Hated her philosophy. Loved her ability to write a great story.

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.

"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.

2,5

I'm still not sure if I liked this book. By sure I'm glad I finally read it seen that it's such a controversial book and I wanted to find out by myself why there are people who love it and people who hate it.

What I liked is that it's despite everything a real pageturner. I was involved, I wanted to know what would happen, I wanted to see how all the characters would behave. About the characters, they were all detestable. Only towards the end I started to understand the behaving of Howard Roark and to sympathize a bit with him.
It can't be considered pure fiction and it isn't a philosophical treatise, but it's something midway. There were some philosophical monologues that interrupted the flowing of the fiction, but there were too many fictional parts to consider it a clear philosophical exposure. From this point of view, I think that the author did not a good job because in my opinion there wasn't a good and flowing balance between fiction and philosophical exposure, and because everything was confusing. As said, I had to arrive at the last chapters of the book to finally understand her philosophy.
But what I also liked, was to read about Rand's philosophy. I was curious to know more about it and though I started to understand it only towards the end of the book, because I wasn't able to understand the behavior of the characters that should have shown her philosophy and the ones that personified the ideas she was fighting, I have to admit that it was interesting. I don't know if I share her points of view, but I agree with some of them.
I also didn't like that much the writing style but this could be fault of the translation. I have read a very old edition and there were some obsolet words, sometimes a word was missing and there were also some typos. I also think that the book is too long. The author could have exposed her philosophy in less pages. In fact sometimes some parts were repetitive. Maybe the author wanted to be sure that the reader understands, but it was really useless and dragging.

I'm glad I've read this book, but I don't know if I will read more books by Ayn Rand.

"Изворът" има за цел да бъде извор на философските убеждения на Ранд.

Ранд има каноничен статут в Щатите, четена на второ място след Библията ... и е повлияла по някакъв начин милиони по света. Това означава, че си е свършила перфектно работата като творец и философ. Във философията й няма да навлизам подробно, защото ревюто ще прерасне в есе над лимита на формата тук ... но ще споделя, че съм съгласен с повечето й идеи, не с всички и не докрай. Идеите са верни сами по себе си, но недостатъчни в един момент, когато човекът живее в развито съзнателно общество ... е, не такова като в "Атлас", може би и не такова като днешното у нас, но това, което би трябвало да се стремим. Реално цивилизацията, философията, науката, технологията и обществото са се развивали като са стъпвали на раменете на предишните постижения и реално най-големите постижения на човечеството са колективни усилия, не индивидуални ..., но тури му пепел - обещах, че няма да пиша философско есе.

Книгата като такава:
Много ясно предава идеите й. Няма на къде по-ясно и категорично. А тематиката е общочовешка и всеки може да достигне до същността й. Това е добре за един автор. Прави го универсален, интернационален.

Много удачен е и изборът на професия на Х.Р. - архитект, човек, който ще гради с визия, творец. Много систематично и методично е разгърната идеята в тези 800 стр. Опредлено е задължително четиво. Имайте предвид, че в "Изворът" се гради образът на перфектния задвижващ двигател на едно общество, а в "Атлас" се изследват взаимоовръзките му с обществото. "Изворът" е за героя, "Атлас" е за героя в обществото. Най-грубо казано.

Книгата е много подходяща за изучаващи английски. Четох я за първи път именно за упражнение, докато бях в Английска гимназия. Сега, колко ... 15 г. по-късно я усещам по същия начин, което е признак на универсалност не само през култури и пространства, но и през времето.

yesterday i spent the day mainlining bookface and discovered that one of the most reviled books on the site was the fountainhead. i can think of a few reasons:

1) it feels good (perhaps a marker of personal progress?) to reject or condescend to that which we once loved. (see also: catcher in the rye and on the road)

2)tthose (the overwhelming majority of bookfacers) who fall on the liberal end of the spectrum find the residual conservative drool all over the book a bit yukky?

3)tthe philosophy is unrealistic; the characters are stand-ins, mouthpieces, wooden fantasy archetypes; the plot is full of contrivances; at its best the prose is serviceable, at worst, it's cringeworthy.

