The Fountainhead

Written by Ayn Rand

Narrated by Christopher Hurt

The Fountainhead is the story of a gifted young architect, his violent battle with conventional standards, and his explosive love affair with the beautiful woman who struggles to defeat him. Arguably the century’s most challenging novel of ideas, the nove

• Language: English
• Publisher: Blackstone Audio
• Release date: Dec 1, 2007
• ISBN: 9780786103928

Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand (1905–1982) wrote the bestselling novels The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957) and founded the philosophy known as objectivism. Born in St. Petersburg, Russia, Rand taught herself to read at the age of six and soon resolved to become a professional writer. In 1926, she left Communist Russia to pursue a screenwriting career in Hollywood, and she published her first novel ten years later. With her next book, the dystopian novella Anthem (1938), she introduced the theme that she would devote the rest of her life to pursuing: the inevitable triumph of the individual over the collective. 

Reviews for The Fountainhead

[cyderry · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

My book club chose this book because 4 of the 8 members thought it was the greatest book they had ever read. I had to use both the hardback, audio version, and cliff notes to get through it. The story was pretty standard - poor boy stands on his principles and watches others advance beyond him because they are willing to give in. Pretty boring as far as I'm concerned.The secondary story of the romances involved rivaled a current day soap opera. Howard rapes Dominique who falls for him, but she marries Peter who divorces her because Gail (male) wants her and will give Peter a commission for Dominique who is still sleeping with Howard.The characters were very 1 dimensional with each having a specific trait to their credit.

[alcracka · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I learned that Ayn Rand is an asshole.

[salvadesswaran · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Quite a nice piece of work - but I am at loggerheads with the author's philosophy (or what she thinks is philosophy)

[lilianfacon · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Sometimes it´s just discover that somethings that are wrong about us are essencially part of society standars. Cameron said that the road its hard but its worth it. the book really helps in the way. Gives the streng to fight for this we really bealive in. Romantic, yes, absolutly, but who told that give everything for what we love itsnt right. Live like the fountainhead, not less than that.

[jmcdbooks · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Rated: A-"Just one figure. It will stand here." He pointed to a sketch. "The place is built around it. The statue of a naked woman. If you understand the building, you understand what the figure must be. The human spirit. The heroic in man. The aspirations and the fulfillment, both. Uplifted in its quest -- and uplifting by its own essence. Seeking God -- and finding itself. Showing that there is no higher reach beyond its own form...." (Part Two; Chapter 11)"I was thinking of people who say that happiness is impossible on earth. Look how hard they all try to find some joy in life. Look how they struggle for it. Why should any living creature exist in pain? By what conceivable right can anyone demand that a human being exist for anything but his own joy? Every one of them wants it. Every part of him wants it. But they never find it. I wonder why. They whine and say they don't understand the meaning of life. There's a particular kind of people that I despise. Those who seek some sort of a higher purpose or 'universal goal,' who don't know what to live for, who moan that they must 'find themselves.' You hear it all around us. That seems to be the official bromide of our century. Every book you open. Every drooling self-confession. It seems to be the noble thing to confess. I'd think it would be the most shameful one.""Look, Gail." Roark got up, reached out, tore a thick branch off a tree, held it in both hands, one fist closed at each end; the, his wrists and knuckles tensed against the resistance, he bent the branch slowly into an arc. "Now I can make what I want of it: a bow, a spear, a cane, a railing. That's the meaning of life.""Your strength?""Your work." He tossed the branch aside. "The material the earth offers you and what you make of it...." (Part Four; Chapter 5)

[shavonjones · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

One of my favorite books of all time. The Fountainhead's revealation of the motivations of people is unmatched in literature. I also love architecture, so Rand's use of that profession made the book doubly interesting to me. Loved the passion between Dominique and Howard. The only downside is that the book is probably not appropriate for people under 25. It could shape the thinking of anyone who hasn't yet developed strong convictions.

