. But I think that a philosophical work doesn't work when applied to a real life setting. I think that Rand's style of writing would apply more to a science fiction story, which is why I would be interested in reading "Anthem." I'm also more than willing to give "Atlas Shrugged" a chance as well, despite the fact that it is not science fiction. But I just think that this story had problems as a result of being applied to a real world setting.
All in all, I would recommend people to read "The Fountainhead," if they haven't already. But proceed with caution.
Book Review: An unusual review for an unusual book
Summary: 1 Stars
Haven't you ever had to laugh at a joke that wasn't funny? Did you enjoy that? When was the last time you complimented someone for gain without truly believing what you said? How many times have you smiled when you weren't happy? Who hasn't stood aside and let their principles fly out the door? Does that feel good? My grandmother died when I was 11 and I didn't cry. Did I feel sad? No; so why should I compromise myself to make everyone believe I was hurt? Through my entire life I've fallen for the traps presented by those who wish to control me. As a teen I was embarrassed to ask girls out because when I was a child and teen I was ridiculed for being different since I was the new kid at a small school. I felt guilt when I felt good because I feared egotism! I carried a deep self-disdain because I was athletically and mentally skilled; I'd let others win when I could have easily bested them. They labeled me hyperactive and persecuted me for it and made me believe that I was the "wrong" one. My ego depended upon your acceptance, which was a weak foundation to begin with. When I read this book it was like looking into a mirror. I've always realized that I had to "let go" at some point but couldn't discern what I had to let go. Psychologists told me I had to listen and feel for others; they said that intellect shouldn't be a basis for friendship, less intelligent people could carry an emotional depth that would bring about a prosperous and rewarding relationship. What a lie! Dependence is that's called. They were a crutch that I used to create myself. This book revealed what everyone has effectively concealed from me: I could only rely upon myself. I feel guilt no longer. In some ways I'm now guided more so by my emotions than ever; these emotions aren't empty hunches but rational and logical reasoning. But, I guess, such things would be incomprehensible to those who base their lives around Ally McBeal, spiritual searching, and trends. I guess I should feel stupid because I had to discover this from a book. Well, I don't feel any such remorse. I've seen much in my short life; I've fallen for the best lies there are, ranging from self-sacrifice to spiritual enlightenment. None of these answered any questions or cleansed my soul in any way. The people who beat me down into a sniveling social worker are the collective minds of a hundred thousand years. I was bested by the best and have accepted the knowledge of my impotence. Everyone seems to believe that such a philosophy doesn't leave room for love, happiness, or emotions. Well, I disagree. I laugh when I'm happy and cry when sad (which isn't often). There are those I love, but I they aren't the foundation to my temple, only I take that honor. Others cannot hurt me anymore. This all came out of a single book, The Fountainhead. Laugh, flame, scorn, insult my grammar and organization, debase my intelligence, and attack my mistakes all you wish. You no long control me.
Do I worship Ayn Rand? No. Unlike those of you who worship and dedicated yourselves to those who give you knowledge or freedom, I owe no debt to Ayn Rand. You describe those of us who subscribe (I like that term) to her philosophy as "drooling masses" and use that as a weapon to depersonalize my beliefs. Ayn Rand didn't create her philosophy any more than birds created air or chimps created bananas. There is truth in her writing and that is all that matters to me. Believe in your god or your neighbors and I will believe in my god, myself.
I don't simple believe what Ayn Rand has to say. I've read the works of those who disagree with her such as R. Buckminster Fuller and still agree with Ayn. The Fountainhead wasn't meant to reflect reality but rather exists in a vacuum to prove a valid point. Maybe I enjoyed this book because I come from a fiction/sci-fi literature background and can easily accept the reality presented by the author. Suspend your disbelief and prejudice and enjoy this story.
This review is NOT the property of Amazon and they may not change it in any manner without my permission. My intellectual propery, my way. Don't post it if you wish; I'm only writing this for myself.
Book Review: An unusual review for an unusual book
Summary: 1 Stars
Haven't you ever had to laugh at a joke that wasn't funny? Did you enjoy that? When was the last time you complimented someone for gain without truly believing what you said? How many times have you smiled when you weren't happy? Who hasn't stood aside and let their principles fly out the door? Does that feel good? My grandmother died when I was 11 and I didn't cry. Did I feel sad? No; so why should I compromise myself to make everyone believe I was hurt? Through my entire life I've fallen for the traps presented by those who wish to control me. As a teen I was embarrassed to ask girls out because when I was a child and teen I was ridiculed for being different since I was the new kid at a small school. I felt guilt when I felt good because I feared egotism! I carried a deep self-disdain because I was athletically and mentally skilled; I'd let others win when I could have easily bested them. They labeled me hyperactive and persecuted me for it and made me believe that I was the "wrong" one. My ego depended upon your acceptance, which was a weak foundation to begin with. When I read this book it was like looking into a mirror. I've always realized that I had to "let go" at some point but couldn't discern what I had to let go. Psychologists told me I had to listen and feel for others; they said that intellect shouldn't be a basis for friendship, less intelligent people could carry an emotional depth that would bring about a prosperous and rewarding relationship. What a lie! Dependence is that's called. They were a crutch that I used to create myself. This book revealed what everyone has effectively concealed from me: I could only rely upon myself. I feel guilt no longer. In some ways I'm now guided more so by my emotions than ever; these emotions aren't empty hunches but rational and logical reasoning. But, I guess, such things would be incomprehensible to those who base their lives around Ally McBeal, spiritual searching, and trends. I guess I should feel stupid because I had to discover this from a book. Well, I don't feel any such remorse. I've seen much in my short life; I've fallen for the best lies there are, ranging from self-sacrifice to spiritual enlightenment. None of these answered any questions or cleansed my soul in any way. The people who beat me down into a sniveling social worker are the collective minds of a hundred thousand years. I was bested by the best and have accepted the knowledge of my impotence. Everyone seems to believe that such a philosophy doesn't leave room for love, happiness, or emotions. Well, I disagree. I laugh when I'm happy and cry when sad (which isn't often). There are those I love, but I they aren't the foundation to my temple, only I take that honor. Others cannot hurt me anymore. This all came out of a single book, The Fountainhead. Laugh, flame, scorn, insult my grammar and organization, debase my intelligence, and attack my mistakes all you wish. You no long control me.
