The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff
|
List Price: Our Price: $3.95 You Save: $6.04 (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: More than a book
Summary: 5 Stars
In Ayn Rand's novel The Fountainhead, Rand paints a world with two extremes of human nature. On one side of the spectrum there is Peter Keating. Keating illustrates the second-hander, a chameleon, willing to adapt himself to his surroundings to appease others. Juxtaposed to the second-hander is Howard Roark. Never adulterating his own opinion, Roark remains an originator, a first-hander. Between these two extremes, lies a middle ground where people are a mixture of both. Gail Wynand, a newspaper magnate, believes he controls the public because of his power and wealth. But in the end, he realizes that it is they that control him. A man who controls others through the acquisition of souls, Ellsworth Toohey is a first-hander who promotes second-handedness. Through these characters, the novel is an allegory of real-world people. There are selfish individualists and then there are devout followers of altruism. Whatever it may be, all people exist on a continuum between Roark and Keating. Peter Keating lives his life through others. When Keating is first introduced, he is valedictorian at his graduation looking for a former competitor to reaffirm his triumph over a rival. Keating cares only for defeating someone else. He does not care for himself. Keating has no passion, no driving force to make decisions for himself. His mother decides he will accept the offer from the Francon firm. The lack of an individual self manifests itself also in his pliable code of ethics. On the job, Keating repeatedly uses sycophancy and other such ruses to woo Francon and to propel himself to a higher position within the firm. He caters to their vices and lets their tastes dictate his life. Keating's pretentiousness cannot hide his incompetence in designing buildings. Second-handers need the help of others to achieve success. Peter Keating needs Howard Roark do his drawings for buildings through his career. Keating needs journalists like Dominique Francon and Ellsworth Toohey to give him a good name. Peter needs his fellow men for their respect and competency. By the end of the novel, Peter Keating realizes that he has tried to live his life through others. But it is too late; Peter has already compromised his life so that it is more acceptable to the general public.
The second-hander represents the foil to the individualist. The individualist relies on no one. Howard Roark embodies the soul of the individualist or first hander. Growing up, Roark had no family and thus worked on building projects to support himself through school. After being expelled from the Stanton Institute of Technology for designing free-thinking houses, Roark is called into the Dean's office. The Dean offers him a second chance to return to the school and begin anew. Roark refuses; he asserts that he has learned all that he has needed from the school. With this tone set, Roark's resolve will be tested. When asked by his mentor, Henry Cameron, to develop projects more suitable to popular tastes, Roark responds with a decisive answer that he would rather starve. His uncompromising attitude toward catering to tastes prevents him from attaining numerous commissions. But the few that Roark does receive are from individual men who admire his audacity. Throughout the novel, Roark is static, never compromising his morals.
While Keating is naïve and easy to manipulate and Roark is obstinate and maverick, there is a middle ground. The self made man, the American businessman, closely resembles Gail Wynand. As a youngster, he was always told by superiors, "You don't run things around here." He rises to this challenge and through individual effort; Wynand builds a vast newspaper chain that sways popular opinion. However, Wynand rarely agrees or qualifies the opinions presented in his paper. In fact, he privately despises them. He compromises his beliefs in order to attain greatness. When Wynand marries Dominique, he adamantly pursues a hard policy of banning his wife from being mentioned in the papers. He creates a barrier separating his personal life from his public life. His love for his work is tested morally when Roark is put on trial for dynamiting Cortlandt. On one hand, he can give up his newspaper and power in order to try and sway public opinion for Roark. The alternative is to let his passion sit idle while he sees his paper denouncing his friend. He fails to realize it is the people whom he holds power over that ultimately control him. When he finally does understand his mistake, he decides to compromise his morals to maintain his newspaper and reputation. Wynand is a creative man capable of capturing the unattainable, but in the process he sacrifices his morals to reach his goals. In that sense, they have lost their place among the respected in society. Wynand is not a true uncompromising first-hander, yet he is not a leeching second-hander. These people may attain greatness but at a hefty price.
The Fountainhead illustrates an allegory of characters that symbolize types of men. In the novel, there are true first-handers and second-handers. The few extremists like Keating and Roark represent only a minority of men. Wynands meet a tragic end And it is the Keatings that feed off Roarks to prevail. It is ultimately the individualistic spirit of Howard Roark that will rise above it all.
Book Review: One small voice, mine.
