Hừm xem nào.

Tôi đã hào hứng kinh khủng khi đọc 1/3 đầu của cuốn này, phần kể về Roark và Keating bước chân vào nghề kiến trúc và những công trình đầu tiên của Roark. Tôi rất thích phần này. Bởi niềm tin của Roark về tính nguyên bản, vị thế độc lập của Roark, tính vô vị lợi của Roark, trực giác mạnh mẽ và thái độ không khoan nhượng của Roark tương đồng với những niềm tin hoặc khát khao sâu sắc của mình.
Hoàn toàn trái ngược, Keating là một người trống rỗng. Hắn không có cảm nhận riêng hay suy nghĩ riêng về mọi thứ; hắn đặt giá trị của mình vào những cái vỏ vật chất và sự đánh giá của người khác. Lúc đầu hắn rất ngang tàng và tự tin. Hơi tiếc là càng về thì nhân vật này trở nên hoang mang về chính hắn và do đó trở nên đáng thương hại. Tôi thích hắn sẽ luôn như thế. Bởi mấy cái vỏ rỗng tôi hay gặp không ai hoang mang và đáng thương như thế (dầu cho mức độ mắc ói vẫn tương đương).

Nhưng càng về sau thì cuốn sách mất hẳn cái "Suối nguồn" của nó. Có cảm giác như nó trở thành nô lệ cho tư tưởng mà nó muốn chứng tỏ. Hừm. Ý tôi là, tác giả lựa chọn những chủ đề thật nặng và lớn lao. Theo tôi hiểu thì bà muốn viết về con người cá nhân với những vẻ đẹp của nó, tô điểm nó trong sự đối nghịch với những con người tập thể.
Nhưng bà thiếu những chất liệu tốt, thứ làm cho tư tưởng trở nên thuyết phục. Diễn biến sau đó là cuốn sách cứ lặp đi lặp lại, xoay quanh các con người thừa, những cuộc trò chuyện kiểu cách màu mè và những bài báo sáo rỗng. Những thứ này lặp lại nhiều đến mức khó chịu. Có lúc đang đọc dở một đoạn hội thoại dài lê thê, tôi bỗng giật mình nghĩ: Gì đây? Mình đang đọc small talk phiên bản đại tiểu thuyết à?

Cách kể cũng là một vấn đề lớn, ít nhất với tôi. Tác giả đưa ra quá nhiều các phán xét giá trị mà quên đi việc kể hay mô tả sao cho tự nhiên. Ví dụ: "Các chủ bút cùng thời anh tự hào về việc họ luôn đóng dấu ấn cá nhân trên các trang báo của hộ. Gail Wynand hiến tờ báo của anh, cả phần xác và phần hồn cho đám đông. Phần xác của tờ Ngọn cờ giống như một tấm bích chương quảng cáo gánh xiếc, còn phần hồn của nó thì giống như một buổi diễn xiếc. Nó cũng theo đuổi mục tiêu giống một gánh xiếc: đó là làm cho mọi người kinh ngạc, thích thú và thu tiền từ họ. Nó mang dấu ấn không phải của một người mà của một triệu người.". Đọc những đoạn này tôi cảm thấy khó chịu kinh khủng. Bởi tác giả hoặc vì độc tài, hoặc vì kém tinh tế, mà đã không kể một câu chuyện tự nó có thể nói lên điều nó muốn nói, hoặc một câu chuyện trừ ra cho người đọc một không gian để có những suy tư và khám phá riêng. Thay vào đó, tác giả nói huỵch toẹt ra và nói quá nhiều. Kiểu như một bà mẹ nhét thức ăn vào miệng đứa con vậy. Việc đó đã đem lại một tác dụng trái ngược: cảm giác gượng gạo.

Mặc dù đã nói về chuyện các nhân vật thừa, tôi vẫn thấy đây là một đặc điểm chính trong cảm nhận của mình. Thừa nhất là Dominique và những tư tưởng của cô này. Đọc những đoạn cô này yêu Roark hoặc quan hệ với Keating và Gail, tôi thật sự băn khoăn không hiểu Ayn Rand đã thật sự yêu bao giờ chưa và nếu có kiểu yêu của bà là gì. Bởi tình yêu được mô tả trong đây còn trơ cứng hơn cả một tảng đá.