[shadowofthewind · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This is a dangerous book in the wrong hands. Read by a mind too young and it could create a self-righteous jerk. However, there are so many truths to the book, that it can help one navigate through political situations. Change is very difficult to implement and in this way I really connected with the Fountainhead. Of course, Roark's purpose isn't to get the world to embrace his ideas, he just loves the work, the creation. In order to read this, I had to set aside the politics of Ayn Rand as they are thinly veiled and the perspective is rather unsophisiticated. What makes this book great is a tendency of human nature to resist the new.Howard Roark is an independent man, he needs no one, and cares only for his work. As an architect, he only cares about the creation process. His strong-willed nature gets him expelled from school, but pushes him to New York to work. He works for another modernist, Henry Cameron, another independent man who ignores the wisdom of the crowd. Throughout the book, Roark builds despite the continued criticism from the general public. Rand sets the stage of the world against Howard Roark. Dominque Francon is cut from the same cloth and one of her lines best describes both of them, "I take the only desire one can really permit oneself, freedom, Alvah, freedom. To ask nothing. To expect Nothing. To depend on nothing." This is part of Ayn's politics of Objectivism. I found the story was more interesting when I ignored the finer tips of those points. I look at Roark as a man just trying to do something new, to push the boundaries not for anyone, but just to see what can be done. In the story he is pushing new "modernist" ideas that the world isn't ready for. They much prefer the crowd pleasing Peter Keating who mashes up familiar likable styles. People just want the perception of the good, not what is really good, and good is whatever someone else tells them. They are all empty shells just repeating whatever an expert says instead of what they think themselves. No one dare think outside the box and to try something new. It reminds me of a funny quote from the movie King of California, "Do you know why people eat at Applebees? The fear of the unknown, that's the scariest thing to people." And taking the Objectivism and politics aside, people don't like what is new, they only like new enough if it is watered down. People just don't like change. Yet there are many who want change and do try new things, but they aren't Objectivists and those that resist them aren't Collectivists, it's more of a basic human nature rather that a political philosophy. However, this part of the story I really connected to. I could understand trying to pitch a new service and getting people to adopt and getting resistance. I know what that feels like and Rand's book describes it eerily well. The first 3/4 of the book seems to emphasize these actions of change and resistance to change, but she goes off the deep end in the last quarter of the book. Some of the scenarios are pretty ridiculous in order to demonstrate society's resistance to Howard Roark. He is found guilty of building an ugly building (even though he was not given instructions on what should be built other than a temple), but yet he is found not guilty of blowing up a building even though he admitted he blew it up. That just leaves me scratching my head. I feel that her book Anthem better describes her politics and fear by placing it in a future distopia. People who claim an ideology, while not believing in it, in order to gain power is nothing new. Rand describes Elsworth Tooey correctly in his grab for power over society, and his description on how to break men to be compliant is also very accurate. The motivations behind him is clumsy though. Roark ends up villified for being an imaginative thinking, but gains a following for those who are independent thinkers (who also happen to be wealthy) not from Roark's own promotion. It's a good message to think for yourself, be confident, and to know that people are afraid of new good ideas or things and people they cannot control. They don't want to be shut out or controlled (even though that fear allows them to be controlled). Rand's goal and philosophy seem silly to me, but the facts of her story and how the characters would act and react seem solid (if a little wooden at times) and very real. Favorite Passages:For once, she expected some emotion from him; and an emotion would be the equivalent of seeing him broken. She did not know what it was about him that had always made her want to see him broken. Chap 1But the best is a matter of standards and I set my own standards. I inherit nothing. I stand at the end of no tradition. I may, perhaps, stand at the beginning of one. chap 1The substance of them is hatred for any man who loves his work. That's the only kind they fear. chap. 4He had learned that it was so simple. His clients would accept anything, so long as he gave them an imposing facade, a majestic entrance and a regal drawing room, with which to astound their guests. It worked out to everyone's satisfaction: Keating did not care so long as his clients were impressed, the clients did not care so long as their guests were impressed, and the guests did not care anyway." chap. 6The girl was so obviously more deserving of love that it seemed just to deny it to her. chap. 9No man likes to be beaten, but to be beaten by the man who has always stood as the particular example of mediocrity in his eyes, to start by the side of this mediocrity and to watch it shoot up, while he struggles and gets nothing but a boot in his face, to see the mediocrity snatch from him, one after another, the chances he'd give his life for, to see the mediocrity worshipped, to miss the place he wants and to see the mediocrity enshrined upon it, to lose, to be sacrificed to be ignored, to be beaten, beaten, beaten not by a greater genius, not by a god, but by a Peter Keating--well, my little amateur, do you think the Spanish Inquisition ever though of a torture to equal this? chap 7All I mean is that a board of directors is one or two ambitious men and a lot of ballast. chap. 10Don't worry, they're all against me. But I have one advantage: they don't know what they want. I do. chap 10But to get things done, you must love the doing. chap 8all were united as brothers in the luxury of common anger that cured boredom and took them out of themselves, and they knew well enough what a blessing it was to be taken out of themselves. chap 13Whatever the legend, somewhere in the shadows of its memory mankind knew that its glory began with one and that one paid for his courage. chap. 18