Summary: 5 Stars
Read just about any four or five star customer review and you have a fine summary of this book. It is not necessary for me to repeat what has already been said. I myself would like to talk about the individual characters which keep me rereading this book as much as the philosophy does. Roark, Keating, Toohey (shudder), Dominique, etc., all represent facets of humanity, good and evil. But characters like Keating and Wynand are more complex than the characters in Atlas Shrugged. Yes, they are Randian archetypes but they have taught me much about human nature.Keating, had he a little more backbone, might have actually been able to make something of himself. Unlike the villains of AS, he was somewhat sympathetic. He was in love with Catherine, a woman who may not have possessed the glamor and poise of Dominique but who was right for him simply because they were happy when they were together. Fool that he was, he instead opted for what he thought he was supposed to, just as he chose architecture over his true calling, painting. His story is a lesson for all of us. To detractors of the book who call it contemptuous of people I say you don't HAVE to be this way. Don't be a Peter Keating. It is up to you.
Ellsworth Toohey is a villain for the ages, somebody you just love to hate. I won't even describe him as a man. I relish the creepy, slimy feeling I get rereading the passages about him. Every patronizing, smarmy sentence that comes out of his mouth is designed to make one cringe. The fact that he DOESN'T seek out wealth, or even happiness, makes him all the worse.
It is through him and this book that I learned what is evil: holding society and "the greater good" over the individual. Now, whenever I read or watch the news, I am acutely aware of the malice in people who would say they are trying to protect society when their actions result in harm to an individual, or worse, equate society with an individual as I recently heard from a prominent proponent of the death penalty. Again, he is a lesson to all of us: beware the Ellsworth Tooheys of the world. They are out there.
Rand wrote Roark as the ideal man. He certainly is that. I could never expect to be as he is but I firmly believe that he is something to strive for. He had the courage of his convictions. He did not care what other people thought, except those whose opinions mattered to him, such as his mentor, Cameron. Such is the lesson I learned from him. If I find myself jealous or resentful of somebody, I asked myself what my weakness is because fear of one's own shortcomings is from whence hatred and jealousy arise.
If it is difficult to relate to a man who does not even see you, as he is frequently described, consider for a moment why it is important for him to see you and why you feel your own worth is based on how others see you. Then consider the friends that he makes in the book, competent and intelligent people who feel about the world as he does. And finally consider what true friendship is. It is not alms to be doled out in the name of compassion. It is respect and love for those whom we enjoy having around us.
Dominique Francon is a strange bird (Rand said that Dominique was her in a bad mood). Her motivations are complex but when I think about them, they make sense to me. I see her as somebody who has so much contempt for the world that she doesn't think it deserves a man like Roark (or a woman like her). Hence the reason she works against Roark, not to deprive Roark of a living but to deprive the world of Roark. Clarifying the reasons behind her actions also clarifies that controversial rape scene. It is the ideal man saying to the ideal but obstinate woman that the world cannot destroy him. They spar violently to show how strong they are.
Gail Wynand is less interesting to me but an intriguing character nonethless, the man who could have been. He had the drive and the intelligence but, like Dominique, too much contempt. His contempt for humanity at least was purer and cleaner than Toohey's love for humanity. I wonder if, had his childhood not been so brutal, he might have gone a different direction. But then I think that had Roark had a brutal childhood, he still would have come out the same. Such is Wynand's weakness. A sad waste, really.
Atlas Shrugged is THE definitive Rand book. I myself certainly feel this way. Nevertheless, The Fountainhead has virtues that one does not find in that mighty tome. As in AS the characters are largely archetypes but interesting in different ways. Even though Atlas Shrugged is several hundred pages longer than The Fountainhead, it also feels more streamlined. The characters are more complex in the latter (except, admittedly, for Roark), maybe because where Atlas Shrugged deals in the steel and railroad industries, The Fountainhead deals in the more aestetic field of architecture which, incidentally, Rand describes beautifully.
Book Review: My guiding philosophy through a turbulent life
Summary: 5 Stars
The first time I read Ayn Rand was when I was about 18. It was a life-changing experience. It was one of those moments when one finds the right words to describe what one feels, especially when one did not know that such words existed or had been expressed. All my life up to that point, I had been stymied by the will of the collective, as enforced by a domineering father hell-bent on molding me in his image, and a stifling cultural environment that valued fitting-in, rote memorization and academic succee bss as described by narrow definitions limited to doctor and engineer. I grew up in the hyper-competitive rat race world that is the Indian middle-class, where intelligence, curiosity and creativity are all to be sacrificed at the altar of a steady job and one's total devotion to the pursuit of the ultimate goal, public adulation, typically based on a facade of 'normalcy'. I had a hard time trying to adjust to a world that constantly told me, "Well yes, you are intelligent and have the brains, so why dont you use them to get better grades and become a doctor or an engineer?" Just at the time when this pressure was rising up to a crescendo, I happened to find "The Fountainhead" in my first year of college.
