As literature, I found the book dry, predictable, and overwrought. As philosophy, I found it circular, wholly unfounded, and completely contradicting reality.

This book is like a net set for unsuspecting minds. It breaches their defenses with a twisted logic, attempting to preclude any conclusions but the ones it sets forth.

Of course, it follows a natural flow from the author's assumptions: power, will, and self-determinism are the foundations of all life. Nothing matters, except that you do what you want. Only if you violate your own integrity are you doing wrong; and yet, this violation is quite easy: it involves believing anything contradictory to those first three assumptions.

If you believe this tripe, then you've probably already found a more intelligent and articulate champion for these values. In that case, I'd encourage you to read those authors instead, but ultimately come to the (correct) conclusion that the three aforementioned assumptions are a load of bullshit. If you don't believe this stuff, don't waste your time on this book.

Ever read a book that changed your life as a kid, I mean totally reconfigured your perceptions of life and how it should be lived? Yeah, me too. This was one of those books for me. It blew me away as a kid. My hero was Roark and his rugged individualism and integrity. Upon rereading this 50th anniversary hardback edition as an adult, I was appalled at this amoral tale. Roark is a sociopathic monster whose integrity is blind and callous. The Objectivism that Rand uses to undergird this story seems to find ethics of communities, or how we should act towards each other, repugnant. Every character is a simple caricature of one facet of a human, there is no moral ambiguity or ambivalence in anybody. Everybody here is an absolute, and because of that, an absolute failure. She attempts to soften these granite facades with a love story, but Rand turns out to be inept at that too. Sure Roark has impeccable aesthetic taste, but if it isn't in service to bettering your life or your fellow man's (preferably both), then it's just an exercise in solipsistic torture. And the whole manifesto masquerading as a serious novel gave me eyeball sprain from all of the rolling it did. This book is probably dangerous for naive minds and too naive for adult minds.

3.5/5
"This is the way I'd like to die, stretched out on some shore like this, just close my eyes and never come back."
I didn't know what to expect from this book other than a cheesy love story that I had no interest in. The book starts off interesting with the introduction of Roark and Keating - two completely different men in the architecture industry. I lost a lot of interest towards the middle of book and found myself skimming the pages and missing the message, but it eventually picked back up for the last 100-150 pages. I don't necessarily agree with Objectivism, because it simply wouldn't work in a country like mine (USA), but it's interesting to read about this "new" philosophy.

It is so difficult to review Ayn Rand books, and in general, it is hard to review books that you excessively admire. I don't possess enough words to explain how much I love this book and what feelings it makes me have. The Fountainhead is a masterpiece. Ayn Rand is again presenting her ideology and philosophy coated in a novel. While the ideology is the same as in Atlas Shrugged (well of course, how many ideologies can a person have?), it is a different and amplifying book because the approach is different.

Will need to get back and elaborate more, but until then let's put this here:

"I've chosen the work I want to do. If I find no joy in it, then I'm only condemning myself to sixty years of torture. And I can find 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 inherit nothing. I stand at the end of no tradition. I may, perhaps, stand at the beginning of one."

"Listen to what is being preached today. Look at everyone around us. You've wondered why they suffer, why they seek happiness and never find it. If any man stopped and asked himself whether he's ever held a truly personal desire, he'd find the answer. He'd see that all his wishes, his efforts, his dreams, his ambitions are motivated by other men. He's not really struggling even for material wealth, but for the second-hander's delusion - prestige. A stamp of approval, not his own. He can find no joy in the struggle and no joy when he has succeeded. He can't say about a single thing: 'This is what I wanted because I wanted it, not because it made my neighbors gape at me'. Then he wonders why he's unhappy."

"Have you felt it too? Have you seen how your best friends love everything about you- except the things that count? And your most important is nothing to them; nothing, not even a sound they can recognize."

Overall, this is not only great fiction, but Rand also has some great ideas which are presented with an uncanny amount of clarity.

The architectural profession serves as the backdrop for the story. The story itself is quite interesting; either Rand did a great deal of research or she did a good job faking it. I maintained a complete disinterest in architecture before reading the book, but still found myself actively engaged while Rand discussed the matter. I wonder how many young readers are steered towards the profession after reading this book for the first time.