[garypatella · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

One of the two works by Rand that is worth reading. I really liked the characters and the story. The message is pretty clear. I would say to read this, wait two or three years, and then read Atlas Shrugged. Why the two or three year wait? Simply put, the message is the same in all of Rand's works. Reading one after the other would be too monotonous.

[denzilpugh · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

I honestly don't know where to begin with this one. I've been putting it off for some time. I would go so far as to say I've been experiencing writer's block, all because I've wanted to write about this book, but felt so not up to doing so. It is simply one of the finest works of literature I have ever read. From the preface of the novel, Rand blasts the current condition of "throw-away" novels, books that are disposable and honestly forgettable. I've read many books such as this, and they are stacked on my bookshelves, as if they were some treasure to which I would gleam some future knowledge. She goes further to say that most books now lack the permanence of the 19th century Romantic novel. And this is exactly what I would compare The Fountainhead with. It brings the images of Frankenstein standing resolutely at the North Pole, or Friedrich's Traveler painting and thrusts them into the 20th century. In an earlier post, I talked about the conversation I had with Dr. Pepetone on whether Romanticism was inherently a Conservative movement or not. Of course, this was the beginnings of the thought processes that would turn Romanticism, with those bold characters that would shun society for individual values, to the Political idea of Libertarianism. And this is what Ayn Rand's books have been known for today, namely, being the cornerstone of Libertarian thought. I have wondered, since reading this amazing book, why it was never included in the courses I took on Romanticism and the Byronic hero, since Rourke is one of the best examples of that model in the 20th century. Further, Rourke brings the ideas of Capitalism and Anti-societal thought (marching to the beat of your own drum) together to show why Social Progressiveness is bringing about the downfall of human drive and magnificence. Only once, in the recent past, has society come together to achieve a goal that would truly be considered magnificent. The Moonshot that happened 40 years ago, landing man on the Moon. But I digress. I want to talk about the book itself, not the philosophies behind it. Roarke, and Francone, and the other Protagonists are as finely constructed as the architecture that Roarke builds. In fact, for the most part, every character is molded and shaped as if by an artist skilled in her work like no other. I've never actually read descriptions of characters, as they are usually done poorly. But Rand paints visages that are unique and instantly form on the mind's eye. The descriptions of the settings are likewise, painted with words as eloquent and austere as a slash of a artist's brush would instantly create a world to explore. Each word is essential, every syllable needed to create the world that Roarke lives in. The buildings and even the natural settings become intricate characters in the story. And the love story....ahhh.... it is the best romance (small r) novel I have read, with strength and passion, deception, banter, everything that a master romance novelist would need, except, in this case, you don't just donate it to Goodwill afterward, you keep it on your shelf and read it over and over. It is Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights written a century later, with the repressed passions and the flashes of desire and lust springing forth. It is truly a work that exalts the human spirit, and makes Pope's declaration of studying man all the more true, as the potential of what man can do on this Earth should shine as brightly now as ever before, and not sink into the mire of Reality Television and the uncaring world of people I see everyday. It's just not fair. People should be better than that. The Fountainhead is a love story about what it means to be human, to shine in all our glory, to the unlimitless potential that we have going forward. I say this because after reading Rand's book, I saw Star Trek, and read Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe. Both deserve blogs in their own time, but suffice it to say that these examples of the unconquerable human spirit only compounds upon Rand's ideas of the individual soul as something that can do anything, from discovering the secrets of time and space itself, to solving the problems of this world without the help of corrupt politicians and unneeded regulations. The only disappointing thing is that there are too few individuals who truly act on those beliefs, and shine like a diamond in mounds of coal. And those that do are, as Rand has shown, are likely to be squashed by a society that only wants to pull those that achieve down into the mire, through the mechanisms that they have created to do so. It is when Othello's green monster becomes Godzilla, and lets no one escape the wrath of the multitudes. But again, I have gotten off track. Read The Fountainhead for the shear exhilaration of the story line, and cheer on the architect Roarke and stand by him as he stands by his principles. Feel the strength of Roarke's physique, the firmness of Francone's stature, and read in sheer rapture as a wonderful love story is built, like a monument, out of the text. Even better, invest in the Audio Book of the story, as the narrator does a fabulous job in making each character come alive. And in this way, you won't miss a word by skimming, and believe me, you won't want to.