It was like a new dimension had opened up and this person, Ayn Rand, knew exactly the mind-set that I was struggling against. I recognized the Keatings and the Tooheys I had dealt with and would have to deal with for the rest of my life, and rarely, the other mavericks that walked their own path to their own drumbeat. I knew instinctively that this was more than a book, it was an instruction manual for a certain type of person. For others, especially those of the Peter Keating, "i want people to love me and I will do anything to fit in" mentality and of the Toohey "He enjoys what he does and so he must be destroyed" mind set, it was a load of crap. Now, I am sure there are a lot of people that do their own thing, don't worry about others and still don't like Ayn Rand, but for someone thats drowning in a sea of negativity, Ayn Rand is that piece of driftwood that comes at the right time just before one is about to go under. It gave me the strength to survive the constant barrage of naysayers telling me what I couldn't do, how I was stupid to try things my way, the critiques, the ridicule and stifled laughter behind my back for daring to go against the grain and just for trying something in my life that had nothing to do with their own lives. In later years, I learned to gauge the degree of 'rightness' of a course of action by the amount of uproar it created among a certain set of people. I learned to use the negativity to my advantage.
The upshot, well, life is an ongoing process, but I am happier through all my successes and failures precisely because they are mine and I have lived them on my terms. It has been very very hard at times, but I have never felt despair or the need to ask others about the course I need to set at every turn. The successes have been extremely rewarding and the failures, mere setbacks that just make me stronger for the next battle. Reminiscing about the younger days (I am 33 as of this writing) and meeting the sheep-like Peter Keatings that were in my life back then only affirms my self-belief and the strength I got from Ayn Rand when no such reassurance was forthcoming from the people around me.
There are several reviews and opinions here, some I agree with and others that I dont. They all have a right to their opinions, however, my only request to the negative (and some positive) reviewers is, please don't assign current political terminology such as liberal and/or conservative to the Ayn Rand canon. No matter what you think about her ideology and literature, lets get something straight. She talks about individuals and their strength as such. Even her harshest critics will grant her that. The very idea behind "The Fountainhead" is to be whatever brand of ideologue one wants to be and to have the freedom to be that regardless of public opinion. She cannot be hijacked to serve the purposes of a political party or of any other ideology besides the one that she espouses in her books, that of objectivist individualism. It transcends 'manufactured consent'-era spin doctor created labels such as liberal or conservative that have lost all objective meaning and only serve to evoke knee-jerk responses in the minds of the readers to push the right buttons that spin-mongers have programmed within the collective consciousness. The ideology that comes closest to her ideals is Libertarianism but even that has branched off into myriad flavors further underlining the fact that individualism cannot be summed up easily into one philosophy. It means different things to different people, which is exactly the point.
Book Review: A Great Work of Literature
Summary: 5 Stars
"The Fountainhead" is a great rarity; a well-written and successful philosophical novel. Though Ayn Rand becomes occasionally too didactic, I realize that she was concerned that some readers would be unable to see the points she was making. I did find this novel humorous at points, as Rand placed Howard Roarke, her protagonist, in contrast to his environment so that Roarke appeared to be in control of his environment. Those who understand this novel will find humor in many places. I am unsure of how much of the humor was intentional and how much was unintentional.
There are several principal characters in this 700+ page book. Howard Roarke is an architect. Roarke believes in himself and is a creator. Rand uses Roarke as her example of the "perfect" man. Rand contrasts Roarke primarily with Peter Keaton. Keaton is an adapter of technology. He "borrows" his architectural concepts from historic styles rather than focusing on the practical and having form follow function. Keaton panders to popular styles. Roarke designs plans that are functional and fit within their environment. The beauty of Roarke's designs is in their functionality and how each design fits its environment. Unfortunately, repetitive design is valued, and creativity is not.
There are several other significant characters in this book. Ellsworth Toohey is a newspaper columnist. Toohey exemplifies mediocrity. Toohey is manipulative and power hungry, but is so subtle in his machinations that few people recognize Toohey for what he is. I was fascinated that Toohey seemed to want a worthy opponent and lamented that his opponents were unable to see what Toohey was doing. Toohey's comments and actions imply that Toohey seeks socialism or communism, but he wants to be the absolute dictator. Toohey seems to have all the worst characteristics of communism and fascism.
Gail Wynand is the owner of a chain of newspapers. Wynand is a self made man. Wynand is quite similar to Roarke in many ways, though it takes us a long time to discover the similarities. Both men eventually come to admire each other.
Dominique Francon is very important to the novel. She appears cold-hearted, though she is not. She becomes a connection between Keating, Wynand and Roarke. However, Dominique realizes that she will likely destroy nearly everyone she contacts. Rand uses Dominique as a tool for continuity throughout the novel and to aid in contrasting the characteristics of the three men in Dominique's life.
What is "The Fountainhead" about? It is about one man pursuing his quest for what he believes to be right, regardless of what most of the world thinks. Rand hypothesizes that if that man is correct, and has an objective ideal as his goal, that eventually the rest of the world will recognize the validity of that man's (or woman's) viewpoint and follow along. "The Fountainhead" is against the average, against mediocrity, against collectivism, against rule by committee, and against the manipulation of people by those whose only purpose is to seek power over other men. "The Fountainhead" is for individualism, for creativity, for following your own path and for objective truth.