With the exceptions of a few monologues that went on a bit too long, the story kept me engaged for the entire 700 pages. The characters are well developed; I found myself attached to some while despising others. There is adequate conflict to keep the plot moving.

While I understood the motivations of the actions carried out by Dominique and Roark, the actions themselves bordered on the edge of the extreme. At various times in the book, both engage in acts of violence and destruction which don't seem completely rational. These issues aside, it's a very well written book.

As to the philosophy.....

Rand's message is fairly clear. She doesn't abstract the message at all. In fact, she grinds it in as thoroughly and as clearly as she can.

The book provides us with Howard Roark as Rand's idea of an ideal man. He never falters in his convictions. He remains completely independent and relies on nobody. His only interest is to his work; to the manifestation of his creative genius. He doesn't care what others think - he only cares about his own productive achievements. He is an egotist - a term which carries a positive connotation in her book. She argues that it's the egotistical desire of man that build great civilizations.

“All that which proceeds from man’s independent ego is good. All that which proceeds from man’s dependence upon men is evil.”

The book is full of weaker people like Peter Keating. Keating lives through the thoughts and feelings of others. He is completely dependent upon others to justify his existence. Through Roark and Keating, Rand asserts that dependence upon other men is evil in nature. Keating lives not for himself, but for others. Rand has a title for such people - second handers. He can't do what he desires, as he is constantly worried about how others think of him.

In a world where self-interest is ideal, acts of altruism are counterproductive and should be despised. At first I was lost on this point, as it didn't seem to me that altruism was necessarily all bad. I see no problem with people giving of themselves to people they love. I also don't see a problem with my donating money to various charitable endeavors. After reading The Fountainhead, I now see that such acts are not altruism.

Altruism is the unselfish concern for the welfare of others - a state of complete selflessness. When I give to those I love or to causes I believe in, my actions are selfish. I provide for my family because I hold them to be the most important thing in my life. That check to the local SPCA goes towards providing a better life for animals, a cause I place some value in. Charity and kindness are not altruism; they're actually quite selfish acts.

However, to an extent society seems to feel that I should give to those who are less fortunate with no care for myself simply because the intended recipient is deemed to need such assistance by those who insist that I give it. Most social welfare programs are like this. I am forced to pay taxes on my earnings, which are then distributed to others via a variety of social programs despite the fact that I have no interest giving in such a fashion. This is nothing more than forced altruism.

Đây là lần thứ 2 đọc lại Suối Nguồn. Lần đầu đọc cách đây 10 năm, 10 năm sau đọc lại nó, hẳn nhiên không phải là 1 anh sinh viên ngáo ngơ chưa hiểu đời nữa. Nguoi đọc này, bản thể hắn cũng đã đi qua rất rất nhiều điều, nhưng nói cho cùng, có những cuốn sách thật sự cần phải đọc khi người ta đủ độ chín, đủ các góc nhìn, soi chiếu và triết lý sống của riêng họ. Cuốn sách này cũng vậy. Có quá nhiều ý kiến về nó, trái chiều có, đồng thuận có, ngợi ca có và bỉ bôi có. Thật ra tôi cũng không quan tâm, với tôi, đọc sách tự nó là hành động đơn độc, suy nghĩ đơn độc và tư duy đơn độc.

Với tôi, Suối Nguồn là một masterpiece. Luôn là như thế.

"Cuốn sách tôi yêu năm 16 tuổi, cho đến lúc này khi tôi đọc, nó vẫn là như thế" - Gail Wynand

I certainly did like this book, and yet I have an easier time pointing at things that should make me dislike it. That is not the case; I most definitely liked it.

This is a book that presents an ideology. That is what makes it interesting. Individualism versus collective aspirations/altruism. Egotism versus the social good for many. Every word has side connotations; every word choice needs to be analyzed / discussed to reach a balanced and a fair evaluation of what is the ideal. Ayn Rand is here presenting her view of the ideal man. In the end there quite simply are those who are more individualists and those who work best in groups. I belong to the former group, and so this book was inspirational to me.

Did you know that Greenspan adored Ayn Rand?