4)tits themes of personal accountability scare the shit out of people.

i found this book terrifically useful in high school. with not enough life experience to understand why i was perpetually on the outside, i read the fountainhead and reconfigured it all to believe that i wasn’t part of the group b/c the group was a dead-end of groupthink and i was unique. whatever. a load of shit, but it helped me get by, y’know? and as i grew up i realized that along with the personal accountability part and the urging on to remain an individual despite societal pressure to conform (both of which i still appreciate), was a good degree of selfishness and unreality. but whatever… i approach this too-long book as containing a highly flawed system of belief, but one that works for a specific time in many people’s lives. shit, they should start pushing this as a young adult’s book. that’s really what it is. and though ayn rand might not like it, there’s really nothing wrong with that.

Brandon's Review:
Initially going into reading Fountainhead, I knew that it was a very important work in the framework of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, focusing on the strength of the individual, reason, and personal achievement. Despite knowing this, I was still somewhat taken aback by how ingrained and constant the implications and comparisons to Objectivism were. I was expecting a book with some philosophy, but got a work of philosophical fiction.

This is not entirely a bad attribute about the book. I found the process of seeing the philosophy and ideas grow over time interesting and enlightening. However, at many points in the book, it did feel as if Ayn Rand was attempting to smash her ideas repeatedly into my head with a large hammer. It is repetitive and constant, especially near the backend of the book. I most definitely do not agree with Rand's take on an ideal world, but it was nonetheless interesting to see a philosophical point of view that I was unfamiliar with.

At many points, I became frustrated with Fountainhead, as the actions of many characters are strange and complex, while at other times, the two main characters become semi-caricatures. Roark is the noble and steady hero of the book, representing man as Ayn Rand believes they could be. Peter Keating reflects the opposite, the worst aspects of mankind. Throughout the book, Ayn Rand uses dichotomies to compare and contrast what she believes is the superior way of doing things. Socialism vs. Capitalism, the masses vs. the individual, Roark vs. Keating. Generally speaking, the motives and plans of the character within this book can be traced back to a battle between these various dichotomies.

The book overall is based on two architects trying to make it in the world, but generally speaking, the architecture stands as a backdrop for Rand to supplant her philosophy. I will say that I enjoyed the architecture within the book, and the allusions drawn between real buildings and architects and their novel counterparts.

If I were grading this book on how much I agree with the ideas and philosophy, I would give it a one. Despite this, the complaints and annoyances I feel towards Fountainhead and Rand, the overall experience of the book is worth more. The characters are so deep, their motives are so complex, and the interplay between different actors was interesting to say the least. It is a definite slog to get through at points, but I can definitely see why Rand, Objectivism, and this book have stood the test of time and inspired so many.

Based on everything I've heard about Rand, from her supporters, her detractors, or in interviews with the author herself, I feel there is no reason to believe that this book or any of her others contain anything that is worth reading, not even as 'cautionary example'. Since my goal here is to read as many good books as possible and to do my best to avoid bad ones, I'm going to be giving Rand a wide berth.

З перших сторінок ти потрапляєш у знайомий світ. Ні, не світ вже відомого мені “Атланта”, а той, де людина проходить по життю всі передбачені авторкою 750 сторінок тексту і залишається вірною собі, своєму вибору, своєму “я”. Тут авторський стиль настільки знайомий, наче з моменту прочитання славнозвісної трилогії і не минуло цілих 2 роки.
А що ж людина? Людина йде проти суспільства, критичне мислення - проти простого повторення думок інших, оригінальність - проти калькування і вторинності. І хто б ще так перевертав наші уявлення про егоїзм і альтруїзм? Тут дійсно було над чим порефлексувати)
Хіба що лишилося подумати над кількома питаннями:
- Наскільки актуальним в наш час є нівелювання внеску першопрохідців і новаторів?
- Чому Ґейл Вайненд отримав таку неправдоподібну і нелогічну початкову лінію?
І наостанок -  чим займалася всі ці роки Домінік, коли стала місіс Вайненд, якщо не працювала і була “замкнена” вдома?

A true masterpiece. Rich in details and philosophy, stunning in context and emotion. The novel reminds me of the purpose of living, of following the inside call, of not compromising with mediocre ways of living, but thriving for the excellent, for the best of human. It reminds me of my dreams, of the life I want but still not reach, of the ideal of my life and my battle for it. I need to fight, like Roak has fought, for the society that should be, for integrity, for creativity, for freedom, for the most beautiful qualities of human that are being forgotten.

There is a funny thing that at first I totally enjoyed reading the book with the strong sensation it brought about. But I curiously checked some Goodreads comments about the book, and later when reading the book I found myself affected by other opinions and couldn't enjoy it as before. Hence I decided that I would be faithful to my own feelings from then.