[joanne53 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I am going to name my next Jack Russell after Ayn Rand's so called "perfect man", Roark. It was difficult to get into her story, so I did it the audio book route. Much better. I hated her female characters and wonder why she thought so poorly of women. She also takes the rugged individualism theme a bit far. I don't agree with her politics...but I got through it...and have a great name for that new puppy

[drewfull · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Somehow Rand manages to mix her philosophy (which is ever-present both underlying the story and expressly dictated occasionally by her characters words & actions with one heckuva story that spans a world collapsing and the fight of people of action to maintain the status quo, and eventually their realization they don't have to. To say too much more may give it away, but this is a fascinating character study whether you're talking about Galt, Taggart or any other of the characters here. Even the throwaway sections of the books, presented to paint a more clear picture clearly have a rich, imagined backstory that could spring further to life given time. Fantastic book, philosophy aside. Of course if you severely dislike Rand's theory of the world, it is quite likely you may experience an allergic reaction to this novel as it is quite emphasized...Important note (spoiler but not really): somewhere in the last third of the book there's a ~50 page segment where Ayn Rand pauses the story and more or less summarizes her philosophy for those who weren't paying attention throughout the first 2/3rds of the book. If you're reading for philosophical or educational purposes slog through it. However, I read it once and would recommend skipping it for anyone primarily here for the story.