Ayn Rand tried to keep her explanations relatively simple. She characterized people as those who lived through others and those who lived for themselves. However, I think there could be a third category, which Rand likely classified as the second category. As we know, not every person is highly creative. But, an average person may well recognize the creativity of a person such as Roarke, and admiring such creativity, does what they can to bring that creativity to realization. I would call this third category a person who facilitates the creator.
The first time I read "The Fountainhead," I considered the book profound. I looked at the world, and myself, in a different perspective. This book is easy to read, but it is not light reading. The book requires a lot of thought, and you may find that you disagree with Rand or you may be disappointed. If you are a potential Howard Roarke, it is unlikely that you will read this book at all. For the rest of us, "The Fountainhead" is a great work of fiction that embodies what many of us like to believe is the basis of the United States. While there may be a little cowboy in us, there is a lot of pioneer spirit, which was founded on a strong sense of individualism. We can only hope that these ideals remain with us in the future.
I hope you find this book as incredible as I did. Enjoy!
Book Review: Amid Acrimonious Controversy, A Great Book
Summary: 5 Stars
Ayn Rand was a talented writer, whether or not you agree with her philosphy. Alas, the Rand purists are offended by all reviews that are not uncritical praise, and the anti-Rand socialists are outraged by any that do not paint the author as unspeakably evil. Whatever happened to the idea of an open mind?In light of the foregoing, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that "the Fountainhead" is a great book for someone just looking for good fiction. It is a tale of competing schools of architecture in New York during the 1920s and 1930s, when capitalism was increasingly opposed by dialectical materialism and socialism.
Howard Roark, the main protagonist, is a lone eagle who desires to achieve on his own, applying his own modernistic style to architecture, to erect buildings that inspire a sense of joy while being a testament to the greatness of man.
Roark is opposed in his efforts by an assortment of traditionalist-architects, who oppose modernism in favor of the baroque styles of Roman and Greek architecture, and who heap scorn on any architect who steps outside this box. The traditionalists are supported by a socialist-journalist named Elsworth Toohey, who writes a column in the New York Banner, praising or criticizing the work of architects. Toohey has great influence on public opinion, and few architects or builders wish to risk his wrath and public humiliation, and so "go along to get along," much in the same way that political correctness works today.
Howard Roark refuses to be swayed by these strong commercial and societal pressures, and continues to design office buildings, homes and other structures in a way that pleases him. He suffers terrible adversity because of his principles and his vision, but over time emerges victorious.
I loved Ayn Rand's prose, her descriptions of New York and its skyscrapers. Her writing flows smoothly through the mind, painting pictures in the imagination, and is fresh and inspiring. I found her sentences expertly constructed and a joy to read.
The motivations of some of the characters, however, is not always easy to understand. Dominique Francon, for instance, loves Roark but feels compelled to destroy him; and when she no longer wishes to destroy him, marries someone lesser than Roark in an inexplicable act of self-contempt. The novel has other aspects that also strain credulity, such as Roark's long and preachy opening statement in his second jury trial, where he is little more than a talking-head for Ayn Rand's philosophy. (In fiction, this is called "author intrusion," and is to be avoided.)
I like Ayn Rand, and sympathize strongly with her support of individualism over group-think statism. Rand's philosophy jives closely with the writings of 18th Century British economist Adam Smith, who taught that every individual in pursuing his or her own good is led, as if by an invisible hand, to achieve the best good for all. Therefore any interference with free competition by government is almost certain to be injurious. I agree.
Having said that, I do not believe that individual action (the "lone eagle" Roark approach) is always the most effective means of achieving success in every endeavor. There is the concept of synergy, where two or more individuals can produce more or create more than any one of them can do alone. This is the concept wherein "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts." The Beatles achieved more as a group than any one of them ever did alone. The value of teamwork is illustrated by professional sports, and the concepts translate well to the business world, as most creative, productive endeavors require cooperative effort. Individualism is the engine of creativity and capitalism, but a volunatary association of individuals united in a common purpose can often accomplish more than an individual acting alone. This is not a contradiction of either Ayn Rand or Adam Smith.
Howard Roark suffered much in his ascent to the top, but much of his suffering was avoidable or at least could have been mitigated by a better strategy, perhaps by seeking the assistance of a good publicist or marketer, the alliance of a competing journalist to Ellsworth Toohey, and by establishing a business network of professional association and cooperation with others who shared his modernist vision.
Ayn Rand's novel makes you think, and helps you determine where your own personal philosophy fits into the cacophony of competing ideals. But first and foremost, the Fountainhead is just good fiction. Enjoy.