Rating: 
Summary: Kanishka Sinha from India.. your mind is like silver in mine
Review: Kanishka Sinha from India, once again, bless you. In my opinion, people who enjoy Rand's philosophy too much have not been philosophical in their own thoughts. If one were to develop one's own philosophy, based on my experience, he would find that there are numerous questions to raise concerning Rand's philosophical development. Since it has been a while since I refuted her philosophy, I will not bring up any points here, but I strongly recommend Kanishka Sinha from India's review. Read critically. I will leave this, however. Rand is not totally wrong, but her philosophy assumes a certain nature of humanity, and of the cosmos. In her assumption, she falls into a pitfall, through it, and into another. And in that her philosophy remains. Good job Kanishka Sinha from India . I give it a five because Kanishka Sinha from India did. I've not yet read it, but plan to after AP tests.
Rating:
Summary: beautiful!
Review: i wont try to imitate Ayn Rands writing. just read the book and see for yourself.
Rating:
Summary: Must read book but I don't agree with any of it
Review: I read this book because all my friends said I should. "I'm surprised you of all people haven't" they said. And driven partly by my need to live up to their expectations I read the book. Howard Roark, the hero of the book, would never have cared which book his friends thought he should read. But then again I don't want to be like him. Roark doesn't care what anybody thinks about what he designs. As long as he thinks it's beautiful (and he does), he's happy. I don't think Roark is great. Carefree maybe. Not great. Deluded maybe. Not great. Hitler too had a vision that he thought was beautiful. He was single minded in his determination to make his vision a reality. He didn't really care what the vast majority of the world thought about his views. Both Hitler and Roark are like bow lakes that had become separated from the meandering river of humanity of which they should have been a part. They failed to understand how interconnected all people are with each other. Humans are like cells in a body. The blood cell, the liver cell, the lung cell - all need and support each other. There is a vulnerability to being dependent on others. Being dependent on others requires a courage far greater than being independent. Only the basest of all organisms live in isolation. The advanced organisms have learned that there is a beauty to interdependence that can never be achieved by a solitary creature. True greatness results not from building ugly sky scrapers but in ensuring that harmony, peace and happiness of humanity is increased. I don't think much of Roark's architecture either. If he thinks that buildings should only have utility and therein lies their beauty then surely everything he would have built would have been just a box, with a slanting roof perhaps so that snow and rain didn't accumulate and cause damp. How can he say that buildings should only consider the needs of its occupants and not their personalities. If you don't understand your client's personality how can you understand his or her needs? He dismisses aesthetic beauty that exists for beauty's sake. But there are some things that just naturally appear nicer than others to our human senses and why should we deny that this exists. The smell of a rose elicits a certain instinctive reaction from us as does the sight of a maggot infested corpse. These are not societally instilled responses that we should scorn and ignore. These are natural instincts that reside deep within us. To dismiss the fact that the smooth gracious curves of the Primic, Ionian or Doric eras are pleasing to the eye and to dismiss the fact that sharp angles and utilitarian structures are jarring to most people seems to be poor understanding of architecture. I don't think the characters in the book are believable. Nor are their motives. Nor are their dialogues. Nor are the events that unfold. I think that Ayn Rand is unsubtle about her points. I don't think she handles individualism vs collectivism in a balanced way. I think that Ayn Rand believes that she is the greatest living philosopher in the world and that nobody who disagrees with her is really worth listening to. A lot like Howard Roark actually. I also don't think she knows anything about architecture at all. It's quite clear she hasn't done any in depth study of the subject at all - another sign of her arrogance. However having said all that I'm glad I read it. It's one of the greatest books of all time because of the effect it has had on so many people and it certainly makes you think about whether you agree with some of her views. There's a lot to think about in terms of integrity to yourself and what you believe is right. I think everyone should read this book. But critically. The answers are rarely as black and white as this book makes them out to be.
Rating:
Summary: vgh
Review: Great book. Good read. Strong ideals. Rand writes with authority and conviction. Objectivism seems to be perfection to an atheist. I am not an atheist so I dissagree somewhat with her ideology but still highly recommend the book. (It's the only book I've read twice.)
