The Fountainhead

On its surface, this book is about two different architects who simultaneously embark upon their careers in New York City. At its core, it’s about the difference in philosophy between individualism and collectivism. If you know Ayn Rand, then you know she is a champion of individualism, and thus her protagonist is a man named Howard Roark, an architect who expresses his individualism with every project he designs. He is innovative and fiercely independent and simply doesn’t give a damn what other people think. Sometimes, his indifference to the opinions of others gets him in trouble, and yet there are also times when other characters express their admiration of his strong will, lamenting the fact that they themselves care what other people think. Roark represents Rand’s ideal of the creative individual who lives for himself and not for others. Rand is the mother of a school of philosophy called Objectivism, which she once described as “the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.” With this definition in mind, it is evident that Roark embodies her philosophy as he is a man who only cares about his own happiness, to varying degrees of success and failure. Roark’s classmate and counterpart is Peter Keating, a man who represents collectivism in all its forms. Keating is a natural conformist whose architectural designs are all reproductions of past styles—like Renaissance, Gothic, or Beaux-Arts—and are based on whatever he thinks will win him more clients or public approval. He is constantly seeking validation from others and is dependent on them for his success. While Roark’s designs come from his own creative soul, Keating’s designs are simply a mirror of popular taste and client demands, but never anything original. While he initially finds success, by the end of the book Keating has become a shell of a man. The main antagonist of the book is a journalist, architecture critic, and political activist named Ellsworth Toohey. Toohey is a power-seeking intellectual and collectivist who uses his talents to shape public opinion. He organizes numerous groups and committees and uses people’s desire to help others (their altruism) as a means of control and mass manipulation. He wants to crush individuality (often in the form of Howard Roark) and promote collectivism, and what he ultimately gets for this endeavor is mediocrity. One of the other major themes in this book is the relationship between power and the media. This is first expressed in the character of Toohey as he uses his circulated writing in order to mold public opinion, and is then later encountered again when the character of Gail Wynand is introduced as one of the most powerful newspaper magnates in the city. At one point, Wynand tries to use his newspaper to uplift Roark and is nearly run out of business for it and must relent his efforts. The take-away from this is twofold: both the power of those in charge to manipulate public opinion, and the power of a collectivist mindset once an idea takes hold. All in all, this book is a philosophical novel that expertly expresses the struggle between creative independence and societal conformity. While Rand lands firmly on the side of the individual, I was very aware of points throughout the book when I did not. I won’t share specifics so as not to spoil the plot, but my take-away was not that we should all champion the creative rights and rationality of the individual and condemn those of the collective, but that a balance between the two is necessary. There are certainly times when individual creativity and ingenuity should be put on the front page of the newspaper and celebrated by the world, and also, there are times when we should all come together and adopt a hive mind. Take architecture: If I’m designing a new train station, perhaps I should be allowed to express my individual talents and make a one-of-a-kind train station that is beautiful and functional and unlike any other. Alternatively, if I’m designing a community of one hundred houses, perhaps I should model them after a community that has already been constructed elsewhere so as to keep costs down and make them affordable to families. I believe that whether we should adopt an individualist mindset or a collectivist one should depend on the context. With that as my own personal take-away, I must praise the prose of Rand’s writing: her book, while long, is exquisite. Her characters are well defined and not afraid to speak their minds and often said and did things that I did not expect. Her vivid descriptions of people, places, and things brought them to life in my mind. Her writing is engaging and full of ideas, and while I speculated that individualism would win out in the end (knowing the author’s philosophy ahead of time), at no point did I know what was going to happen next. I enjoyed this book wholeheartedly, both for the surface story and for the underlying philosophy.