Do I worship Ayn Rand? No. Unlike those of you who worship and dedicated yourselves to those who give you knowledge or freedom, I owe no debt to Ayn Rand. You describe those of us who subscribe (I like that term) to her philosophy as "drooling masses" and use that as a weapon to depersonalize my beliefs. Ayn Rand didn't create her philosophy any more than birds created air or chimps created bananas. There is truth in her writing and that is all that matters to me. Belief in your god or your neighbors and I will belief in my god, myself.
I don't simple believe what Ayn Rand has to say. I've read the works of those who disagree with her such as R. Buckminster Fuller and still agree with Ayn. The Fountainhead wasn't meant to reflect reality but rather exists in a vacuum to prove a valid point. Maybe I enjoyed this book because I come from a fiction/sci-fi literature background and can easily accept the reality presented by the author. Suspend your disbelief and prejudice and enjoy this story.
This review is NOT the property of Amazon and can only be modified with my permission. My intellectual property, my way. Don't post this if you wish; it doesn't matter since I wrote this for myself.
Book Review: Questionable practicality of Objectivism
Summary: 3 Stars
Personally, Objectivism as a philosophy is attractive on the outset because Ayn Rand gave voice to the rebellious character in all of us. But if you go beyond the obvious, we can see the problems with Objectivism.
I am not suggesting an alternative philosophy to Objectivism. In fact, I admire the works of Ayn Rand as much as any other serious reader, but the problem lies in the practicality of her philosophy.
I must concede that individualism appeals to me just as to most other Americans. America being the citadel of individual enterprise, needless to say, all the innovations were made possible because of the unrelenting spirit of some individual who refused to be chained down by the fetters of a utilitarian philosophy. But objectivism persuades us to goes far beyond that spirit. There lies the problem.
I can understand that Ms. Rand has exaggerated the characters to bring forth her point but still that doesn't justify it. To say "I don't cooperate with anyone" presupposes the fact that every individual is right in his or her own way. So what if the President and Vice President of a company or a country were to say this? What if every individual insisted on having his or her own creative way in every endeavor of theirs?
I agree with Ms. Rand when she says that to feel sorry for someone is bad, because there is a subconscious and embedded malicious delight in other's misfortunes when we feel sorry for someone...kind of a good feeling that it's not happening to me. But "altruism" is not the word for it. I guess, it could be because Rand's mother tongue was not English that her choice of words were flawed. It almost gives me the impression that she was trying to say something but ended up choosing poor substitutes for the right words.
But where I disagree with her is the concept of "second-hander." What if someone did offer oneself to serve others just because he or she wanted to do it and not because others wanted it? What if I loved serving others because of the innate pleasure it gives me? What if I donated my time and resources to help others in whatever small way, because I wanted to do it because of my intrinsic need to do it? You could be an altruist but still be not a "second-hander."
Now, take the example of Mother Teresa. She was altruistic in the true sense of the word. I refuse to accept such people are second-handers. What if she was doing what she was doing, just for of her sole self, just because she found joy in doing it, a selfish joy?
Now, there is no way I can have my creative way in everything in life. What if every CEO of this world said that he wouldn't listen to anyone and would have the company run the way he wants. What if a scientist said that he would refuse to allow any modification to his innovation? What if a doctor said he would carry out a medical procedure only the way he thought was right?
I wish I could extol the virtues of Rand's philosophy but whichever way you look at it, a world conceived by Ms. Rand is not possible in any walk of life. However, I don't suggest that Collectivism is the answer either.
Towards the end of the novel, she praises the virtues of the vanguards of capitalism. But most of the stalwarts of capitalism of the 20th century do not fit Rand's description of a creative genius. Agreed that, all of them believed in going by their instinct and designing their life in their very own way. But they had one more thing in common...they knew that even THEIR ideas might be flawed and needed cooperation by the fellow members of their species to make it work unlike Howard Roark.
I would find it disgusting to live in a world where every guy raped every other girl just because "I" wanted it that way like Roark did to Dominique.
As I stated before, I admire Rand as a writer but I can hardly agree to the premises of her philosophy. For a student with an academic interest in Objectivism, this is recommended. However, to adopt her philosophy as a way of life, is not a healthy choice. I give 3 stars for the quality of the literature (though, as I said, I don't agree with her philosophy).