Có một điều buồn cười là trong khi tác giả thể hiện sự phê phán đối với thứ ngôn ngữ của tờ báo Ngọn cờ, thì tôi lại cảm thấy chính bà viết ra cả cuốn truyện này bằng thứ ngôn ngữ trong tờ báo đó.

Thành ra còn hẳn phần cuối với tên Howard Roark nữa, nhưng tôi không đọc tiếp - đoán chắc đọc tiếp cũng sẽ chỉ cảm thấy y hệt như trước vậy.

Mặc dù phần đầu tôi thấy rất hay, và có thể dùng nhiều lý lẽ để biện hộ cho cuốn này, nhưng tự nhiên tôi nhớ lại câu nói của Marcel Reich, rằng "Văn học được quyền hấp dẫn. Và nó nên như thế". Câu nói ấy đem lại cho tôi sự khích lệ để nói, bất chấp những lời biện hộ có thể có cho cuốn này, rằng Suối nguồn không hấp dẫn tôi. Vì vậy cho 1 sao theo nghĩa "I didn't like it".

----------------

Sau khi viết review trên thì tôi xem interview này (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u8Jj...
), chủ yếu là vì thấy nhiều người chỉ trích Ayn Rand và triết lý của Rand quá. Trong đoạn tranh luận về độc quyền và thị trường, tôi thấy Ayn Rand là một người rất ngây thơ (đến mức ngớ ngẩn). Đã vậy lý luận thì vòng quanh vô cùng. Bà ta chẳng hiểu gì về kinh tế học và chỉ biết nhại lại chủ nghĩa tự do cổ điển như một con vẹt.
Ngớ ngẩn 1: Trong thị trường tự do, không thể có độc quyền; hoặc nếu có độc quyền thì đó là bởi chúng ta lựa chọn vậy.
Ngớ ngẩn 2: Con người càng ích kỷ thì thế giới càng tốt đẹp, bình yên, hạnh phúc. Tất nhiên phải là ích kỉ một cách lý trí.

Rand lý giải thái độ cổ vũ tính vị kỉ của mình rất đơn giản. Rằng những kẻ đối lập - những con người quên mình, hy sinh mình cho người khác hoặc cho tập thể thật mắc ói. "Just look at them" - Rand nói. Đây chính là vấn đề. Đúng là có những kẻ mắc ói khi hoàn toàn quên mình như Peter. Nhưng điều đó không có nghĩa đối lập hoàn toàn với tính quên mình đó, tức tính vị kỉ tuyệt đối mà Rand hết lòng cổ vũ là một phẩm hạnh tốt đẹp. Ngược lại, nó cũng mắc ói y hệt vậy.
Extremism hàm ý sự thiếu vắng suy nghĩ. Chỉ có không biết suy nghĩ mới chọn một tư tưởng cực đoan không khoan nhượng.

Ngoài ra, bà này có vẻ không có khái niệm cơ bản về lòng thông cảm, thứ làm nên tính người.
Ví dụ: Phút 27:45
Cô gái: Mười lăm năm trước cháu đã ấn tượng với sách của bà và cháu nghĩ triết lý của bà là thích đáng. Nhưng giờ đây, cháu có học thức hơn và cháu thấy rằng nếu một công ty...
Ayn Rand (cắt ngang): Cái này tôi không trả lời.
MC: Đợi chút đợi chút. Bà còn chưa nghe xong câu hỏi mà.
Ayn Rand: Cô ta đã đánh giá vị trí của mình và cuốn sách của tôi một cách ngẫu nhiên, và điều này cho thấy chất lượng của bộ não của cô ta.
Okay. Đoạn sau cho thấy Ayn Rand tức giận vì cô gái đã hàm ý rằng cô gái chỉ đồng ý với Ayn Rand khi còn chưa có học như bây giờ. Tức giận và độc địa thì có thể còn biện minh được. Nhưng tôi thấy ghê tởm rằng khi ai đó không đồng ý với Rand, bà ta thật sự nghĩ rằng họ có bộ não kém chất lượng. Hóa ra đây không chỉ là là thái độ của nhiều nhân vật trong Suối nguồn, mà còn của Ayn Rand.