For the review: The ability to read this book across devices is invaluable! I can read this book on my kindle, on my iPhone while waiting in line, on the PC on my desktop, and even listen to the audible version while I stand on a crowded subway. The WhisperSync feature is nearly perfect and the only glitch that occurs is when there is no coverage in the subway. This is a very enjoyable way to read books and the transition between reading and listening is so seamless that it begins to feel very natural. You can read a long book like this much more quickly this way. The novel is one of ideas, ways of looking at life, and a story of characters who live those ideals. Quotes: First, from the introduction: "This is the motive and purpose of my writing: the projection of an ideal man." "IT is a sense of enormous expectation, the sense that one's life is important, that great achievements are within one's capacity, and that great things lie ahead." "The Fountainhead's lasting appeal: it is a confirmation of the spirit of youth, proclaiming man's glory, showing how much is possible." "It does not matter that only a few in each generation will grasp and achieve the full reality of man's proper stature - and that the rest will betray it. It is those few that move the world and give life its meaning. The rest are no concern of mine, it is not me or The Fountainhead that they will betray: it is their own souls." First sentence: "Howard Roark laughed." "My dear follow, who will let you?" "That's not the point. The point is, who will stop me?" Roark: "I can find the joy only if I do my work in the best way possible to me. But the best is a matter of standards - and I set my own standards." "I don't propose to force or be forced. Those who want me will come to me." "You've made a mistake already. By asking me. By asking anyone. Never ask people. Not about your work. Don’t you know what you want? How can you stand it, not to know? How can you let others decide for you?" "One can't collaborate on one's own job. I can co-operate, with the workers who erect my buildings. But I can't help them to lay bricks and they can't help me to design the house." "I don't believe in government housing. I don't want to hear anything about its noble purposes. I don’t think they're noble." "The only thing that matters, my goal, my reward, my beginning, my end is the work itself. My work done my way." "When you suspend your faculty of independent judgement, you suspend consciousness." "Every form of happiness is private. Our greatest moments are personal, self-motivated, not to be touched. The things which are sacred or precious to us are the things we withdraw from promiscuous sharing." On Dominique Francon and her first relations with Roark: "the sensation of a defiling pleasure." "the exaggerated fragility of her body against the sky." "He stood looking up at her; it was not a glance, but an act of ownership." "She thought of being broken- not by a man she admired, but by a man she loathed. She let her head fall down on her arm; the thought left her weak with pleasure." "He did it not as love, but as defilement. And this made her lie still and submit." "The act of a master taking shameful, contemptuous possession of her was the kind of rapture she had wanted." "She had found joy in her revulsion, in her terror and his strength. That was the degradation she had wanted." "Through the fierce sense of humiliation, the words gave her the same kind of pleasure she had felt in his arms." "when they were in bed together it was - as it had to be, as the nature of the act demanded - an act of violence. It was surrender mad the more complete by the force of their resistance." She even wrote: "Howard Roark is the Marquis de Sade of Architecture." "He defeated her by admitting her power." "She felt no thrill of conquest; she felt herself owned more than ever." Roark's apartment: "His new home was one large room in a small, modern apartment house on a quiet street. His room contained a few pieces of simple furniture; it looked clean, vast and empty; one expected to hear echoes from its corners." Roark's office: "His staff loved him. They did not realize it and would have been shocked to apply such a term as love to their cold, unapproachable, inhuman boss. But working with him, they knew that he was none of these things, but they could not explain, neither what he was nor what they felt for him." "He responded only to the essence of a man: to his creative capacity. In this office one had to be competent. But if a man worked well, he needed nothing else to win his employer's benevolence: it was granted, not as a gift, but as a debt. It was granted, not as affection, but as recognition. It bred an immense feeling of self-respect within every man in that office." "They knew only, in a dim way, that it was not loyalty to him, but to the best within themselves." Ellsworth Toohey: "Reason can be fought with reason. How are you going to fight with the unreasonable?" "To write a good play and to have it praised is nothing. Anybody with talent can do that- and talent is a glandular accident. But to write a piece of crap and have it praised - will, you can't match that." Gail Wynand: "The man humbled his own wealth." "When I look at the ocean, I feel the greatness of man." "I would give the greatest sunset in the world for one sight of New York's skyline." "The sky over New York and the will of man, made visible. What other religion do we need? Is it beauty and genius they want to see? Do they seek a sense of the sublime? Let them come to New York, stand on the shore of the Hudson, look and kneel." "I never meet the men whose work I love. The work means too much to me. I don’t want the men to spoil it. They usually do. They're an anticlimax to their own talent." "Anger made me work harder." "The walls of Wynand's office were made of cork and copper paneling and had never borne any pictures."