[jennifyr · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I tried quite a few times to start reading this before I actually was able to get past the first few chapters. Finally I had to read this completely as fiction, and not a philosophical theory, to get through without tearing up the pages in anger and disagreement. This was a tough book to get through, not because it is difficult to understand, but because none of the characters are likable or believable, and because Ayn Rands theories, especially when it comes to people, women (and liberals) specifically, are absolutely ludicrous. The relationship between Dominique and Roark is disgusting, with Rand writing her only main female character as a woman who respects a man only because he rapes her, and states plainly that she wouldn't have enjoyed it if it had been consensual, as she likes a strong man who takes what he wants, only for himself. I want to believe that this is symbolism, and that Ayn Rand doesn't hate all women, but reading about Ayn Rand and her crazy eyes I honestly believe she thinks women are despicable creatures who either use men for money or like a man if he abuses her. I don't know if the fact that at the end of the novel you end up rooting for Roark and Dominique is a testament to good writing or just because all the other characters are even worse monsters masquerading as humans. Although human beings would be a long shot, because with a few exceptions, all the people in this book are more like robots than people. And if not robots, than empty shells of people filled to the brim with the opinions of evangelists pushing a selfish agenda. That being said, I didn't hate the book entirely. I can't quite figure out why I liked it, whether the writing is good, or the story (although before reading this book I liked architecture, and now I never want to hear about it again. At the risk of sounding dimwitted, I wish they would have included the sketches of some of the buildings, as reading about building design while not knowing a thing about architecture is extremely boring and somewhat confusing without at least a rough idea of what the building actually looks like) but something about it kept me reading, even when I wanted to burn the book in a fireplace. Most of her theories are quite ridiculous, although I suppose, on the most basic level, the idea of doing work you love and not compromising your morals just to make money is a good thing, but the way described and the events used were kind of insane, especially mixed with a rapist who proudly proclaims himself as a selfish egoist. As a side note, Ayn Rand must not have known how a court room works, because the judge would have asked Mr. Roark where the hell that speech was going in the first 30 seconds rather than let him go on for a good ten or 20 minutes. All in all, I can see why this book is so controversial, although the idea that anyone follows this book as a personal guide to life is quite unnerving. I was proud of myself for reading it to completion, and felt accomplished. I would recommend reading it because it is an important book in literature, and exhibits an entirely different way of thinking than (I hope) most people have. It also brings up important questions in a readers personal philosophy, even if the answers aren't the ones that Ayn Rand is giving. If not for my boyfriend buying this for my birthday, I would never have read it. I would have been chased away by the crazy followers and the even crazier author, but I'm glad it was placed in my hands. If I can bring myself to stomach more dreary human behavior and philosophies I may even read Atlas Shrugged.

[tpoi_2 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Awful book. And this is And Rand's best. Long pedantic speeches plugged in as character dialogue, preachy, obvious. There is some interesting quality to the main character, you can identify with him in spite of the preachiness and wordiness, but not enough to save the book. I wonder if the movie kept that interesting quality and ditched the preachy bits?

[jrrobert_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

When i first started reading this book I found it a little bit hard to follow, its really a step up from the King books in my closet. This is still an interesting book, what hooked me was Howard Roark's attitude in the beginning of the book, while there doesent seem to be anything overly enthusiastic about him, he is interesting. He baffles all but those who understand him in a conversation. He shares views of architecture with Henry Cameron, mainly his belief of how structural buildings should not be kept on the past and how architecture must evolve. Both believe that these things take priority over other material things and are willing to sacrifice. One sacrificial act being Howard's expulsion due to his refusal to follow old architecture.

[evanplaice · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

A simple sequel to the original (Atlas Shrugged) to promote the same dull superficial ideological dogma as the first with extra smut scenes added to tickle the same sex-deprived generation of men who grew up watching hippie orgies but didn't have the clout/opportunity/balls to join in on the fun.Fortunately, more recent generations have tested the ideas of independence among female culture (with both positive and negative consequences) and disproven the idea that markets correct themselves if individuals are allowed the freedom to act selfishly without oversight (just look at the current economic downturn).At best, I'd describe this novel as simple reinforcing dogma to assert the conscience of individuals seeking such an ideology to justify their actions. It's mindless repetition and lack of depth reads more like religious dogma or consumer marketing than the deeply insightful and analytical perceptions that you'd commonly expect from quality philosophical literature.The smut breaks the ice and the repetition drives it home.

[jayduhon · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Excellent book portraying Ayn Rand's ideas on individualism versus collectivism. Other reviewers have characterized her character dialogue as "leading the reader by the hand", but as a philosophical book, I found it quite helpful. Howard Roark, as the ideal man, still has emotional issues I have disagreement with, but overall the concept of individual effort trumping collective compromise is one worthy of exploration.

