My favorite of Rand's novels. I fell in love with Howard, or rather, the idea of him. Even if you don't adopt objectivism and feel the deeper philosophy and meaning in this book, the story and characters are worth the read. I picked this up to write a scholarship essay, but it would be denying everything I learned in the book to write the essay. I am so glad I picked it up anyway. Rand took everything I was feeling in the world about theology and philosophy and put it into words that are easy and enjoyable to absorb. Plus, she wrote it in the 30's and her characters made predictions about our time that have come true! Not that that's a good thing, but it is entertaining if not spellbinding.

5 stars for being a ludicrously entertaining soap opera. The most lurid, overdone philosophical text I've ever read (probably because I haven't gotten to Atlas Shrugged yet).

Whether you agree with Rand's ideas or not (please say you don't!), it's pretty damn entertaining to watch them played out via a cast of steely heroes and sniveling villains. The S&M sex scenes are probably the best part - objectivism in the bedroom.

Worth reading for sure, if you can keep your head on your shoulders and not succumb to a 600-page argument full of pedantic speeches and flimsy straw men.

Of this epic paean of meta-fiction on the fount of American genius so many captains of industry, former chairmen of the Fed (Greenspan), Supreme Court judges, past Presidents, bankers and narcissistic members of Congress perpetually and ardently sing unbounded praise of Ayn Rand, which leads me only to shrug. Her objectivism and philosophical diatribes about the heroic American individualist brought me back to college days and the philosophy of Nietzsche, so adored by Hitler, on the "exceptionalism" of the "higher man." To Rand's credit there is much to admire in her penchant for "self-reliance" reminiscent of Emerson and Thoreau in her voluminous tome. I understand that Rand suffered in Russia as her father's business was nationalized for the socialist collective agenda, leaving her family destitute. Her arrival in America brought her global fame for her prolific and widely read novels, which vastly enriched her and, thereby, rendered her a wealthy member of America's elite. I understand that her worldview emerges confidently from the crucible of her personal experience that she defends so breathlessly over 726 pages. Rand believes that American capitalism is the last refuge of the self-interested genius, which brilliance is a fount leaving the rugged individual as exceptional and drives the engine of progress in America. She would ardently defend Gordon Gekko's "Greed is good." She would defend the billionaire Koch brothers' invitation of Supreme Court Judge, Clarence Thomas, to a lavish retreat prior to the Supreme Court's decision to allow corporations to contribute anonymously and be treated like human beings to fund political action committees without limits to breed self-interest on the part of corporations and our wealthiest citizens. She would defend John Boehner and Mitch McConnell's commitment to extend tax breaks to the top 1% of America's wealthiest individuals on the backs of school lunch subsidies for children, heating oil support for the snowbound destitute during frigid winters, relief for homeowners undergoing unjust foreclosure and unemployment extensions for the jobless whose jobs have been outsourced offshore through corporate tax breaks for this practice. Rand believes firmly that altruism is truly a sucker's game. Why? Because exceptionalism brings entitlement and entitlement merits exceptional treatment, even sacrifice, by society. Heroic individuals should "tend their own gardens," as Voltaire advised, and let the rest of humanity fend for itself. So here's my quandry: why in God's name is a genius American rugged individualist less heroic or diminished by one iota because of his or her altruism? Isn't Bill Gates even more heroic because, with all of his wealth and genius, he wants to eradicate malaria from the African continent to "second-handers"? Ditto for Bono. The list of wealthy and heroic American rugged individualists is long and distinguished. But Rand's philosophy is embraced by every lobbyist on C Street as well as egomaniacal past Presidents, their advisors and their colleagues in Washington's National Museum of Egomania. Does anyone who admires Rand's heroic narcissism remember the Messiah riding humbly into Jerusalem barefoot on the back of a donkey? Is humility not a reliable marker of real genius? How can so many wealthy Christians and Jews abandon the frequent calls of Scripture to help their fellow humanity so often downcast at the hands of exceptionalists? When Solomon prayed for what he wanted most, his response was to pray for wisdom rather than wealth. So Rand's objectivism begs this question: what responsibility does a wealthy exceptionalist owe to humanity less endowed with the gift of genius and grace of fortune? Do these Randy exceptionalists not understand that bad luck alone can leave anyone destitute at any time by virtue of lawsuit, market crashes and depressions, dread disease, acts of God, business reversal and a litany of other garden variety uncontrolled catastrophes? Business and history is replete with rugged individualists whose endowments have become suddenly bankrupt by tragic flaws acting upon epic bad luck. I eschew the model Rand has in mind for American capitalism because the exceptionalists render the rest of humanity mad, suffering and bewildered by the mind-numbing greed that is so prevalently promoted among exceptionalists in power in government and industry in our great nation. Let those who have eyes to see and ears to listen behold the vain self-interest and boundless greed run rampant among American government and business. Rand's brand of heroic, rugged individualism ultimately may well bring with its mindless proliferation the untimely demise of our great Republic. The egomania overwhelms.