There are writers. And then there’s Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand was a very unique individual; an individual that isn’t afraid to stand by her convictions, no matter what anyone said. That’s what made her so beloved and hated. Even more so, that’s why people were so bifurcated about her books. Knowing that, then it isn’t shocking to realize that The Fountainhead was written with her very own ideals embedded within every page, within every character, within every thought. In that sense, she is rather unique because not only did she create an amazing story, as many authors have, but she went a step beyond and used the book with the essence of her philosophy, which was, and will always be, a truly daring endeavor for any writer. The Fountainhead has been described in many ways, but at its core it is about The Individual vs. The Collective; about Freedom vs. Conformity. With characters that are gripping, settings that are par excellence, and dialogue that displays incredible depth, the book is a well rounded synthesis about the nature of individualism and what it means to be human. The leading characters all flow through their roles seamlessly, and whether you love them or hate them, you can feel the realism in them, even if at times they are the epitome of Rand’s ideal. Anyone who values individuality will value this book. Those that seek to conform will undoubtedly hate it. That’s the nature of the beast, and always will be. What Rand did though, perhaps better than anyone else, is show both sides of the coin – Individualism vs. Conformity – in a manner that nobody else had brought about through fiction. This is why the book is so engaging, because you hate the villains as much as you love the characters you gravitate towards. It is rare when a book has you personally invested in nigh every character failing or succeeding, but this book accomplishes that in spades. Ayn Ran went to war for the Individual against The Collective in a torrential manner in a way almost nobody does. Through her characters, Rand did a salient job of showing the wide range of latitudes within human nature. All of this was, of course, was to highlight the importance of Individualism. As Rand herself elucidates in the following passages, the last of the three which is in her own words, the prior two through her characters: “Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, their vision unborrowed, and the response they received – hatred. The great creators – the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors – stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great ne invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won.”[1] “From this simplest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from a single attribute of man – the function of his reasoning mind.”[2] “And for the benefit of those who consider relevance to one’s own time as of crucial importance, I will add, in regard to our age, that never has there been a time when men have so desperately needed a projection of things as they ought to be.”[3] Rand stated those words decades ago, and they apply even more so now. Given that humanity keeps snowballing down a hill in a world where morality, common sense and virtues keep getting swept under the rug, such statements and their ramifications should be pondered at length. Whether you love the book or you hate it, it will give you much to ponder about, especially if you value Freedom and Individuality in any way shape or form. __________________________________________________________ Sources: [1] Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead, p. 710. [2] Ibid., p. 711. [3] Ibid., p. vii. Written in the Author’s Introduction to the 1968 Edition.

Well, I have to say that I was expecting more philosophizing and less drama here. But in the end, The Fountainhead is a drama. A drama with a message, but a drama nonetheless. This drama features characters unlike any I've ever met before, so I'm not sure that such personalities exist here in the real world. Perhaps the characters are meant to represent hypothetical extremes of pesonalities. But characters that I cannot relate to unfortunately make the message more difficult to relate to as well. Because it's a drama, the ~700 pages actually read fairly quickly. The language and style are quite pedestrian; a 5th grader should be able to get through the novel quite easily though the "message" would likely not be fully appreciated by one so young. The story is gripping and becomes a struggle of good against evil. Good is represented by the egoists, evil by the mundane and mediocre whose agenda is to stifle genius and promote collectivism. A bizarre love story is intertwined through the greater plot. The novel is set in early 20th century New York, which was the most modern city in the world at the time, so even now in the 21st century there's nothing really outdated about it. And the New York setting lends greater dynamism and pace to the plot. This is not, as you may often hear, a story about the field of architecture. It just so happens that the main characters work in that field, but the story (and message) could have been nearly the same if written about any other field. In fact, when reading the many architectural discussions throughout the book it became painfully obvious to me that Rand did not have an architectural background, and I'm not even an architect. Some of those discussions should have been omitted as they didn't really add value to the story or the message. The message seems to basically be that only people with great ambition for personal success or perfection generally advance technology or the arts and thereby our standard of living. By nurturing such "egoists" and not obstructing their way, we allow the fruits of their work to be integrated into our culture, and this ultimately betters society as a whole. The implication is that humanity would be much farther along after, say, 500 years of nurturing egoism than after 500 years of stifling it. It's a compelling theory and I will not speculate on the long-term benefits to society, but I seem to see an obvious and major downside to the theory: Because an egoist could easily be a power hungry madman with no good intentions, short-term trauma on a massive scale could be a possible outcome. Is theoretically faster progress worth that pain? I don't think it's as simple as Rand makes it out to be. Throughout history, egoists have arguably led the advance of technology and the arts. However, they have also started wars resulting in appalling levels of bloodshed, sponsored attempts at genocide, stolen peoples' retirement nest eggs through corporate crime & scandal, etc. The problem is, egoism does not necessarily connote genius and good intentions. Egoism could just as easily come with cunning and a thirst for money & power without regard for who is injured as a consequence. A good read. I would not call it brilliant as many have. In fact I did not find it particularly well written from the standpoint of style. However, I can see that if the message were to ring true for someone then the book could be seen as brilliant.