[ncnsstnt · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Rand's hero, Howard Roark, is an architect that creates buildings using simple lines, doesn't copy anyone's or any time period's style, and never adds a single element that doesn't absolutely need to be in the building to serve a function. The other architects in the book, the bad guys like Peter Keating, always either carbon copy other styles or add superfluous ornamentation to their buildings. If Rand had written her book more like Roark and less like Keating then it may well have been a great book. This 680 page book could have been about half as long and packed twice the punch. Rand spends too much time illustrating her character's integrity or lack thereof. She frustrated this reader by continuing to hammer home points about her characters long after she had sufficiently illustrated these points. As a novel The Fountainhead is merely so-so. Some of the character's motivations are implausible and many of the book's premises are downright unbelievable. But, ok, Rand was using this novel to platform her philosophy. I cannot help but think that her point would have been better served by a (much) shorter essay. She claims to be speaking to people of intelligence but yet treats her audience as dullards who didn't get her point the first 7 times around.

[ftorralba_6 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

One of the most influential books I will ever read. Highly recommended to everyone. It has profoundly influenced how I think about the motivations for my actions. Do I do things because of the happiness or usefulness that they bring to myself, or because of the reactions of others? Rand's definition of selfishness, and her praise of it, struck me like a ton of bricks. A selfish person, Rand says, is a self-sufficient ego. The opposite is a "second hander."

[cecilturtle · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

A novel as epic as the architecture it describes! Rand spares the reader no detail as to the life and times of her characters. Drawn into a world of movement and manipulation, the reader discovers the motivations, aspirations and weaknesses of the various characters, each representing Rand's philosophical perceptions of world: the followers and power mongers will fail while the earnest and strong will win. This now defunct view still stands in its historical context and provides an interesting backdrop on thinking's evolution. Rand's symbols are obvious, but solid and consistent. Her rants and preachy dissertations at the end, however, do make the novel unnecessarily long - if the reader hasn't understood her meaning by then, there is no hope! Dominique and Roark's relationship also bothered me: I'm not sure how dominance and power play reinforce Rand's message; surely as soul-mates, these violent games were a bit far-fetched.Overall a compelling political novel which will stay with me for a long time.

[koalamom_1 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Some 700 page books keep me captivated. Some I feel the need to finish but with several other books also being read at the same time. For me this was one of the latter, but I did finish it. I can now say I have read it and one by Ayn Rand.

