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: Good Novel with a Fatal Flaw
Summary: 3 Stars
It makes no sense to attempt to separate the story of The Fountainhead from it's philosophy, because they are one in the same. I read the first page of this book while bored at a yard sale, and was immediately hooked. Rand's character introductions are excellent, and immediately give picture to the character. This is especially important because for the most part, her characters each represent a personality type consistent with a particular aspect of her philosopy.What I believe unique about this book is the singular challenge Rand had in crafting a novel that can stand on it's own as a story (it can), while each page advances the specific set of philosophical, political and economic positions that are the true reason the book was written. I imagine that other writers have sat down to write "the novel" deep within them, with major philosophical themes providing dramatic tension. Other writers, wanting to advance their own complex philosophy, would simply write a non-fiction book presenting themselves as gurus of this "new" way of thinking (whole sections of bookstores are full of such books). Rand's courage to attempt to write a great novel that is in fact a primer for Objectivism, and her skill in doing so is what makes The Fountainhead the achievement it is.
Now, why only three stars? A couple of reasons. First, although her story arcs are superior, her paragraph by paragraph writing is often heavy handed, and beats her points to death. Secondly, the length and scope of some of the philosophical speeches given by her characters, particularly in the last quarter of the book, are simply not believable. Employing other writing techniques could have achieved this more believably. It's as if Rand hasn't trusted her own characters to carry the point she put them in the book to illustrate. The speeches do however, make their points crystal clear, especially Toohey's speech about collectivism. It's just that you don't believe Toohey would have made that speech, to that person, in that setting.
I said at the beginning that it makes no sense to separate the story from the philosophy, and though I know I am now criticizing the philosophy and not the writing, here goes. If I read this correctly, Rand's "ideal man" is entirely self focused, does nothing he doesn't want to do regardless of anyone else's need, does everything he wants to do regardless of how it might effect others, places himself above the rule of law, commits several felonies, watches virtually everyone around him self destruct and leaves the novel entirely self satisfied. Rand calls this the "ideal man". Others might read the same book and identify Roark as a sociopath, just a very talented one who also possesses many admirable qualities. By the way, on a factual point, the idea of Roark being acquitted after admitting the deed in open court is ludicrous.
Wasn't it Shakespeare who told us "To thine own self be true"? The notion of being your own man, and standing on principle is as old as philosophy itself, but Rand has given it entirely fresh treatment and perspective.
One last note- my wife was reading "Atlas Shrugged" at the same time I was reading "The Fountainhead". It took until I was nearly finished to notice that there are no children in the book. None of the main characters are raising the next generation of ideal men. I asked my wife about "Atlas Shrugged", and she said the same. I wonder if this isn't the fatal flaw of Objectivism- can you be true to Objectivism and be a good parent? Or raise a family? Or preserve a marriage where "the two shall become one"? Her two major novels show that her characters can't, and a glimpse around you might show that the "me" generation isn't doing such a good job either.
Book Review: Ayn Rand's solution to the problem of alienation
Summary: 5 Stars
The individualist has always had an ambivalent relationship with the market. On the one hand, the market is an inevitable consequence of the individual right to own and trade property. On the other hand, the market is the physical embodiment of the opinions of other persons about how artifacts and activities are to be valued, and the individualist insists upon deciding these values for himself.
Ayn Rand's education in Soviet Russia made her intimately familiar with Marx's writings, including his theory of alienation. Her response to this theory is represented by the character Howard Roark in _The Fountainhead_, who insists upon maintaining a non-alienated relationship to his work as an architect. Roark is unwilling to compromise his artistic integrity and independence, even when his tenacity leads to dire hardship.
The joy of owning material things is small in comparison to the joy of genuinely self-directed creative work, of forming and developing one's own vision and bringing it to realization. To sacrifice the joy of self-directed work for the joy of ownership is a very imprudent--and yet also very common--decision. This sort of imprudence is represented in _The Fountainhead_ by the character Peter Keating. Keating recognizes the market as the highest arbiter of value. He does whatever it takes to bring in client revenue. The consequence is that he becomes extravagantly wealthy--and miserably unhappy.
In a world populated only by men like Peter Keating, free market capitalism might still be the most just way to organize society, but it would still be an aesthetically repulsive and psychologically disastrous way to organize society. It is the possibility of an uncompromisingly self-directed man like Howard Roark that vindicates capitalism in the aesthetic and psychological realm as well as in the realm of justice.
Ayn Rand is able to make an unequivocal recommendation for a universal free market because she believes she has solved the problem of alienation. It would seem, however, that although her recommendations for government policies of laissez-faire capitalism have had a not entirely insignificant political influence, the ethic of non-alienated work upon which this recommendation is predicated has had comparatively little influence. The leaders of contemporary commercial enterprises are unabashed in their insistence upon recognizing the market as the ultimate arbiter and director of all their decisions and activities. What should be recognized as a vice--spineless submission to public opinion as it is embodied in the marketplace--comes to be thought of as a virtue: to call an enterprise "market driven" is almost universally recognized as unequivocal praise.
