The Fountainhead

... Show More
The revolutionary literary vision that sowed the seeds of Objectivism, Ayn Rand's groundbreaking philosophy, and brought her immediate worldwide acclaim.

This modern classic is the story of intransigent young architect Howard Roark, whose integrity was as unyielding as granite...of Dominique Francon, the exquisitely beautiful woman who loved Roark passionately, but married his worst enemy...and of the fanatic denunciation unleashed by an enraged society against a great creator. As fresh today as it was then, Rand’s provocative novel presents one of the most challenging ideas in all of fiction—that man’s ego is the fountainhead of human progress...

“A writer of great power. She has a subtle and ingenious mind and the capacity of writing brilliantly, beautifully, bitterly...This is the only novel of ideas written by an American woman that I can recall.”—The New York Times

704 pages, Mass Market Paperback

First published April 15,1943

This edition

Format
704 pages, Mass Market Paperback
Published
September 1, 1996 by Signet Book
ISBN
ASIN
Language
English
Characters More characters
  • Howard Roark

    Howard Roark

    Rands stated goal in writing fiction was to portray her vision of an ideal man. The character of Howard Roark, the protagonist of The Fountainhead, was the first instance where she believed she had achieved this. Roark embodies Rands egoistic ...

  • Peter Keating

    Peter Keating

    In contrast to the individualistic Roark, Peter Keating is a conformist who bases his choices on what others want. Introduced to the reader as Roarks classmate in architecture school, two years ahead of him, Keating does not really want to be an arc...

  • Ellsworth Toohey

    Ellsworth Toohey

    Ellsworth Monkton Toohey is Roarks antagonist. He is Rands personification of evil—the most active and self-aware villain in any of her novels. Toohey is a socialist, and represents the spirit of collectivism more generally. He styles himself ...

  • Dominique Francon

About the author

... Show More
Polemical novels, such as The Fountainhead (1943), of primarily known Russian-American writer Ayn Rand, originally Alisa Rosenbaum, espouse the doctrines of objectivism and political libertarianism.

Fiction of this better author and philosopher developed a system that she named. Educated, she moved to the United States in 1926. After two early initially duds and two Broadway plays, Rand achieved fame. In 1957, she published Atlas Shrugged, her best-selling work.

Rand advocated reason and rejected faith and religion. She supported rational and ethical egoism as opposed to altruism. She condemned the immoral initiation of force and supported laissez-faire capitalism, which she defined as the system, based on recognizing individual rights, including private property. Often associated with the modern movement in the United States, Rand opposed and viewed anarchism. In art, she promoted romantic realism. She sharply criticized most philosophers and their traditions with few exceptions.

Books of Rand sold more than 37 million copies. From literary critics, her fiction received mixed reviews with more negative reviews for her later work. Afterward, she turned to nonfiction to promote her philosophy, published her own periodicals, and released several collections of essays until her death in 1982.

After her death, her ideas interested academics, but philosophers generally ignored or rejected her and argued that her approach and work lack methodological rigor. She influenced some right conservatives. The movement circulates her ideas to the public and in academic settings.

Community Reviews

Rating(4 / 5.0, 99 votes)
5 stars
35(35%)
4 stars
32(32%)
3 stars
32(32%)
2 stars
0(0%)
1 stars
0(0%)
99 reviews All reviews
April 16,2025
... Show More
"El ego del hombre es el manantial del progreso humano"

Novela superlativa escrita hacia 1943 que solamente pudo haber sido concebida por una mente muy brillante y escrita por una pluma privilegiada, ambas se dan cita en la persona de Ayn Rand, nacida Alisa Zinóvievna Rosenbaum en San Petersburgo en 1905 y fallecida en Nueva York en 1982.

Obra de largo aliento que con una gran vitalidad nos conduce a través del mundo de la arquitectura en la ciudad de Nueva York de los años 20 y 30 del pasado siglo. Nos describe edificios, casas, planeación de espacios, rascacielos, diseños artísticos, planos e integridad artística que sirven como telón de fondo para narrarnos las andanzas y posturas vitales de sus extraordinarios personajes que, mención aparte, nos pueden causar admiración o aversión.
La disciplina de la arquitectura, elevada como una de las Bellas Artes, es el campo en donde batalla el egoísmo contra el altruismo; el individualismo, motivado por un desapego a las convenciones sociales, contra el colectivismo y contra la integración a una sociedad que no a todos complace.