Một kiệt tác đúng nghĩa. Cảm xúc về quyển sách quá choáng ngợp đến nỗi tôi không biết tìm từ gì để diễn tả về nó. Đựng đầy trong nó những triết lý sâu sắc, những chi tiết sống động, những nhân vật đặc sắc, và những hình ảnh đậm chất thơ. Có nhiều đoạn tôi vừa đọc vừa trầm trồ thán phục tài năng của tác giả, vì những câu chữ được đặt chính xác ở nơi nó phải ở, vì chỉ cần một câu văn ngắn là đủ để hiện rõ bối cảnh, tính cách, tâm trạng, vì chỉ cần một dòng chữ là đủ để cảm xúc vỡ òa. Thực sự là một kiệt tác.

Bản dịch của NXB Trẻ khá tốt, cách dùng từ chuẩn xác và tinh tế, đem lại mạch cảm hứng nguyên vẹn cho độc giả. Không phát hiện ra lỗi dịch, mặc dù có nhiều lỗi đánh máy, cũng không thể tránh khỏi vì tác phẩm quá đồ sộ. Một trong những bản dịch tiếng Việt thực sự tốt mà tôi được đọc trong thời gian qua.

Có một điều buồn cười khi đọc Suối Nguồn là trong đoạn đầu, tôi thực sự ấn tượng và tận hưởng quyển sách. Nhưng vì tò mò, khi đang đọc sách, tôi có xem một vài bình luận trên Goodreads về nó. Thế là những đoạn sau tôi thấy mình bị ảnh hưởng bởi những bình luận đó và thấy mình không thưởng thức sách được trọn vẹn nữa. Do vậy, tôi quyết định lần sau chỉ trung thành với cảm giác của mình lúc đọc thôi, để không bị rớt mạch cảm xúc lần nữa.

Oh, Ayn Rand. How I wish I could enjoy your books more than I do.

This is my second go at a Rand book. My first was Atlas Shrugged. I liked this one a lot more, but I pretty much hated Atlas Shrugged, so I'm not sure how much that says. :) I'm starting to think Rand may be an acquired taste.

It's not her writing I have trouble with. In fact, I was impressed with how much her book kept my attention despite it's length (about 800 pages, or 26 CDs). She's clearly an intelligent and thought provoking author. It's also not her philosophy of objectivism I struggle with, per se, even if I don't agree with it. In Rand's own words (from Atlas Shrugged), her philosophy "in essence, is 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."

Hmmm. While I differ with this viewpoint (I do think it's vitally important to follow one's passions, creativity and ideals, but not above all else or at the expense of others), that in and of itself would not be enough for me to dislike a book. I think it's more that her philosophy is so.... well, pervasive. It consumes every page, and there's not much subtlety to be found. You know where Rand stands, and you know where her characters stand. Which is all well and good. But as others have pointed out, the end result is that the majority of her characters (though quite vivid) are not very likable. They are selfish, self-absorbed, self-important, and all things related to the self. While I realize this is part of the point, it made it hard for me to relate to, admire or even sometimes care what happened to them. While this is also arguably in part the point (society doesn't tend to favor people who stray from the norm and relentlessly follow their own ideals).... that didn't make it any easier for me to like the characters. And, maybe this doesn't make me much of an intellectual reader, but I like to emote and relate (at least to some degree) to the characters I'm reading about. Especially if I'm going to spend 32 hours with them.

All that being said, I did like the book overall. It is well-written, well-developed, fast-paced and thought provoking. It was also revolutionary for its time. And while I disagreed with some of the ideas of man and reason as supreme to all else (isn't there enough egotism in society already?), I still enjoyed hearing the arguments for argument's sake. And as stated earlier, I did appreciate and agree with some of the points made on the importance of creativity, reason, non-conformity and the pursuit of happiness/following one's convictions. I can see why so many love it, especially if the ideas ring true for you. I can also see why so many people hate it. It's worth checking out, if not just for the controversy.

Follow your heart or follow everyone else's lead and do what pleases the public....the book has chosen to answer this question that every generation has faced. This is a very beautifully written book that every person should read at least once. Not because of what it teaches, we all know that in our hearts, but to see that being different, though difficult has its own rewards. It teaches us not to be afraid of being happy. I loved the myriad characters, the way each character has developed over the span of the story, how each part shows different facets of these characters. A must read for anyone who loves his work. A word of caution: You will need a lot of patience to finish this one. Persevere to the end, you'll not regret it.