Bài phỏng vấn thay đổi quan điểm của mình khá nhiều về Ayn Rand và tác phẩm của bà. Tôi từng nghĩ bà chỉ đang đẩy mọi thứ tới tận cùng để nói về một điều gì đó, không nhất thiết bà đồng ý với những tư tưởng ích kỷ kì quặc như của Gail và Dominique. Không ngờ Ayn Rand lại thật sự nghĩ như vậy. Thật ngớ ngẩn.

“Everything we are and everything we have comes from a single attribute of man – the function of his reasoning mind.”


Trying to point out the inherent flaws in the Ayn Rand’s concept of individual against the world is like reasoning out with my teenage self’s preconceived notions of a noble vision that she believes in *nobody is willing to appreciate my work because they are jealous of me despite seeing my potential to change the course of humanity because the world doesn’t appreciate new ideas*.


My teenage self surely does make some clever and convincing points with her twisted logic but they are limited to the extent of being highly unrealistic because of its apparent inclination towards romanticizing ideals since little did she know how the world actually works.


You might admire her stance on standing up for her beliefs even if the world doesn’t believe in her talent but it doesn’t mean that the world as she believes wants to destroy her in the body or in spirit by its moral corruption. Sometimes it just offers criticism, not the egregious sorts but those whose acceptance can be helpful to realize her full potential because it takes maturity to realize what standing up for the ideals in order to make a change really means.


She might not even want to exist for the world as her hero Howard Roark because she is an utter egoist who exists for her own self, but she is yet to know that revolution first starts with learning, learning to live in harmony with the pioneering talent and its need to lead human race forward, unless you are Ayn Rand’s God!


To tell you the truth, I have never before been unabashedly convinced of the ideals that an author preached but this time I felt so naive to realize how much I wanted to follow Ayn rand’s expositions of her philosophy. I was fully devoted to her characters and her critical observation of the world she builds because it catered to my juvenile sense of moral reasoning but who sets the standards to determine one’s talent as a creator or his worth as man? The man himself or his work? What if it is only the creator who acquires illusion of superiority of his work over others because the people doesn’t consider it great? Are people always second-handers if they don’t concur to a man’s vision of greatness? Maybe sometimes it’s the other way around.


No audience is without its idiosyncrasies of belief, so of course after the brave new world, this is another book which is driven by an ideology whose idealized characters forced me to observe and question the world I live in, and to realize and strive to follow my passionate love for the work that I truly want to do but with a caveat, suffering for the sake of one’s selfishness is not always necessary.

What do you think, does power corrupts people or corrupt seeks power?

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.

(Update at end; latest is 2013-11-12)

OK, I’ve got to explain this four-star rating, because I don’t want anyone to think I’d actually recommend this book...

It has been many years since I’ve read either of Ayn Rand’s two doorstop books, and I can’t really recall the details of either. I’m pretty sure the one with John Galt had the absurdly long speech near the end, and all the cool kids smoked special cigarettes, and was mostly about railroads. This was the one with the architect, right?

Anyway, I think folks should need permission to read this. Frankly, I think teenage experimentation with pot is trivial in terms of risk to a kid’s soul compared to experimentation with Ayn Rand. Her books can much more easily destroy a life.

Let me explain. Rand’s philosophy, as near as I can tell, is that great people shouldn’t be encumbered by the not-so-great. Taxes, regulations, all that stuff: just the shackles the large number of mediocre folks force onto their betters — pure parasitism. Her morality comes down to letting the best do whatever they want, and letting the rest starve. These books are her ideas about how that should work out, and as such are suffused with incredibly juvenile wish-fulfillment. The powerful are tormented by the weak, but through force of will rise above it all.

I might not be remembering all this quite right — after all, it has been a long time. The above description is what my initial impression has distilled down to; your mileage may vary.

So where’s the danger, and why the relatively high rating? Well, many teenagers look out at their world and feel victimized by the completely lame and restrictive world that adults impose upon them. It is clear to them that they are as smart and able as these authorities, yet those adults are so... clueless. Obviously, adult life somehow has turned them into a lesser breed of humanity, with all the vitality sucked out. Add Ayn Rand to this and you suddenly have the ingredients for a self-perpetuating sense of victimhood and entitlement.

Most people have overcome their teenage angst and fantasies by, say, twenty-eight or so. At that point, Rand will have lost her magic and her books should be freely available. But between twelve and twenty-seven, a committee of wise elders should decide whether that kid is mature enough not to get sucked into it.