La novela posee cierto contenido filosófico o ideológico y tal vez especulativo. La ideología aquí desplegada parece no gustar a muchos por su tendencia hacia el individualismo y hacia el egoísmo, pero me parece que no habla del egoísmo como usualmente se entiende. A pesar de moverse constantemente sobre su teoría filosófica del objetivismo, esta larga novela es ágil y no nos plantea muchas complicaciones, manteniendo el ritmo narrativo a través de todo lo largo y ancho de ella, para lo cual se vale de una trama estimulante, planteamientos y reflexiones sumamente interesantes, ricas descripciones, diálogos exuberantes y una buena ambientación de Nueva York. La creación de personajes merece una mención especial, me parecen muy bien estructurados y a la vez un tanto complejos debido a las posturas trascendentales que la autora les sabe infundir a cada uno de ellos.

El libro se divide en cuatro grandes capítulos, cada uno de ellos lleva el nombre de uno de los protagonistas principales. Estos personajes llevan sobre sus hombros una parte importante de la filosofía de la autora, pudiendo ser la tesis o la antítesis:
Peter Keating, brillante arquitecto quien se vale de su profesión para conseguir todo aquello que las aplastantes fuerzas de la sociedad ven como encomiable: dinero, admiración, poder, popularidad, fama, posición social. Conseguir la grandeza pero a ojos de los demás. En una palabra, vivir sin remilgos para lo que la sociedad nos ha impuesto a través de los años. Vivir a través de los demás y no para uno mismo.
Ellsworth Toohey, crítico de arquitectura y arte, escritor, orador, activista, intelectual influyente en los círculos culturales y sobre todo en el mundo de la arquitectura. Un personaje que apoya y cree con fervor en el colectivismo y por el contrario es un detractor del individualismo. Está a favor del acto de pensar juntos, actuar juntos, sentir juntos y luego servir juntos a la colectividad.
Gail Wynand, una rata de muelle en los inicios de su vida y que llega a ser un capitalista exitoso que llega a acumular un gran poder. Logra llegar a la cima de una de la sociedad fatua, fundada en valores frívolos.
Howard Roark, arquitecto visionario, un hombre íntegro; con él estamos frente a una especie de un superhombre entendido en los términos que anheló Friedrich Nietzsche. Ese ser idealista de gran fuerza e independencia, en cierto sentido diferente y superior al resto de los hombres. Un ser heroico “que se asume como destino” y quien es sometido a un juicio que puede interpretarse como un símil del juicio que la sociedad les tiene reservado a todos los hombres diferentes, a aquellos que se mueven fuera de la abrumadora corriente social, a los insumisos y pioneros. Este personaje representa las fuerzas del egoísmo y del individualismo antisocial.

También se presentan una gran cantidad de personajes adicionales, destacando una mujer llamada Dominique Francon que funciona como bisagra entre muchos de ellos, especialmente entre los principales y sobre los cuales ejerce su influencia.

Independientemente de las posturas ideológicas de la autora y de la forma en que se han utilizado para diversos fines políticos o ideológicos, la novela por sí misma es una gran obra tan sólo por su desarrollo narrativo, sus brillantes postulados, sus personajes, su inteligencia.

Cada personaje tiene su propia visión del mundo y su muy peculiar forma de abordarlo y de relacionarse con él. Esto es ejemplificado mediante diversas tesis e interrogantes como por ejemplo:

El egoísmo como una autoafirmación de nuestro yo más auténtico, dejando de lado las expectativas y los valores que la sociedad nos ha inoculado.

Muchas veces, por no decir siempre, el altruismo está movido por resortes como la propia satisfacción. El efectuar una donación nos hace sentir bien, alimenta nuestro ego. ¿Es más noble el acto de donar o bien buscar el respeto a nosotros mismos basado en estándares personales sobre nuestros propios logros?

¿Es más importante buscar la estima de los demás o nuestra propia autoestima?

El dar nos hace sentirnos bien, pero es más importante el sentido de logro. ¿Dar o lograr?

¿Nuestros mejores momentos tienen que ser compartidos con los demás o pueden ser sólo personales?