The principle which Roark puts into practice is summarized in his maxim, "I don't build in order to have clients. I have clients in order to build." In other words, Roark's practice is not "market-driven." It is driven by his own need to realize his artistic vision.
One might question whether it would be possible for an individual employee in a contemporary commercial enterprise to adopt a self-realization-centered approach to his work when the primary goal of his employer is to fulfill market needs, which will certainly not always coincide with the employee's needs for self-realization. The inevitable conflicts might in the end make the employee who insists upon self-realization unemployable, consigning him to work in the rock quarry. But it also just might be the case that a tenacious perseverance and insistence upon doing his work in a manner that is fulfilling could eventually pay off--as it does for Roark in _The Fountainhead_.
Book Review: Rand casts a pearl.
Summary: 5 Stars
Howard Roark is an architect who dismisses the design practices of the past as a crutch for lesser architects and their impressionable clients. For Roark, form follows function, and there will be no compromise. No matter how hard pressed he is for money. Peter Keating, however, has no such qualms, and is perfectly comfortable with the old-school way of doing things. But he does know his limitations. These he circumvents by having Howard Roark redesign some of the more complicated commissions that come his way. Years pass. Peter Keating rides the crest of a wave with the help of the boss' daughter, Dominique Francon. Howard Roark, on the other hand, struggles from one commission to another. One of them is a property scam which worked out for the better. Another lands him in court because of manipulation of a client by the newspaper columnist, Ellsworth Toohey.
Dominique Francon, who had married Peter Keating, leaves and marries the media / property tycoon, Gail Wynand. Peter Keating's world begins to crumble, and he finds himself begging the influential Ellsworth Toohey for a chance at the government's housing development project, Cortlandt Homes. Ellsworth Toohey invites him to try, well knowing that the chances of him succeeding in the bid are slight, since he suspects that Peter Keating hasn't designed everything he has claimed to.
So Peter Keating turns to Howard Roark, begging him to secretly design the project. His plea is accepted on the proviso that under no circumstances, whatsoever, is the design to be diverted from. Peter Keating agrees, signs a secret contract with Howard Roark, and has Ellsworth Toohey submit the design, which is accepted. The project is begun.
Returning from a yachting trip, with Dominique and Gail Wynand, some months after the commencement of the project, it transpires that Peter Keating has been forced to acquiesce, mutilating the original design. None too surprised, Howard Roark decides to dynamite what has been constructed of the Cortlandt Homes project and take his chances in court....
Read as a work of fiction, and not as a Trojan horse for the Rand Manifesto, my opinion is:
There is a lot of eye-poppingly bad and redundant literary prose, as unnecessary to the story as gargoyles and Athenian arches would be on a Howard Roark building.
The use of mixed viewpoint robs the reader of a more direct understanding as to why some of the characters have some of the extreme attitudes that they have. Having Dominique Francon issue streams of almost incomprehensible dialogue to have someone else say they don't have a clue what she's talking about is hardly the best way to involve the reader.
There are occasions when the logic is a bit skewed. For example, Dominique encounters Howard at her father's granite quarry and wonders what such a noble specimen of manhood is doing breaking ( unyielding ) rocks. She contrives a way to meet him at her home. The means she chooses is to damage a marble slab fronting the fireplace in her bedroom. Howard appears as instructed and lectures her on all the types of marble available and how it is vital that she obtain the correct grade. Dominique doesn't give any thought to how a rock-breaker would be so articulately knowledgeable on the subject of marble. And so she doesn't make any attempt to have her earlier wonderment answered. Details such as this are quite a common failing, its rectification subordinated to the eye-poppingly bad prose.
Even so, The Fountainhead is obviously written by someone who is tremendously skilful at integrating a plethora of sub-elements; can create a sense of high drama; and can cut through the utter mush that prevails in the world today.
Book Review: The Fountainhead
Summary: 4 Stars
I read The Fountainhead last year for a high school English class. I wasn't really expecting to like it going in, mainly because it was a pretty long book, and I had heard it was boring. I'm glad that the class required me to read it, because I think it is one of the best books I've ever read in my life. I'm not really one of those people who reads for fun, but this is the kind of book that I would recommend reading, even if it's not for a class. Normally I look at reading as a chore, but this book was different. It held my attention, which many books can't do. I was very impressed by this book, and I would highly recommend it to other readers.
Ayn Rand, the author of this book, did an outstanding job. Her characters are amazing, and the plot that goes along with them is equally as good. She has all the necessary aspects that make a great book, in my opinion. The story is great, the characters are great, and the book is great. It takes the reader through twists and turns through the lives of the characters. I never found it to be boring or dull in any way. I'm not a "book person", but I really did enjoy reading this book. It had a big impact on me and most definitely changed the way that I thought. As I was reading it I remember thinking about how it related to me, and to today's society. I think that there is a lot that can be learned from this book. We shouldn't just believe what we are told, or believe everything we see. After reading this book I didn't want to be just another follower and do what I was told. It made me want to be more of individual and break free of society's "rules". I think that there is a lot to be learned from this book.