Rating:
Summary: Literature At Its Best
Review: This book is Ayn Rand's gift to the world, and to any person, young or old, who strives to live an individual and independent life free of the societal forces that want to crush the bold and spirited energy of the creative mind. This is the book that has changed so many lives, and it does so because it provides a vision of an uncorrupted life: a life based on love of living, and the joy in experiencing one's ability in the face of the corruption and conformity that are so much a part of modern life. I first read this book when I was in Vietnam, and it was love at first sight. It gave words to all the adolescent dreams I aspired to, but had no ability to explain. More than anything, this is a book of liberation, a guide to living in a, many times, confusing and hard to understand world. Here, one gets a vision of the unfettered individual spirit soaring through life, so in love with his work and his vision of what he wants to create, that he is blind to the world of The Banner, the New York newspaper that caters to the lowest common denominator: the gossip; sexual fears and guilts of Mr. and Mrs. Jones; and the hatred of the free and the noble found amongst those whose lives have tumbled into oblivion. If you are a timid conformist, worried about the crowd and what others may think about your behavior, this is not the book for you. But if you are fresh of mind, curious about life, interested in going beyond the stagnant views of everyday life, then "The Fountainhead," is your book. It was written with you in mind, and probably is everything you are seeking for your journey here on earth.
Rating:
Summary: The philosophy is correct------and startlingly cool
Review: This is a great book----It shows that individual fredom and liberty is under an assault by socialism. This is an anti-socialist book and it speaks on the philosophical level-----the most scary to those who have bought communism/socialism. When individuals are free to reject the rules of others liberty is attained. When the group makes people conform it is bad. istory shows this. This book is about a architect who doesn't understand why thers are assuming that the conformity is normal/moral. He acts completely outside of the conformity of academia. Here si my cool list;
1 an academic is shown to be the bad guy---one fo the few books
2 There are powerful female characters and weak male characters, and heroic characters of both sexes
3 The media is shown as a bad guy----also one of few books showing this theme----and it is AWESOME
4 Liberty is the theme-----mental and moral be predominant---with the theme that if liberty/capitalism spread it could reverse the cancer of socialism
5 an anti-socialism book! what more can I say
6 Worth the price of admission and very well written
7 if it were were not an anti-socialist book that scared many socialists infesting america and europe it would be made into film many times over
8 The first chapter alone is worth the over price
9 I feel that thsi kind of art anti-socialist art-----has a huge market-----the market of the anti-socialist majority in america feb 24 2003 :) woodland hills CA
Rating: 
Summary: One Small Voice
Review: I know it is against everything Ayn Rand stands for by writing this review, but I will do it anyway. Her works were written solely for her own sense of achievement and for no other reason. Thus, the theme of her writings is finding the greater good in the man who can throw all opinions and criticisms of his actions aside and achieve only for himslef in a completely selfish manner. This particular novel centers around the cultural arts, primarily architecture, and one man's struggle to break the mold of traditional designs. This man is Howard Roark. He is Rand's ideal man. He designs and builds only for his own ego and the satisfaction of having done it himself. But, the novel was so much more than that. It outlines Rand's overall lack of respect for compassion and selflessness. She, as do I, beleives in a world where all mankind must make do for themselves. Man is to survive solely on his entrepreneurial insticts and his inner spirit. All the obstacles that are thrown in front of man on his way to achievement must be overcome only by strict resolve and determination, not by conforming. I enjoyed this book. Yes, it was lengthy. Yes, it was difficult to stick with at times. I'd like to give no rating in honor of Ayn Rand and that it should not matter what I think, or write about the book, but since I have to, it's a Four Star. I would recommend Atlas Shrugged in addition to those who enjoyed this book, or in favor of The Fountainhead as an intro to readers who have not yet been blessed with the writings of Rand.
Rating: 
Summary: Quite Uninteresting and Rather Pedestrian
Review: Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead was a ridiculous farce that didn't spare the good sense of its readership. I found her use of similie quite boorish and plebian. The author is clearly of a mindset which dictates her outrageous behavoirs. She is a product of the sub-culture which nourished her desire for world domination. It is clear that this book is a cry for help to be removed the world in which she is forced to live by a domineering husband. Ayn Rand's style of prose is detestable at best. We're all less enlightened for having to read this unimaginative, unitelligable work. Tee-Hee, hee.