Sounds unlikely? Yeah, well so does Rand’s puerile philosophy, but somehow we have self-righteous imbeciles getting elected left and right. Well, sorry, not so much “left” — mostly “right”. (The left has it's own cast of bad influences, of course.)

But then, why the good rating? Because Rand provided a window into the strange logic of the pathologically extreme libertarian. We might have seen Hitler’s deeds, and learned of Nietzsche’s diktats, but we never saw the fantasies that drove them. Most folks that would enthusiastically agree with Rand are either too dumb to put pen to paper, or too smart to let the world see what sociopaths they really are.

So: four stars for the opportunity to watch the slow-motion horror show of Rand’s political philosophy in action, warning us of where we’re heading.

      •       •       •       •       •       •       •

Update, late summer 2012— Romney's selection of Ryan as his running mate has got folks chatting about Ryan's on-and-off obsession with Ayn Rand. Not having made a study of Rand's life, I was pleased to learn that while her extremely anti-collectivist views are still antithetical to civilization (which is definitionally a collectivist enterprise) she was actually quite the social liberal. Not sure that makes her any more pleasant — ideologues of any stripe are quite annoying, even those that suddenly appear more complex and harder to pigeon-hole — but nice to know. A few more details? Check out the NY Times op-ed piece, n   Atlas Spurnedn.

      •       •       •       •       •       •       •

Update, summer 2013— I was catching up on my favorite intelligentisa magazine, the excellent Wilson Quarterly, and ran across a brief note in the Spring 2013 issue entitled “Fountainhead of Need”. As a young woman and recent immigrant to the United States, Rand was very poor while toying with a life in Hollywood — she worked as an extra in Cecil B. De Mille’s King of Kings — and at one point was destitute enough that she relied on charity to keep a roof over her head. Years later, she wrote a letter of thanks to the women's boarding house that helped her at a time of dire need.

As the article puts it:

“The Studio Club,” Rand wrote, “is the only organization I know of personally that carries on, quietly and modestly, this great work which is needed so badly — help for young talent. It not only provides human, decent living accommodations which a poor beginner could not afford elsewhere, but it provides that other great necessity of life: Understanding.”

A paean to altruism? Not exactly. In the letter, Rand also declared that it was time to stop favoring “crippled children, old people, blind people and all kinds of disabled unfortunates” over “the able, the fit, the talented.” She continued, “Who is more worthy of help — the sub-normal or the above normal? Who is more valuable to humanity?” Aiding “the disabled” was fine, she said, but nurturing “potential talent” represented “a much higher type of charity.”

Yup, that's the kind of woman she was.

      •       •       •       •       •       •       •

Update, autumn 2013— Wow, there are still folks out there that are explicitly adherents of Objectivism. If you would like to cringe, take a gander at n  "Give Back? Yes, It's Time For The 99% To Give Back To The 1%"n at Forbes. Yeah, Forbes is the "church periodical for those that worship at the temple of weatlh" (as a FB acquaintance put it), but it still seems somewhat staggering that there are people that believe that

n  

n    It turns out that the 99% get far more benefit from the 1% than vice-versa.n  

n

See if you can spot the basic logic error in the first paragraph!

The proposal that the wealthy be exempt from income taxes is only capped by the appalling suggestion that “the year’s top earner should be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.” Honestly, if this were in the Onion it would still be over the top.
­

Я прожила інше життя. Це було масштабно, фундаментально, велично.

Філософія авторки може комусь не імпонувати, персонажі можуть бути занадто кричущими, можуть бути різні думки, але заперечувати величність цього твору - безсенсовно. Щиро не розумію низьких оцінок, адже книга проговорює істини, з якими не можна не погодитись. Для мене ця історія звучала так само правдиво, як завтра зранку встане сонце і продовжиться березень місяць. Місцями це було складно, місцями - незрозуміло, місцями - боляче, але це було необхідно.

Це залишається художньою літературою. Тут є місце гострим поглядам, красномовним жестам, неймовірним історіям кохання, становлення та занепаду. Це не Біблія, по якій треба жити, як торочать багато поколінь.

Це було викривальною подорожжю за лаштунки людського еґо. Я вражена.

So there was this girl I loved, deeply loved, and our love was key to the end of my first marriage. We didn't cheat physically, although there was no avoiding or denying the intellectual and emotional cheating that just being in each others' presence elicited, but my partner/wife felt that something was wrong with our "friendship," and she was right.