[secretshelflife · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

The Fountainhead is not so much a novel as it is a treatise on the innate power of the undiluted Self; a trial of society that strips the majority bare and finds them wanting; an anthem to the individual, stoic in the preservation and perseverance of their Self. It’s no stretch to see why Ayn Rand and her work have surpassed mere literature to become a movement. Though it might be more accurate, perhaps, to say that Howard Roark is the source (one could even call him… the fountainhead) of the movement, the infallible and unfaltering integrity of his Self being the movement’s inspiration, aspiration, and very core.To say that Howard Roark is an architect is to say that J.K Rowling is a writer or that Mozart was a composer – technically accurate, but they are all so much more than their profession that to identify them by it alone seems a gross understatement. Nonetheless, Howard Roark is an architect. An architect who designs wholly original, somewhat austere and unnerving buildings that refuse to conform to popular style. An architect who would – and does – endure menial labor, scapegoating, unemployment, ostracism, forfeit of love and happiness, and criminal trial rather than commit even the most minor betrayal of his principles. He is uncompromising, indefatigable, and utterly without self-doubt – and for that, society seeks to destroy him. The Fountainhead is, essentially, Howard Roark vs. the World. (Of course, you have to remember that this is a 694 page book we're talking about, so it's possible I might be over-simplifying a bit. But you get the gist.)Roark’s actions, or in some cases, lack of action, in response to this lifelong conflict showcase him to as the embodiment of Rand’s ideal person – wholeheartedly selfish. The word carries strikingly different connotations as used in The Fountainhead than we’re used to, however. Or rather, its definition is the same – self-centered, un-altruistic, close-minded, unsympathetic – but the implications differ. Where by standard usage ‘selfish’ is an insult, denoting a negative or derogatory personality trait, to Ayn Rand it implies full realization and devotion to the Self, a concept integral to the philosophy she was developing whilst writing The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Selfishness in The Fountainhead is not a vice, but the greatest virtue. It’s putting the undisguised Self forward as one’s character in society, while simultaneously shielding it from any influence of that society. It’s the refusal to lend any components of one’s Self (thoughts, talents, opinions) to others, thereby protecting their integrity from the corruption of collaboration, which compromises each individual’s contribution. It’s the derivation of self-worth, ambition, and satisfaction from the Self, not entrusted to the fickle favor of the outside world – a world which too often converts admiration into condemnation after the passing of some ambiguous, fluctuating expiration date. Above all, it’s the doctrine that an individual is at their best when living in and of and for themselves.Just as The Fountainhead does not settle for being just a novel, its characters do not settle for being just characters. They become archetypes, vessels of ideas larger than any one characterization or plot function. The ideological intercourse that occurs when the characters interact in various permutations weaves the subtle but sturdy fabric of motives, actions, and pretensions that so thoroughly establishes Ayn Rand’s philosophy. The ideologies behind the archetypes are not so clear, however, that is possible to read The Fountainhead passively. Many of the characters’ personal philosophies become muddled or convoluted at some point or another, requiring the reader to be actively engaged in unraveling them as they read, constantly connecting the dots between actions and the motives they manifest – sometimes contradictory, when characters cannot or will not risk the effort of living up to their beliefs or their Self. The only character, in fact, whose actions and motives are never muddled or counteracted, but remain pure and focused, is Howard Roark – apt, as he is the paradigm of Ayn Rand’s idyllic selfish man, intransigent and unambiguous in the upholding of his principles.I have a feeling that this is one of those versatile books that ought to be read at intervals throughout one’s life, because it's a novel of ideas, and we react differently to ideas depending on myriad variables to do with our personalities, knowledge, and experiences. We'll extrapolate different meanings and understandings from the text with each reading based on what we bring to it. As a college student, my reading instructed me to “go confidently in the direction of my dreams and live the life I’ve imagined*,” but I expect that if I were to read the book again in as few as four years from now I may well take something entirely different away from it. *Quote adapted from Henry David Thoreau.

[papamoll · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Had I read any review of that book before, I would not have picked it up. A book description starting with objectivism, idealism , philosophy and so on in the very first phrase is an obvious killer. I didn't know what to expect and I was hooked in a snap. Love, love, love the book, the complex characters, Ayn R's ability to break down her characters ideals and views into a language that guides the reader into philosophical thinking and doesn't drown him/her in it. It's complex, and yes there are chapters that take some backbone to read through them, but it's worth it and gives the reader that very rare end feeling of having accomplished something and having been illuminated just a little bit by a great MIND.

[phillip1337 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

The novel, The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand encompasses anyone can be anything if they try. In the beginning, Roark struggles with dropping from school and his plans being rejected from the world. Throughout the middle he perserves though poverty. By the end he has learned to accept other peoples ideas to his plans for them to work. 704/704

[spvaughan · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

When I was in college, I discovered Ayn Rand. I read and enjoyed all the books of hers I could find. This was no exception.