Whether you agree with the ideas Rand presents or think she is one with the devil, "The Fountainhead" is a powerful and moving book that I highly recommend. Although it is long, it is very tightly written. There are no unnecessary scenes, no irrelevant characters and no ad nauseum descriptions of sunsets and waterfalls. There are several reasons I love this book, none having to do with the controversial philosophies of the author. The first is the amazing characterization. There were several people in the book that could have been drawn directly from people in my life: the social worker who works more out of self-righteousness than pure altruism, the over-blown academic who can read meaning and symbolism in tripe, the professional who cares more about where his work takes him than the quality of the work itself. Rand doesn't draw these as flat characters. Instead we actually see their flaws and motivations in all their beauty and terror. I also love the idealism of Roark. Several previous reviews have termed him "egotistical" with a "superiority complex", but that isn't how I see him at all. Would a professional who meets those descriptions lower himself to working as a common laborer at a quarry? Roark doesn't care if his work is good or not, let alone that it is superior. All that matters is that it pleases him. He might work a menial job, but he wouldn't debase himself to produce anything but the kind of art that pleases him, whatever anyone else says about its quality. The insight of the book into the power of the press and the country's growing socialization is another drawing point. I crack up whenever I read the Banner's editorial on parenthood in modern times. It describes how parents need to be just as loving toward and concerned about other children as they are of their own. It reads remarkably like Hillary Clinton's "It Takes a Village". In an age where talentless performers are at the top of the chart because of the right buzz, I can understand the idea that he who controls the media, controls the tastes of the masses. A common criticism of "The Fountainhead" is the rape of Dominique by the hero. Like so much of the book, it is not something that can be understood if you only view it in a vacuum. Roark and Dominique have an almost transcendental bond. Throughout the book they start in the middle of conversations and understand each other as if they were one. Their violent first sexual encounter is not indicative of Roark's character or of their relationship. There are some simplistic parts of the book: all capitalists are good, all socialists are bad, wanting to help people and do good is described as an excuse, not a noble motive. Still, there is so much good in this beautiful book that I consider it one that everyone should read.

A great read

I have read this brilliant novel twice and will certainly read it again, and probably again. The story and the characters are captivating from the first page to the last. Some of Rand's political and psychological concepts are difficult to comprehend at times, but when they are clear it is like clouds parting and the sun shining on our current world. How could she know so many years ago what America would become, unless our demise has been pre planned and we are dutifully acting out our suicidal empathy. This book is for anyone who enjoys creative and creatively descriptive writing, psychology, the psychology of religion, the process of creative people, and hot love stories.

I've read "Atlas Shrugged" years ago. It was a novel that changed my life. While I never subscribed 100% to objectivism, it opened my eyes, especially to philosophy. I won't go into a pro / against debate against the philosophy in this book because it is highly misunderstood. It is like going against religion. The book itself deserves five stars. I've noticed patterns and even complete lines that were later found in Atlas Shrugged but it is an amazing worship to the human individualism and might. If someone asked me what this book is about, I might answer "why, you and I, the humans, are great". Howard Roark is an amazing character, far better than Francisco D'Anconia, John Galt or Henry Rearden. It feels like someone you can identify with and it is impossible not to love. On the other side, Toohey was the best defined villan in the industry of literature. By the end of the book you hate his guts and you want him to die a slow and painful death. The only "problem" with this book is that there is no real completion. There is no real happy ending. There is only a bitter sweet conclusion. You wish it could go 200 pages more so the fate of one character in special would change. Compared to Atlas Shrugged where these is a finality to everything as everyone either dies, goes insane or simply loses, here it feels like it is missing an act. The most representative example is Wynand. The good guy gone bad gone good who in some way you feel pity for. In the movie he committed suicide. In the book he doesn't. And by the end of the book, my only concern was with him. You know how in some books one person sacrifices himself all for the right reason? You know how in others one person betrays for all the right reasons? Now combine these two and you will have a tragic character, one that you love and want to hate but you can't. In any case, that's beside the point of this review. If you consider the human animal is insignificant in front of a god or nature, if you consider that people are equal because of their existence and not competence, if you consider that need comes before competence and that ego is a bad thing, that pride is evil, then DO NOT read this book. It will just annoy you. This is a book for those who love themselves, who love the best in human nature and who want to celebrate this. It is the American Dream.