C--- and I had been in love for a couple of months, and it was the night before I was leaving for my anniversary trip. I was meeting my partner/wife for a weekend of Shakespeare plays, good food and theoretical love making (which never happened), and I was having a final cast party at our home after the summer production of one of my plays. My partner/wife was already near Stratford, Ontario -- home of Canada’s Shakespeare Festival. She was at her family reunion, and at the time I had no idea she was with her lover (I later discovered that their affair had spanned countries and years); I felt paradoxical Catholic guilt for my pseudo-adultery and the liberation of being freshly in love as I sat at my backyard pool and let my feet brush C---'s in the cool water under the moonlight.

That night she told me of her love for Ayn Rand's Fountainhead, a book I'd long ignored, supposing it and its politics were not for me. She opined about Objectivism and selfishness, and I was intrigued as only one in love and full of their own selfishness could be. So when I reached my first airport bookstore in DC the next day, I sought a copy of Fountainhead and bought it during my layover. It became a constant companion during the rest of my trip.

The next day I began racking up the largest cell phone bill I've ever produced, talking to C--- at all hours of the day and wherever I happened to be: once I was on the edge of a field full of dairy cows, often I was at the local pub imbibing Black & Tans, and the rest of the time I was in my cousin's empty house (he was on a camping weekend, and I was staying there until I hooked up with my partner/wife) amidst his kitschy Elvis memorabilia. When I wasn't talking to C---, I wrote, I watched bad T.V., and I alternated between Rendezvous with Rama and Fountainhead. Somewhere in those three days I rented Boondock Saints (another favourite of C---'s), and then, as if fate were taking a hand, I turned on the CBC and caught the documentary Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life. Coincidence, but a fascinating one that made me enjoy and love the book more than it deserved.

And I did love the book. I’ve never read it again -- and I really disdain Objectivism -- but there was a clarity in Rand’s prose that was captivating. She goes on and on, but she does it beautifully, which makes me understand why her ideas are so beloved by those on the other side of the political membrane. She propagandizes like Goebbels. She makes you want to believe. Hell, she even makes rape seem acceptable (ish). And as long as you don’t pay too much attention to what she said and focus, instead, on how she said it, the Fountainhead is a masterpiece.

If it weren’t for C--- I don’t know that I’d have given this book another thought, but there was a C---, and this book means something more to me than it should. How bizarre is man?

Ar aš buvau paskutinis žmogus Žemėje dar neskaitęs Šaltinio?
Nesuprantu kaip Rand jį sugebėjo suraityti 1943-aisiais. Ar žmonės anuomet galėjo taip išmąstyti? O gal genijams laikas yra tik bereikšmė sąvoka? O gal vidutiniškumas yra amžinas?
Atsimenu kaip pusė lietuviško socialinio tinklo putojosi išvadinti vidutinybėmis, keikė genijais save laikančius, dar buvo dalis prisipažinusių, kad gerai jaučiasi vidutiniškame kailyje.
Rand tobulai viską sudėlioja į lentynas. Perskaitykit, jei taip purtotės to epiteto. Žinosit, ką daryt ir ko nedaryt.
O jei rimtai - didelė knyga. Ir tikrai ne dėl to, kad 800 puslapių.
Prilyginčiau Mažam gyvenimui.
Dabar sunku bus prie kitos pereit.

I guess read this if you like the glorification of selfishness?

I should clarify that I think Ayn Rand is actually a pretty competent writer, but as a person and a moralist I find her beyond disgusting.

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.

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.

***** SECOND REVIEW ********

As promised I took a second look at this book, I will leave the original review below this one.

I still find the rape scene in this book repulsive, even though AR wrote once that "if it was rape it was rape by engraved invitation." I point out that Dominique herself CALLED it rape. She goes on about her own self loathing and wanted to shout out that she had been raped. Dominique is painted as a character so world weary and despising of society that she could only (finally) be aroused by a man who could "take her". Both Dominique and Roark are described as having condescension and violence as "positive" traits.