Rating: 
Summary: Brilliant, very flawed work by brilliant, very flawed woman
Review: Funny how most of the reviews are either unqualified adulation from Rand worshipers or slams from Rand haters. IMO, "The Fountainhead" is neither a prophetic work of great genius nor a piece of evil tripe. It is a brilliant work, perhaps even with flashes of genius -- but as flawed as its author. I think Rand had the potential to be a great novelist, which she largely ruined when she decided she was the world's greatest philosopher since Aristotle. Any dogma is the enemy of art. If you read Rand's three major novels -- "We the Living", "The Fountainhead", and "Atlas Shrugged" -- you can see her dogma becoming more and more rigid, and her characters less and less human. "The Fountainhead" is a novel you can still appreciate even if you don't agree with the philosophy (and I think the philosophy has some excellent points, just taken to an absurd extreme). Unlike some reviewers here, I don't find Howard Roark to be completely inhuman. He does feel pain -- not only the pain of his own struggle but of his mentor Henry Cameron and his friend Steve Mallory, the sculptor. It's just that, as Rand says, the pain "only goes down to a certain point" because it can't touch the core of his independent soul. But consider this passage when Dominique tells Roark she has married Peter Keating: "It would have been easy, if she had seen a man distorting his mouth to bite off sound, closing his fists and twisting them in defense against himself. But it was not easy, because she did not see him doing this, yet knew that this was being done, without the relief of a physical gesture." Clearly this is a man who feels and suffers. He can feel sympathy as well: for Gail Wynand, even for Peter Keating. At that stage, Rand herself was still capable of sympathy for less-than-perfect characters. Guy Francon, Dominique's father, is an opportunist -- but ultimately still more a good than a bad guy. His relationship with his daughter, sparsely depicted, is nonetheless very "real" and touching. Even Keating, the ultimate "second-hander" and in many ways a despicable man, is to some extent sympathetic and is shown as having some good in him. His failed romance with his true love, Katie, is very poignant -- and the scene near the end where he meets her years after dumping her, when she has "gotten over" him and lost her humanity, is truly heartbreaking. (Though her loss of humanity and selfhood is a little too complete.) Gail Wynand is a fascinating, tragic character throughout -- and in a way, his relationship with Dominique is more interesting than the Howard/Dominique romance. The story of his childhood and his rise in the newspaper industry is absorbing and very well-written. Some reviewers mention stilted dialogue. I don't agree. Yes, there are long passages where the characters preach/philosophize instead of talking, and become nothing but vehicles for Rand's ideas. But apart from that, the dialogue is mostly dynamic, crisp, and quite believable (e.g. the first meeting between Wynand and Dominique). Rand also has a terrific descriptive style. Take this passage describing the aftermath of rain: "The pavements glistened, there were dark blotches on the walls of buildings, and since it did not come from the sky, it looked as if the city were bathed in cold sweat. The air was heavy with untimely darkness, disquieting like premature old age, and there were yellow puddles of light in the windows." And there are wonderful, memorable lines; one of my favorites is, "All love is exception-making." Now the flaws. The character of Dominique, particularly in the first half of the book, is not very plausible. I don't "get" her masochism, the wallowing in her degradation at Roark's hands in their first encounter. (And yes, it was definitely rape -- Dominique herself repeatedly describes it as such.) Her motives for trying to destroy Roark's career when she has already realized she loves him never feel "real," no matter how Rand tries to rationalize them. I enjoy twisted love-hate relationships as much as the next gal (one of my favorite books is "Wuthering Heights") but this is twisted beyond plausibility. (Dominique becomes much more believable in the second half of the book, though; the scene where she finally comes back to Roark is great.) Ellsworth Toohey with his grandiose plans for world power is even more implausible. And the idea that the dumbing down of culture is some sort of deliberate plot to pass off mediocre works as great ones in order to debase cultural standards ... puh-leeze. Rand has an annoying tendency to restate every idea a dozen times and hammer the reader over the head with it. Eventually you just want to shout, "All right, Ayn -- I got the point!" As for the philosophy -- yes, the occasional super-individualist like Howard Roark is great. A lot of great geniuses, including apparently Leonardo da Vinci, didn't have the "people" gene. But if everyone behaved like that ... I'm not sure it would be such a great world to live in. No matter how much Rand might pretend otherwise, her worship of the great man does have a flip side of contempt for the mass of humanity. See Wynand's comment to Dominique, "One can't love man without hating most of the creatures who pretend to bear his name." That's scary. So is Rand's palpable disgust for the imperfections of unheroic human (and particularly female) flesh. A readable, thought-provoking book, but hardly a guide to life. Read it -- but with a critical mind.
Rating:
Summary: Exemplifies the reason for reading any piece of literature
Review: 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.
| 