¿El auto sacrificio es la máxima virtud? ¿Puede un hombre sacrificar su integridad, su honor, su libertad, su ideal, la independencia de su pensamiento, sus convicciones? Es precisamente el yo lo que no puede sacrificarse.

Una novela redonda y provocadora que invita a una profunda reflexión sobre nuestro actuar ante la sociedad y ante nosotros mismos, en donde fluye como un indomable río subterráneo la idea de que el espíritu del hombre es su ego.
April 16,2025
... Show More
Whohooo! Ein irres Buch. Das nenne ich mal einen dynamischen, aufregenden Plot. Komplexe, ausgefeilte Charaktere. Irre gute, intensive Dialoge und Interaktionen.

Logisch ist das drüber. Da sind Ansprachen und Monologe drin, die einem die Ohren klingeln lassen.
Alles wurscht, da es konsequent und stringent gearbeitet ist. Die Figurenpsychologie wackelt an keiner Stelle. Das Ding treibt gnadenlos auf die Konsequenzen der Handlungen zu.
Ein radikaler Spaß!


Ich habe es als Hörbuch gehört. Werde es demnächst nochmal lesen und dann gibts ne gescheite Besprechung. Mal sehen ob die 5 Sterne sich halten können.
April 16,2025
... Show More
I have read Atlas Shrugged and now this one. I did not like this one and my opinion is similar to Atlas Shrugged. The book started out decent with a architect student being individualistic and wanting to do his own thing. The opener was good in my opinion, but then monotonous writing on top of a dull plot left me disappointed.

The book was dry, too long, and over-the-top in attempts to sell the 'objectivism' concept. I read Atlas Shrugged and did not like it either. This is my last Ayn Rand adventure. Over reviews spoke highly of it but I felt it missed that mark for me. Thanks!
April 16,2025
... Show More
I once broke up with someone because she was an ardent follower of Ayn Rand. it just started bothering me more and more, and I started seeing the taint of Objectivism in so many of her comments. mind you, this was in college when i was much more obnoxiously political.

after we broke up, she turned around and started dating my roommate... sweet revenge, and a fitting response from an Objectivist.
April 16,2025
... Show More
Looking at the aesthetic ideals in this book (steel! granite! muscular men!) and the concepts depicted as positive (heroism! strength!), I am pretty sure Leni Riefenstahl was the ghostwriter for this one - incidentally, finishing it was clearly a “triumph of the will” on my part. :-)

Nevertheless, I don’t regret reading it, as I was trying to grasp what it is that fascinates some currently important American politicians about Ayn Rand. Holy crap, the amount of BS you can justify by sticking to the logic of this book! People who hold a different opinion than you? Well, they`re all brain-washed communists, stick to what you believe to be true, never change your mind throughout the course of your whole life and just ignore everyone! Helping others? Only weak push-overs or evil manipulators do that, just despise those ignorant masses for their bad taste! Oh, and by the way: The stupid and narrow-minded are also physically ugly, so it`s easy to recognize them!

Whoever buys into this crudely assembled caricature of a philosophy called “Objectivism” is clearly not running the risk to be mistaken as a particularly sharp thinker (or as objective, for that matter). While Ayn Rand depicts some flaws, trials and tribulations that certainly do exist, her answers to those challenges are outright ridiculous. Just because you should take responsibility for your actions and use your own brain (who would disagree with that), you don`t have to give up on self-criticism, solidarity and empathy – on the contrary.