Okay, so I waded through this huge pretentious, self congratulatory, patronizing tomb. Having read more than this by AR I've got to say that while she hits the nail squarely on the head in some ways she takes the hard lessons life taught her and gets many wrong answers (not all wrong, but many wrong, at least in my opinion). To her compassion is the same as weakness. The word "compassion" has nothing but negative connotations. She cannot (and I truly believe it's "cannot" as well as "will not") see the difference in willingly giving help as opposed to being compelled by law to give up your living to those who "won't" work. The fact that there are many (and I admit possibly even most) who when given help will simply do nothing but keep asking for a hand-out extrapolates out for her that ever giving help is simply enabling loafers. She saw all unselfishness as weakness and all who acted unselfishly as hypocrites.

One can only wonder how she would have looked at Mother Teressa...probably as a weak dupe...or the world's greatest con-person who never got caught?

Personally I like Atlas Shrugged better as far as an actual novel goes. Dominique is such an odd personality that while I know AR was basing the character on herself, she was just too odd. I mean am I the only one who finds a woman who can't get aroused unless she's physically assaulted as a protagonist a little troubling? Oh well, beating a dead horse I suppose.

The book has good points and AR is a good writer of prose, at times, but not consistently, at least that's my take. I will raise the rating to 3 stars, mainly because the 1 star rating was a visceral reaction to a scene where the male protagonist rapes the female protagonist.

************** Original review below this line *******************


How do I rate this book??? I believe that while Ms.Rand has some huge holes in her reasoning she also had some insights. I think this is a book everyone should take a look at (especially now). I would hope we can differentiate between the valuable and the dross. Read this book (and her other works) with an open and also a critical mind. She has some important insights into human nature and the way humans think and the way the world actually works. She simply carries some of it to a place where it doesn't apply. For example, those who produce will come to a point where they will stop alloying themselves to be stripped of the rewards of their work and thought, it's human nature. On the other hand her view of those who need help and the spiritual side of life are somewhat wanting. she seems to be heavily influenced by Nietzsche.

I prefer Atlas shrugged to this novel. You can see Ms. Rand in the heroines of both books. In Atlas Shrugged she (Dagny Taggart) "trades up" in her romantic relationships each time she meets a "stronger" man who better exemplifies Ayn Rand's ideal (representing her philosophy "objectivism"). In this book, the heroine (Dominique Francon) is or "appears to be" raped by the "strong hero" Howard Roark. I say "appears to be" because even though to many readers and reviewers of the book at it's publication and since it is an obvious rape (and that includes me) Ms. Rand wrote that "if it was rape, it was rape by engraved invitation." I found this so distasteful that I completely lost my taste for this book and put it down.

I'll confess I seem to be among the few literate souls who did not read this book in high school or college, so I come to it fresh in middle age. And while it is a novel of ideas, including many ideas I don't particularly agree with, I decided to take the work on its own terms. I'll leave others to decide its merits as a work of philosophy. As a novel, it is deeply flawed and displays glaring shortcomings in plot and characterization, as well as serious issues with pacing and, at times, prose as sharp as cookie batter. With those caveats, it's also clearly a major work of literature, a challenging and brilliant panoramic novel that defies categorization but not admiration or even awe.

Others -- more than 10,000 of them -- have already reviewed the book on this site, so there is little reason to offer any general impressions of the novel. Rather, I'd like to point out a few attributes that are often overlooked. One is that Rand is, on occasion, extremely funny -- Domnique Francon Keating Wynand's sham interview with a Banner columnist offering an excellent example of her wit. The story line of the ersatz novel, The Gallant Gallstone, is also rather entertaining. She has a gift for turning a clever and insightful phrase, as when Gail Wynand says, "Men differ in their virtues, if any...but they are alike in their vices" (Tolstoy not withstanding). Or "The shortest distance between two points is not a straight line, it's a middleman." And her descriptions can often rise to the level of Dickensian originality and precision, as in her physical renderings of Ellsworth M. Toohey and Wynand.

I'd also like to add the controversial proposition that this is, at an emotional level, much more Wynand's and Dominique's novel than Howard Roark's. They are the characters who have the capacity for change; an ideal, like Roark, does not. Part Three of the novel ("Gail Wynand") is the least idea-driven and reveals Rand as able to create a complex, three-dimension character who is both vulnerable and compelling. Other stellar moments are the plot around the Monadnock resort or the final meeting of Peter and Catherine.

Do not let the Objectivist philosophy scare you away. As it's possible to enjoy Sartre without becoming an existentialist or William Morris without becoming a utopian socialist, it is also possible to enjoy this novel without embracing all of its ideas.