A book that was difficult to read. From the first pages I disliked all the characters. The supposedly kind characters are portrayed as pushovers and wimps, so equally unfavorable. Rand tries to make you believe that the hero of her story is to be admired. The more characters were introduced the more unlikable and extreme Rand's Objectivism shines through like a dark light. What an obnoxious world she is revering in this story. That is perhaps too unkind. (not that any of Rand's fans would care) I realize I'm not able to understand complete solitude and total disregard for relationships and the importance of community and 'feelings' that connect people together.

I hated Anthem so much that I vowed never to read another book by Ann Rand, but I still talk about how much I hate all of her other books, too. That's how much I disliked Anthem. I also think I have the right to hate The Fountainhead without having read it because:

a) Ayn Rand is a horrible writer. Everything I've seen by her is badly written and I don't like badly written books.

b) Ayn Rand thought she was a philosopher and injects her silly "objectionist" point of view into all her books. She wasn't a philosopher, however, no matter what her silly followers think. Cult leader, perhaps.

c) Ayn Rand's "objectionism" is simply selfishness dolled up a bit, so I will hate the "lesson" in her books.

d) I hate books with clear lessons. Ayn Rand has clear lessons.

e) Ayn Rand has such a knee-jerk, reactionary dislike of anything striking of collectivism that she makes Orwell look like a communist. Knee-jerk reactionaries seldom write good books.

Yes 5 stars, why? Because whenever i rethink about this book i become speechless.
The lessons it taught me and the life it showed me are invaluable. So whatever you may find below are the mixed emotions which i could withdraw out of it.
This books helps you realize the pain and agony of a person who stands on his own beliefs, defying the society rules and so called modern world culture.
So today whenever i see a person fighting with the world just for his own beliefs and his own values, i can always see a bit of Roark in him.
The most important thing of a man's character is his Integrity, that is what holds him true to himself and gives him courage to fight everything else in this world.
Society and the second handers always keep on trying to make others a second handers and they will never let them do something which they were not able to do.
It is the man's own Ego which gets him thru.It is the love of his work which makes him happy.
But the society teaches him that everything that makes him happy is a sin and he shall never be a happy person.
But it is a man's basic right to be happy and the general world calls it his Selfishness.

"...It was the only thing I ever really wanted. And that’s the sin that can’t be forgiven--that I hadn’t done what I wanted. It feels so dirty and pointless and monstrous, as one feels about insanity, because there’s no sense to it, no dignity, nothing but pain--and wasted pain...why do they always teach us that it’s easy and evil to do what we want and that we need discipline to restrain ourselves? It’s the hardest thing in the world--to do what we want. And it takes the greatest kind of courage...."

This was a stupid book that I had to read in college. It was either supposed to be based on Frank Lloyd Wright's philosophy or the professor just liked to talk about Wright. I hated Wright's architecture, but I liked his idea of blending buildings with nature.

What I remember about the book is this quote:

“Toohey: "Mr. Roark, we're alone here. Why don't you tell me what you think of me? In any words you wish. No one will hear us."
Roark: "But I don't think of you.”

And I just don't think much of Ann Rand's philosophy.

Let me begin by saying that after reading this, and especially after reading her novel Atlas Shrugged, that I do not much like Ms Rand. I think her philosophy must surely have been created as a reaction to her experiences with Bolsheviks.

That said, I think this is a modern masterpiece, Rand's reformation and restatement of Nietzschean mythos.

This was beautiful yet brutally simple, shockingly hypnotic; like a bull fight, difficult to watch but you cannot turn away. Many archetypal characters, very influential; how many insidious modern day villains began as Ellsworth Toohey, how many strong silent idealists descend from the Howard Roark model?

I can see how someone would consider this a five star book, maybe even consider that this is a favorite book, but looking back, while accounting for the strength and quality of her narrative, I cannot say that I loved it, and I still don't like Rand.

"Ne istedigini kendin bilmiyor musun?Nasıl dayanabiliyorsun bilmemeye?"
"Başkaları için yaşamaya kalkan kişi, bir bağımlıdır. Amaçları açısından bir asalaktır, hizmet ettiği kimseleri de asalak haline getirir. Bu ilişkiden doğabilecek tek şey, birlikte yozlaşmaktır. Kavram olarak imkânsız bir şeydir bu. Gerçek hayatta buna en yakın olan şey, başkalarına hizmet etmek için yaşayan kişidir ki o da köledir. Eğer fiziksel kölelik bile iğrenç bir kavram gibi gözüküyorsa, ruhsal kölelik bundan ne kadar daha iğrenç bir kavram olmalıdır!
Ama kendini kendi isteğiyle köle haline getiren, bunu sevgi uğruna yaptığını söyleyen adam, yaratıkların en aşağılığıdır."
Sonunda bitiyor. :( Bitmeyeydi iyiydi.
Kitabı bitmesin diye aheste okuduğum sayılı insanlardan. Bu kafa reenkarne olsun. Öperim mezarından.

