I did not like The Fountainhead as much as Atlas Shrugged. Atlas Shrugged was more of a page turner. There were very specific character goals that drove that story. The Fountainhead had a gradual buildup to a very climactic courtroom scene. The Fountainhead took the reader on a very linear journey, but never going beyond the basic story of a man who wants to succeed. Of course there are more nuances than that, but that is the basic essence. Atlas Shrugged takes a more epic approach and raises more issues and more awareness of the world around you. As Ayn Rand has said, The Fountainhead was the story of man, while Atlas Shrugged was a story of society. And, of course, society is going to have more things going on in it.
Both stories revolve around a central character, the perfect man. In The Fountainhead, this man is Howard Roark, Architect. While being "perfect" in the Ayn Rand sense, he seems more human than the counterpart in Atlas Shrugged, John Galt, Destroyer, who is more of a god in that story. Even the speeches made at the end by both men are as different. Roark's speech is approachable, readable, understandable and relates directly to the reader. The reader is instantly drawn in. John Galt's Speech, however, is a massive didactic and at times condescending speech that as a reader is a major undertaking in a book as involved as Atlas Shrugged. But the audiences were different for the men. Roark spoke to men who he chose to listen to him. Men who were logical thinkers; cold and objective. Galt spoke to the radio masses; basically sheep. He had to find 42 different ways of saying the same thing, just so the people could understand him. Beyond the speeches these men are different in their presentation in the book. Roark begins and ends the story. Galt is a mystery for the majority of Atlas Shrugged. He is mythic and godlike. Referenced, but never known and understood with the constant elusive and almost meaningless quote "Who is John Galt?" That book really focuses on Dagny Taggert, a rare very strong female character. Atlas Shrugged is really her story, her failing quest to save a world that doesn't understand its own danger from a destroyer. Both she and Galt are a matched pair, similar in philosophies, drive and dedication, but different in their approach. Dagny was relentless in trying to hold the world together, even though the world tried to stop and undermine her at every turn. Galt did not actively seek out destruction. He merely illustrated that without the exploitation of people like Dagny, it will not and can not survive. He simply withdrew himself from being exploited.
One thing that Ayn Rand really impresses me with is that while she gets a kick out of creating and describing and telling the story of the perfect man, she incorporates some of the strongest women I have ever read in literature. As Dagny is in Atlas Shrugged, Dominique was in The Fountainhead. While not as strong or dominate as Dagny, Dominique finds her own niche in the story as the perfect female and satirizes what society usually paints as the "perfect female." Besides being physically attractive she is smart beyond normal comprehension. When trapping herself in a meaningless marriage and playing the part of the "perfect wife," she performed her womanly duties; everything when the husband wanted. Did he love this "perfect wife?" He was miserable because who would want to date a robot who did everything he wanted. She exhibited no personality or thought of her own and was perfectly compliant with everything everyone wanted from her....specifically to show how miserable they can be by simply using her.
Fountainhead is a brilliant novel. Ayn Rand has found a way to share her philosophies in a way that is entertaining and enlightening and only a rare trace of didacticism. The Fountainhead shows a very true if not menacing picture of how evil altruism can be.

Well well well… a solid 4.5 or 4.75…Almost a 5 star book…
The ONLY minor point I don’t like is how the author has such an extreme POV on some religious and politicals issues…
Other than that, amazing book! It made me think about it the whole week I read it …
Brilliant, but too extreme…

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?

When I started reading this book I was about rating it more than 2-3 stars. During the reading I liked few ideas, well, maybe I should say I agreed with few of Rand's thoughts such as the capitalism's injustice, and the fact that it is difficult for humans to accept change. Change is an unavoidable process of human's improvement although a majority of people perceive it rather as degradation of the society and its values. Afterwards, there were many issues with the plot's development and principles.