[lisamaria_c · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I'm an admirer of Rand's ideas and writing and I've rated her other novels five stars. Although I certainly find this one worth reading--I like Rand's style and think her ideas are worth considering--I have too many problems with the protagonist of this novel, Howard Roark, to rank this novel highly.First, the reasons I do think this novel worth a read. Rand's ideas are still provocative nearly 60 years after its publication. I can certainly understand how her paean to individualism could appeal, particularly to those trying to set a course in their lives. I actually like Rand's style--lyrical at times, compellingly readable and quotable. Two quotes in particular stand out in my mind. One is the best put down I ever read in fiction. Roark's adversary in the book is Ellsworth Toohey, who has done everything to destroy Roark. After Toohey's done his worst, he asks, "Why don't you tell me what you think of me, Mr. Roark?" Roark answers, "But I don't think of you." Perfect. And not just as a "line" but thematically as well, given the novel is about how a people are the well-spring of their own success and failure and those who try to bring them down ultimately irrelevant. The other quote that springs to mind is telling especially given those who accuse Rand of being Nietzschean. "A leash is only a rope with a noose on both ends." It's a thought of Gail Wynand, one of Rand's most poignant characters in the mold of a Pulitzer or Hearst--a newspaper publisher who sought power and influence by pandering to the public only to find who really has the power when it matters. So yes, parts of the book do speak to me, but then there's the problem with Roark. Two in particular, and here below be spoilers, so be warned.**SPOILERS** The first problem is the infamous rape of Dominique by Roark. Rand said of the scene that if it is rape, it's "by engraved invitation" and a Rand devotee I brought this up to pointed out Dominique never says no. Nevertheless she does struggle, physically resist. If a word is not said, is it because a victim might feel she won't be heard? Dominique herself calls it rape. On the other hand the depiction of the act itself implies a consent in her reactions--so maybe what we have here is just "rough sex." Although I still might find this whole encounter between Roark and Dominque disturbing, I might in those terms give Rand the benefit of the doubt. Although even if I do, Dominque is for me the most problematical and inexplicable of Rand's characters.But then there's Roark's central act in the book--his blowing up of the public housing project. He defends himself in his trial and is said to choose jurors who'd be the kind who are unforgiving, and they acquit him. Problem is I can't acquit Roark, and can't believe the jury, particularly this jury, could have or should have. The deal he made with Keating was unenforceable and Roark knew that when he undertook to design the building. Those who built it certainly never knew the side deal Keating made. And for all that the book depicts Roark as taking care there would be no casualties--well blowing up a building because it didn't hew to his designs? I know Rand is of a romantic rather than naturalistic school but it is still the act of a terrorist, and the acquittal for me strains credibility even in a pre-9/11 world. Indeed, I'd argue the act violates several principles Rand espouses in her books--such as persuasion, rule of law and contract over force. This character and central act is the cornerstone of the novel itself--and it's not one I find sound. So yes, three stars to indicate the novel is worth reading, but in my estimation still deeply flawed.

[vmfolio · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

I'm a fairly sensiible reader, and appreciate allegory and even a little didacticism in fiction. But this novel bored me senseless. Rourk and Keating do not appeal to reader pathos--one character is ideal to the point of elitism and the other so generically corporate that the juxtaposition between the two is predictable and uninspiring--its hard to engage in a character conflict that does not spur imagination. At first, the novel appeared to be about an all-boys club and I was relieved when Dominique arrived, but alas even with the advent of this sulky proto-feminist 'independent' daughter of the big-wig corporate owner, the novel moved painfully slow. The characters' dialog is stilted, and while the omniscient narration is credible, it lacks the sophistication expected in critically exalted work. There is an irritating overuse of "and" throughout.

[stevetempo_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

With out a doubt the most influential book I've ever read....I just completed my second reading in May 2010...Ayn Rand does an incredible job with this story and characters in illustrating her philosophy. The first time I read this work was over 20 years ago (about 1985)...I was changed at that time and a second reading in 2010 found me understanding her ideas at a deeper level....the idea of "self-integrity" (my words) is a most beautiful and empowering vision...I especially enjoyed Ayn's contrasting characters and dialogue as she crafts the pertinent points of her ideas ...a novel worth reading and considering in our word of today,,,

[starkravingmad_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Among the best books ever written.

[shieldwolf_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Well naturally I had to give this book 4 Stars and 2 thumbs up for many reasons, 1. It's in my Rare book collection. 1st printing. 2. The book inspired my mother so much That I carry the author's namesake. 3. The story itself is a fascinating discovery into human morals and ethics, and 4. It's the book that started her career as a writer. If you have never read it at least get a 99cent paper back just to read the story.

[rrriles · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I loved Ayn Rand in high school, when I knew everything.I would probably hate reading her now.