As some Ayn Rand-fans are currently trying to make authoritarianism and hatred great again, it remains fascinating, mysterious and downright scary how obviously flawed ideologies like Objectivism can affect international politics.
April 16,2025
... Show More
I recall that most people read Ayn Rand in high school, which is the ideal time to embrace protagonists who refuse to compromise their originality and are assaulted on all sides for their greatness. Having skipped several grades in public school I missed some of these formative books so I'm reading them as an adult. More than 50 years have passed in architecture, capitalism, and the glorification of the mediocre, since Rand wrote The Fountainhead, which is why its philosophies are more suited for the high school mind than the adult reader. Her characters aren't human, they are symbols to illustrate her early philosophy. Howard Roarke, her hero and übermensch, is a man who cannot exist in real life. He is perfect, and his enemies try and destroy him because he is perfect. What we know of 50 years of capitalism and architecture is that style means nothing, whether modern, classic, brutalist, original, or stolen. Buildings are erected by faceless corporations, or by eccentric wealthy. There is enough room and real estate for both the Keatings and the Roarkes, and the Ellsworth Twoheys of the world don't mean a thing. Sad, really, because Twohey is a villain truly worth hating - the blowhard intellectual ass who seeks to destroy originality by elevating the mediocre and placing the good of others above the good of self so he may rule the plebes. Rand's notion that altruism is basically evil communism (embodied in Twohey) is amusing, because her model of success relies on everyone being rich (or having rich benefactors). My goodness - if only everyone were rich we'd all be happy! It's no wonder than Alan Greenspan was all crushed out on the woman. I'll admit at times I wished that Twohey would meet a horrible end - to have his hands cut off, his tongue cut out, so he would be forced to witness Roarke's triumphs and be powerless to do anything but watch without comment. But Rand's novel isn't plotted that way - nothing really happens other than ideas battling one another. There are no consequences to anyone's actions. And it is for that reason that The Fountainhead reads more like a television show; characters that do not change, who occupy the same sets, encircling one another and talking about themselves. That's what makes it a mediocre novel - Rand's place in history is now better suited to television - and I'm talking Oxygen, Lifetime, or Hallmark channel.
April 16,2025
... Show More
2.5/5

Ayn Rand sako, kad jos tikslas Šaltinyje buvo pristatyti idealų žmogų. Tačiau tam reikia idealių sąlygų, idealiai sukuriamų, į vieną idealų katilą sumetant daug idealių aplinkybių. Ar iš to gaunasi idealus romanas? Vargu. Nors jame autorė švenčia individualizmą ir savarankiškumą, nors aukština žmones, kurie visomis aplinkybėmis plaukia prieš srovę, galiausiai lieki persisotinęs ir pavargęs, išsunktas idėjų gausos, pateiktos intelektualiai ir talentingai, bet visgi vietomis primenančios protingą filosofijos pirmakursį, žinantį keletą teorijų ir bandantį jas pritempti prie kiekvienos situacijos, kiekvieno žmogaus, kiekvieno gyvenimiškos patirties. O jei netinka, belieka tik viską pakeisti į idealią situaciją, idealų žmogų ir idealią patirtį. Bet ar tai tampa idealiu gyvenimo atspindžiu?

Knyga tokia stora, bet talpina savyje ne tiek daug, kaip būtų galima pagalvoti. Čia daug vidinės virtuvės – architektūros, žiniasklaidos, o svarbiausia – daug, kartais nepakeliamai daug kalbėjimosi apie darbą. Visur, visada, su visais. Vietomis Šaltinis ima priminti nejaukų kolegų teambuildingą bare: ėėė, chebra, bet davai nekalbam apie darbą, ką? Tačiau po trečios nejaukios pauzės paaiškėja, kad turint bendrą temą, iš jos reikia išsunkti kiekvieną lašą. Ir o dangau, kaip Rand sunkia. Iš dažnai per patogiai sukurtų veikėjų, o ir pačių skaitytojų, kurdama charakterius įtraukiančiai ir įdomiai, tačiau visgi realistiškai tik pagal savo pačios idealistinį suvokimą. O žvelgiant iš Žemės – vietomis tingiai, vietomis nejautriai net ir tuometiniame kontekste, o kartais realybės pervertimą naudojant kaip pateisinimą tam, kad kai kurie sprendimai įprastomis sąlygomis atrodytų nepateisinami ir sunaikinantys bet kokią galimą simpatiją ne tik veikėjams, bet ir tai, kuri jiems davė balsą. Ir balsas paskirstytas čia taip šiek tiek tingiai – keli vyriškiai ir viena per visų jų gyvenimus pereinanti moteris Dominika. Tikriausiai ypatinga ir išrinktoji, ar bent jau turėtų tokia atrodyti, bet iš tiesų veikiau plastilinas autorės rankose – perminkoma priklausomai nuo vyro, kuriam tame skyriuje yra įduodama į (ne)maloningas rankas, keičianti veidus ir balsus taip, kaip autorei ar vyrams būtų patogiau. O jos požiūris į gyvenimą, pradžioje galėjęs sužavėti nenuspėjamu išskirtinumu, visgi galiausiai pradeda erzinti, ypač suvokus, kad nenuspėjamumas – tik pretekstas Dominiką pritaikyti prie idealių aplinkybių tam, kad galėtų egzistuoti idealūs veikėjai. Nu, ta prasme, vyrai.