Here come the negative aspects of the book that should have, but didn't, make me dislike it. The book is not realistic. The characters are too simplified; their personality traits are exaggerated. In this book you can point to the different characters and each one stands for a certain kind of person. One is only concerned with what others think of him – (Peter Keating, whom I absolutely detested). He is not the most evil, but I detested him most. Still I wanted him there in the book. Honestly, there truly are people like this; every time he spoke or did something he reminded me of a person I know! And here I could laugh at him. And then there is Howard Roark - he is the individualist and my hero. OK, maybe he is too good to be true, but I loved him anyhow. Dominique Francon, she threw me totally. I spent hours trying to figure her out. (Did I mention this book is very long; the audiobook lasts for 32 hours!) She is not realistic..... but by the end I wouldn't say there couldn't exist such a person. You simply have to see what she does at the end. All these characters, and there are more, balance each other and keep you wondering - how will this ever end?! Will it come to a slow fizzle or an explosion?

The book is set in the 1920s and 30s in NYC. It was first published in 1943, but the trends prevailing certainly existed for a decade or two longer! It reminded me of the 1950s. The role of media and journalism was as relevant then as it is today. However historical events are barely mentioned, the Depression is covered in only a line or two, and this is a book about the building industry, very much affected by depressed economic conditions of that era! Roark was an architect. Although the book perfectly depicts NYC at this time and place it does not cover international world events. Again, this just didn't bother me!

There isn't much humor, and that which is employed is satirical in tone. You laugh at the antics of people, not the kind of humor that usually appeals to me. I was just too darned interested in figuring out the whys and hows and what was going to happen to care!

Sometimes the text gets kind of preachy; the author is expounding her views. This is a book about ideology. Either it speaks to you or it doesn't. It is just that simple.

The narration by Christopher Hurt gets five stars. I LOVED the voices he used for Peter (he made me cringe with displeasure), for Peter's mother (oh my, dear little Petey), for Howard (my hero) and for Ellsworth Toohey (he is bad but sounds so suave and good....and that is just how he should sound). You most often recognized who is speaking just from the tone employed.

I need to add one more thing. There are good AND evil individualists. In real life, nothing is simple. The ideology presented is interesting, and the mix of characters makes you curious to see how the story will end, and what does that say about the ideology itself?

A MUST READ for EVERYONE!

It's a beautiful fiction that makes us understand (and even experience) the horror in making a virtue out of being self-disrespecting. I have personally always found an irony in the adjective of being "humble" and this book addresses exactly that! There's so much fake-ness that's consuming our society, reading this book will help you stay immune to them and achieve the real things that matter only to you.

I read it at the right time- that time when the body is young and capable of only genius and having unapologetic mind sex on philosophical rooftops with someone else as young and genius sounds like the highest good...or at least better than making out in a Sunday School room while your parents are at choir practice.

At 17 I thought this Earth-shaking and sexy. I thought it a moral imperative to try to get my little revolutionary hands on everything she ever wrote and by doing so stumbled right into the pit of Objectivism. I tried to wade through the muck and come out on the other side smarter, but I ended up climbing out of the hole, brushing my pants off and moving on to greener literary pastures.

I still like the book for its ability to garner fascinating discussions. But Objectivism's unforgiving nature (square pegs everywhere arise and prove your superiority to the round holes!)doesn't work so well now, at 30, with my own philosophy (sometimes you accidentally f*** up and it can't be helped and that's life and you apologize, go on, and try again).

A wonderful book. Having read a lot of negative reviews, I was apprehensive about what this book might be like. But it has a very simple message to give - Set yourself free.

At the beginning, I found Roark and Dominique incomprehensible, somewhat unrealistic and improbable as characters. Someone we do not usually meet even once in the course of our entire lives. Towards the end of the novel, I realised, THAT IS THE POINT.

To be free, one must pay the steep price our culture, our world demands of us. And many are yearning to be free, but either do not realize it, or or not willing to pay the price.

Howard's final speech sums it all up. People could not stand him because he reminded them of their inability to free themselves. Because he mocked them with his very presence. Because only his degradation into extreme poverty and obscurity could free the rest from the unacknowledged guilt within they were unprepared to face. People cannot stand an independent mind.

An unfettered mind is a dangerous entity. It not only treads unconcerned on its chosen path, it threatens to upset the facade of respectability and civilization that the world has conjured up so painstakingly, at the cost of their own SELF.

Catherine/Katie still feels a bit unreal, and Guy Francon's sudden agreement with his daughter towards the end is left unexplained.