Skaičiau metus. Buvo labai verta.

The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand

Alice O'Connor, better known by her pen name Ayn Rand, was a Russian-American writer and philosopher.

The Fountainhead is a 1943 novel by Russian-American author Ayn Rand, her first major literary success.

In early 1922, Howard Roark is expelled from the architecture department of the Stanton Institute of Technology because he has not adhered to the school's preference for historical convention in building design.

Roark goes to New York City and gets a job with Henry Cameron.

Cameron was once a renowned architect, but now gets few commissions. In the meantime, Roark's popular, but vacuous, fellow student and housemate Peter Keating (whom Roark sometimes helped with projects) graduates with high honors.

He too moves to New York, where he has been offered a position with the prestigious architecture firm, Francon & Heyer.

Keating ingratiates himself with Guy Francon and works to remove rivals among his coworkers.

After Francon's partner, Lucius Heyer, suffers a fatal stroke brought on by Keating's antagonism, Francon chooses Keating to replace him.

Meanwhile, Roark and Cameron create inspired work, but struggle financially. ...

تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز دهم ماه آوریل سال 2001میلادی

عنوان: سرچشمه؛ نویسنده: آین راند؛ مترجم: مینا شریفی ثابت؛ تهران، نشر آبی، 1379؛ در 1063ص؛ داستانهای نویسندگان روسیه تبار ایالات متحده آمریکا - سده 20م

این کتاب برای نخستین بار در سال 1943میلادی به چاپ رسید؛ «سرچشمه»، داستان یک آرشیتکت نابغه، با دقت وسواسگونه است، که از عدم درک، و راحت طلبی دیگران، به تنگ آمده است؛ آرشیتکت «هوارد روارک»، در برابر دادگاه ظاهر میشود: او به منفجر کردن ساختمان بزرگ نوسازی متهم است؛ اتهام او نابود کردن اثری است، که خود طراحی کرده، چون اثر او را به رغم تضمین اکید، مبنی بر اینکه مطابق نقشه ی او ساخته خواهد شد، از محتوا خالی، و گویا بی پدرش کرده، و نمای ساختمان را با سلیقه ی مردم، منطبق کرده اند؛ خوانشگر در این فصل با یکی از صحنه های متداول دادگاه، در داستانهای «آمریکایی» روبرو میشود؛ «روارک» به تنهایی از خود دفاع میکند

ایشان دفاعیه ی خود را چنین آغاز میکنند: (چند هزار سال پیش، مردی برای نخستین بار آتش روشن کرد؛ به احتمال زیاد خودش روی انبوه چوبهایی که آتش گرفته بود، زنده زنده سوخت؛ او را بزهکاری انگاشتند، که از یکی از شیاطین، رازی را که از بشر پنهان شده بود، دزدیده، و برملا ساخته است، اما این کار او باعث شد، که انسانها خود را گرم کنند، خوردنیها را بپزند، و غارهاشان را روشن سازند(...)؛ «پرومته» به این دلیل که آتش را از خدایان ربود، به صخره ای زنجیر شد، و لاشخورها بدنش را تکه تکه کردند؛ آدم به دلیل خوردن میوه ی درخت شناخت، محکوم به تحمل رنجها شد (...)؛ افراد دارای «خلاقیتهای بزرگ»؛ «متفکران»، «هنرمندان»، «دانشمندان» و «مخترعان»، همواره یک تنه در مقابل دیگر انسانهای دوران خود ایستاده اند.»؛ ...؛ پایان نقل؛

روارک، این «پرومته» ی نوین، ارزشهای فردی را ستایش میکنند

تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 02/08/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 01/07/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی

If I had read this before Atlas Shrugged, I would have given this 5 stars. Because I have read already Rand's Magnum opus (Atlas Shrugged) and also the novella Anthem, I am familiar enough to her philosophy.
.
One thing that I observed while reading her fiction, everyone is selfish- some admit it confidently and some are just plain hypocrites. It's a bit strong statement, but I think this is the gist. Ayn Rand has fans and haters as well, but there's one thing- you can adore her or you can abhor her but you can't ignore her. I may not agree wholeheatedly to her philosophy of Objectivism, Selfishness and Individualism but I like the way how she weave it in her fiction.
.
Atlas Shrugged is certainly far better than The Fountainhead. I missed here the philosophical operas that are prevalent in AS. There's only in the last part, the speech of Elsworth Toohey to Peter Keating and the trial of Howard Roark in which he speaks in his defense, those are certainly praiseworthy. Like AS, it too, has only one dominant female character named Dominique Francon but less elegant than Dagny Taggart of AS. Still, I enjoyed it and I would say that I read it quite fast.