The Fountainhead is set back in the 1920's and 30's in New York City. It's a book about a man, Howard Roark, who is an architect. Roark is an idealistic, almost free spirit who goes against the norm. On the other hand, Peter Keating, another big character in the story, is pretty much the opposite of Roark. Keating goes by the rules, and does what society dictates. The book focuses on Roark's struggles on making it as an architect, more or less. It also deals with Keating and Roark's lives, and how their paths cross in and out of each other.
The book starts out with Roark and Keating while they are attending the Stanton Institute of Technology. Keating's mother runs a boardinghouse, where Roark lives. Roark is kicked out of Stanton, mainly because he refuses to design how others want him to. Keating on the other hand dishes out exactly what is wanted. They are pretty much opposite ends of the spectrum. Roark's work is creative and controversial, and not accepted. The book shows the differences between these two characters, and their ideals.
This book also contains a philosophy of life. Her philosophy is known as objectivism. Two of the major characters, Peter Keating and Howard Roark, represent two different ideals of life. Peter Keating is the follower, who just goes along with society. He seems to be a good guy in the beginning, but you'll have to decide for yourself in the end. Roark is the individualistic, free spirit who rebels against society. Roark is the basis for objectivism, in my opinion. The book isn't anywhere near as simple as I've explained it. Buy the book and figure it all out. In my opinion we have way too many "Peter Keating's" in the world today, and this book open my eyes to that. After reading this I no longer wanted to be a "Peter Keating", and I've tried not to be since. This is a great book with a great outlook on life. I don't think you'll be disappointed by it at all.
Book Review: Good, yet Bad; The Philosopher versus the Literary Critic
Summary: 3 Stars
Readers have labeled this book sublime, putrid, fascist, satanic, and excellent. I will not choose not to choose, for I have judged, and it is a complex judgment, indeed.The book qua book is substandard. Certainly, the story enthralled me, and I managed to read the hefty tome (builds stronger bones and muscles) in about two weeks. Let us face it, however: the book is no The Sound and the Fury, but then again, that is the comparision of a mere ubermensch to a god.
I'm a fan of the ubermensch theory. I'm an elitist, a fascist, an anarch, a mystic, fully esoteric and completely iron fisted (That sounds like poetry). I have no qualms with Ayn Rand's philosophy as advocated by The Fountainhead, although I have found that the Any Rand Society has thouroughly sodomized the already bastardized when codified theory of Objectivism. The book's themes are palatable, even pleasurable: the individual, the artist, absolute narcissism, the ugliness of most architecture (one must look out for my wit, it's very sardonic), and so on.
I find the presentation lacking, however. I have stated my enjoyment in the existence, and triumph, of Roark, although so heavy handed is The Fountainhead that the reader may discover slap-marks upon his face. Eventually, though, one becomes accustomed. I would suspect (for I am not sure) that a great author would not need such heavyhandedness to deliver a message. The tome itself is more didactic than anything Victorian, although the tale merely presents the self-made man who lives in the mountains, probably in the cave next door to certain prophet to whom Rand's philosophy owes much.
I will also admit that I am a postmodernist; pseudo-Realist fiction does not appeal to me. I am the avant garde, hear my preformance art roar. Seriously, though, Rand's style is just, well, substandard. It lacks the innovation of Joyce and Paton, or the pregamesmanship and gamesmanship, respectively, of The Turn of the Screw and The Dictionary of the Khazars, although, I must state, that the story is well-crafted, and perhaps almost better (gasp!) than the first Realist novel ever, Madame Bovary; something, however, seems immature about the whole thing.
And this may stem from the target audience being the high school crowd (interesting that the term crowd is chosen, and interesting that Rand wrote for a crowd, as this seems contradictory to the nature of her philosophy). The rebellion inherent to this story may be the attraction, and perhaps the moths merely find the flame, not the flame the moths (i'm hideously esoteric; i enjoy the arcane). I recant.
As for the Church of Satan thing....The Church of Satan is a very commercial (more so than Objectivism in its Capitalist manifestation), very contradictory, but most imporatantly, confusedly Atheistic church. If you want to understand, read Le Vey's piece of sh*t titled The Satanic Bible. They don't worship anything, that's why they have rituals that invoke Cthulhu and Company. Le Vey claims that he choose the inverted pentagram and the name "Satan" only to aggravate the bourgeious and the Christian (often, the former only pretends to be the latter).
Synopsis: I like the philosophy presented by the book, although Nietzsche is better; an excellent plot, but rather didactic narrative (fortunately, never does one encounter the abhorred "dear readers"); Ultimately, a decent, above the mean, rating.
To sum up: One of the best philosophies to occur in the twentieth century, and one of the finest books of the nineteenth.