Uma obra prima.

El libro no es de fácil lectura, algunos personajes son complicados, pero este antagonismos lo que le da esencia al libro y la profundidad de los diálogos y monólogos de y entre los personajes llevan al lector a comprender la filosofía del Individualismo y su valor Vs su antagónico Colectivismo

「面白かった」「勉強になった」「この本と出会えて良かった」「また読み直したい」という本は、そこそこあります。「こんな本ともっと早くに出会えていたら自分の人生は変わっていたかもしれない」とまで思わせる本は少ないです。この小説はそんな小説です。日本語訳が出ているかも知れないけれど、確か、原書が出版されてからずいぶん遅れてのことだったような記憶があります。主人公の男（女）の生き方が、日本ではなかなか受け入れられないのだろうと思います。

I first read this book at 18 (to enter an essay for a scholarship - which I didn't win) and was captivated by the story (even though I disagreed with much of Rand's personal philosophy - and still do). This book should make you think about yourself and what sort of person you are and what sort of person you want to be (whether that's someone Rand would have approved of or not is irrelevant). If you keep in mind that the author was a person who naturally valued autonomy, who was born and raised in communist Russia where she wasn't allowed to be who she wanted to be, where the State controlled every aspect of her life (under the real threat of death) you can understand why she advocated so strongly for the individual self. But that's not why I love this book! In my copy I have this excerpt underlined (page 633) (Roark and Gail are talking) Gail asks, "What have you been thinking about, these past weeks?" "The principle behind the dean who fired me from Stanton." "What principle?" "The thing that is destroying the world. The thing you were talking about. Actual selflessness." "The ideal which they say does not exist?" "They're wrong. It does exist - though not in the way they imagine. It's what I couldn't understand about people for a long time. They have no self. They live within others. They live second-hand. Look at Peter Keating." "You look at him. I hate his guts." "I've looked at him - at what's left of him - and it's helped me to understand. He's paying the price and wondering for what sin and telling himself that he's been too selfish. In what act or thought of his has there been any self? What was his aim in life? Greatness - in other people's eyes. Fame, admiration, envy - all that which comes from others. Others dictated his convictions, which he did not hold, but he was satisfied that others believed he held them. Others were his motive power and his prime concern. He didn't want to be great, but to be thought great. He didn't want to build, but to be admired as a builder. He borrowed from others in order to make an impression on others. There's your actual selflessness. It's his ego he's betrayed and given up. But everybody calls him selfish." "That's the pattern most people follow." "Yes! And isn't that the root of every despicable action? Not selfishness, but the absence of a self." That sums up the world we live in. Clambering hordes running to stand on a stage and be the next big this or that...hordes of people, most of who don't know themselves. People devoid of self awareness, or understanding of what they are or are not good at. People who want to be "A Star!" as if being famous for being famous was some sort of pinnacle of accomplishment. We're living in a Narcissistic age with millions of people all wearing masks pretending to be what they think people want them to be so that others will think they're special because deep down the mask wearers don't feel special and have no intention of putting in the effort to develop themselves until they become something special. For me, The Fountainhead encourages us to tear off the mask, look in the mirror and be whoever that may be. The world doesn't need a million clones of this singer or that actor. It needs individuals who will put in the hours, blood, sweat and tears to become the best they can be as individuals so they can then help build a better society by doing what they do well.

This book is really long, very provoking. Highly recommended