Tiesą sakant, bene vienintelės moters portretas puikiai atspindi ir mano santykį su Šaltiniu. Pradžioje susidomėjimas ir intriga, kurstoma Rand anarchijos ir naujovių vėjų, vėliau išgaruoja stebint pačios knygos išsigimimą – autorė tiek kartojasi, nors kalba apie naujoves, originalumą ir modernumą, tiek perminko tas pačias mintis, jas įduodama vis kitiems veikėjams, kad galiausiai tai, kas pradžioje džiugino, ima slėgti ir varginti, o nepakeliamas knygos nuspėjamumas nepalieka jokių prošvaisčių savęs motyvacijoje skaityti toliau. Ir nors turiu pripažinti, kad knyga vis pagaudavo mane iš naujo, tai tik todėl, kad sąmoningai bandžiau bent už kažko užkibti, kad kelionę atlaikyčiau iki pat galo. Atlaikiau. Bet kuo dažniau užsiraunu ant daugžodžiaujančių autorių, tuo labiau imu vertinti juos galinčius sutramdyti redaktorius.
April 16,2025
... Show More
The Fountainhead is a tale of both defeat and triumph. It is depressing and exalting, inviting and repugnant. And its philosophy, like all great lies, is more than three-quarters true.

In this lengthy novel, Ayn Rand presents her ideal man and her philosophy of objectivism. The philosophy rejects mercy, altruism, charity, sacrifice, and service. These proclaimed virtues are portrayed as either weaknesses or as tools of subjugation. Her philosophy is a sort of extreme capitalism applied to every aspect of life; as with Adam Smith’s invisible hand, if men pursue their own selfish interests, mankind will ultimately benefit. Altruism, Rand argues, forces men to keep others subservient, so that they may make themselves righteous; it has been the root of the greatest evils in the world (Communism, Nazism, etc.); but egoism has resulted in creations that have alleviated the sufferings of man for generations to come.

Her philosophy is most succinctly expressed by her architect hero Howard Roark, who says, “All that which proceeds form man’s independent ego is good. All that which proceeds from man’s dependence upon men is evil.” Rand's philosophy stands in stark contrast to the collectivism which was then sweeping the world in an ocean of blood. Collectivism "has reached,” says Roark, “a scale of horror without precedent. It has poisoned every mind. It has swallowed most of Europe. It is engulfing our country.”

Roark aruges that “only by living for himself” can man “achieve the things which are the glory of mankind” and that “no man can live for another . . . The man who attempts to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves.” And yet Roark is himself the quintessential intellectual, who shares the same failing of the intellectuals who created Communism, Nazism, and the other “altruistic evils”; that is, he is capable of loving man in the abstract but incapable of loving him in the particular: “One can’t love man without hating most of the creatures who pretend to bear his name.”

The Fountainhead expresses an individualism that is uniquely American, and it is therefore surprising that The Fountainhead, as far as I know, has never been in the running for the title of “The Great American Novel.” Of course, although it emphasizes that individualism has made our nation great (and it has), it must of necessity ignore and dismisses another progressive force in our nation’s history: American Christianity.

So what about the story? Despite the copious philosophical dialogue, the story is not sacrificed to create an ethical treatise. The characters are fascinating, very well-developed, and the story is at times gripping. However, the relationship between our hero and heroine is never fully convincing to me, and I find it highly disturbing that Rand felt it necessary to make rape an essential and even positive element of their union. The story drew me in at first, and then began to lose me for several chapters, as Rand breaks one of the rules of good structure and does not begin developing a main character until over half way through the novel.

I give it such a high rating because I like novels that truly make me think and reconsider my assumptions, whether I maintain or reject them as a consquence. I am glad I did not read Rand when I was a teenager and not yet a Christian, as I'm afraid her Objectivism might have taken a cultish hold of me; she has a way of speaking to (and perhaps luring?) the independent-minded student who feels the pressure of intellectual conformity. I give it four stars also because I read it at a time when I found fiction difficult, and it brought back my love of reading.
Leave a Review
You must be logged in to rate and post a review. Register an account to get started.