Howard and Dominique make greater sense towards the end, and do not seem incomprehensible in retrospect. Keatings, alas, pop up everywhere around us, Tooheys thrive everywhere we can see. Wynand, surprisingly, was very well-drawn as a character. The beautiful writing skills of Rand lent him an air of reality, and did not make it seem an inexplicable jolt in the storyline simply because the writer was stuck somewhere and needed to make a change.

Roark and Dominique can be governed, but not ruled. And that is how all humans should be. It is perhaps too much to ask of anyone to aspire to become complete Roarks or Dominiques, the price is unbelievably steep, but one can at least try.

Roark's final speech should be taught in all schools and, and this novel must be a part of the syllabus for every kid who goes to college.

Louis Althusser states the same things in his unparalleled essay, "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatus", only that there is no story in it, and the language is technical, rather than emotional. But for those interested in Rand, the essay is just as important, as a life-changer for some.

A word of caution though. It is a very alluring principle - Objectivism. But Roark exemplifies the maximum limit of it, the unreachable goal. One must aspire to be free, but it is to be realised that one cannot be absolutely free. To survive, one has to compromise. Like in every other thing we firmly believe in. A blind conformation to Objectivism can be just as dangerous as blind conformation to tradition.

Мало слів, щоб описати цю книжку.
Книга не про архітектуру, а про те чи можливо лишатись вірним собі, своїм принципам та своєму вибору.
Цікаво описані думки про егоїзм та альтруїзм, а також протистояння владних "посередностей" та обдарованих людей.
Ну і герої роману - всі різні, цікаві життєві історії - поступове розкриття характерів сторінка за сторінкою.

Suối nguồn là một cuốn sách biết cách đẩy nhân vật của mình đi đến tận cùng, tận cùng của những yêu ghét, tận cùng của lý tưởng và quan niệm. Đó là cách cuốn sách lôi cuốn được độc giả trong một cái tôi rõ ràng, khảng khái đầy khẳng định. Cái tôi được miêu tả kĩ càng qua hành động, suy nghĩ, lời nói một cách chi tiết và nhiều mặt. Nhưng cũng chính vì lẽ đó, cuốn sách mang tính biểu tượng nhiều hơn là hiện thực. Độc giả sẽ bị cuốn đi trong dòng suy nghĩ rõ ràng của tác giả, không hề hoài nghi, không hề e sợ. Với một chút lâng lâng, người đọc tự tạo nên một hình ảnh bất định về một mẫu người mới với tất cả những gì rõ ràng và không hề pha tạp.

Điều tôi hơi không thích ở tác phẩm này đó chính là việc quá thần tượng hóa Roak. Lẽ dĩ nhiên việc đó không có gì đáng phê phán. Nhưng việc thần tượng hóa Roak đã tạo nên một hình ảnh rập khuôn về mẫu người siêu anh hùng. Không, anh hùng thì không khuôn mẫu. Chẳng phải chính Roak đã luôn muốn phá vỡ những siêu anh hùng của quá khứ đó sao. Chẳng phải anh luôn muốn là một con người mới chân thực và không màu mè đó sao. Nếu là anh hùng, tất cả các nhân vật trong truyện đều có thể trở thành anh hùng chứ không phải chỉ riêng Roak. Tất nhiên họ sẽ là anh hùng ở những hình thái khác. Dominique là anh hùng trong tình yêu. Toohey là một nhà tư tưởng vĩ đại. Gail luôn là kẻ anh hùng trong việc vươn lên nắm lấy quyền lực. trong một mớ bầy hầy bẩn thỉu. Peter sẽ là một siêu anh hùng trong giới ngoại giao. Có điều, tất cả những kẻ khác ngoài Roak không bao giờ thấy thỏa mãn với việc làm một siêu anh hùng trong thế giới của họ, bằng chính những quan niệm của họ. Họ luôn xoay sở để làm một loại siêu anh hùng khác, một loại anh hùng dường như không thể chạm tới, như Roak.

Tôi tự hỏi nếu như Peter không ham muốn điều gì khác ngoài sự nổi tiếng, Toohey không tha thiết gì khác ngoài quyền nắm giữ những tâm hồn, Gail không muốn gì khác ngoài tiền bạc và quyền lực; họ, mỗi người cứ đi theo con đường của riêng mình, cho đến tận cùng thì phải chăng Roak sẽ chả là gì chứ đừng nói đến một siêu anh hùng.