Roarke's speech made the difference eventually and made me add a star. However, in general I am not impressed by Rand's principles which I find pretty contradictory. I think the main contradiction is about the definition of the individual and society's correlation. What motivates an individual to change and what motivates society to change? Rand's principles are reflected in many typical american stories of success and self-fulfillment and Roarke is the representative character of such stories. I consider this book more like a self-help and inspirational, rather than something fundamentally different from other works of the 20's and 30's. The real problem here lies in the attempt to attack capitalism by elevating a common person whose talent is rare, describing him as oppressed and the society as the culpable for his failure to fit in. Yet the whole point gets ambiguous, and at the end the main character finds the place he always wanted. So what?

The plot is too complicated and fragmented into sub-stories so it made me lose my interest to know about a certain character's story. Should also mention that this book drained me and it left me with no expression besides ''much ado about nothing'', or just ''meh''.

Well I finished it. I want to write a review. In fact, I have been 'writing a review' of this book the entire time I've been reading it--in my head--I like this, I don't like that, etc. It's a deeply flawed book, there is no question, and yet, and yet, there is also no doubt that there are some profound nuggets of truth that she shines lights on which make us wince. Her depictions of the hypocrisy of/in so much of human social behavior was outstanding! Her acknowledgement of the way so many are afraid of other people's success ... as if it somehow negates their own is also very accurate and well-portrayed. There were many sections of the text which I highlighted because I liked them so much and yet long-winded soliloquies used as conversational speeches, I could have done without. They often broke up the flow of the story and usually didn't convince me of her argument.

Even so ... I still want to write a review and this isn't it.

But here it is:

As I am 212 pages into Ayn (pronounced Eye-n) Rand’s Magnus Opus, Atlas Shrugged, I expect this review might be somewhat colored by a growing understanding of her philosophy which – at least so far – is made more clear in AS than TF.

What I am coming to realize is that hers was a philosophy of pure business, i.e., business for business’ sake with very high ethical standards of its own. That her views do not represent any ‘side’ but point out truths which are uncomfortable for all sides is, in fact, what led to her own unpopularity and yet the enduring value of her work.

To her, GOOD = pure capitalism, ethical businessmen who want to produce quality goods/services, provide gainful employment for those who wish to work and show a profit because the work/business itself is what is right and good. Businesses do not exist for altruistic reasons; they exist for their own existence. And yet they do benefit society to the extent which they meet the three objectives stated above. This ‘GOOD’ presupposes its mutual understanding and support by all concerned parties on many levels and does not (so far as I can see) take into account such things as crony capitalism, human egos or vices/virtues and/or the fact that one person is never all one thing or another, not all good or all bad.

EVIL, by contrast—according to Rand—is anything/anyone who would hamper or collectivize individual initiative in the realization of the stated GOOD above, whether through weakness, ignorance, outright opposition or claims of ‘what’s owing’ the rest of society, in particular those less fortunate.

In her desire to clarify her philosophy in a work of fiction, Ms. Rand sacrifices the flow of story. Well, we have seen this in other books and it can be forgiven. Readers are always free to skim long soliloquies when editor/publishers are overruled by loquacious and enthusiastic authors.

However, the real question of The Fountainhead is, are man and society as Rand portrays them? Is her story realistic and does it have merit on that basis? First, what about society? Well of course, she simplified things for the sake of a novel. The reality is so much more complex I wonder it could ever be portrayed in fiction that was entertaining. And yet for a book written in 1943 which supposedly reflects American social and commercial values from an even earlier era, I found the book as relevant, honest and accurate a description as anything I’ve read today. Her characters, however, seem polar representations: either ‘all good’ or ‘all bad’, with fools falling into the latter category.

However, as this was meant to be didactic book, a ‘rub the puppy’s nose’ in his mistake lesson, she knows what she did and why she did it. The character’s opportunities to choose one way or another kept coming throughout the story and each time you knew it and hoped he/she would choose the higher path. That was the intention of her book. Our question is can we forgive her?

A central tenant of the book was how many of us are afraid of other people's successes ... as if another person’s accomplishments in some way demean our own. Do we celebrate or begrudge them? I am thinking of Jesus here and when He told the Parable of the Talents. We are not given equal talents but we are all encouraged by our Maker to use and not bury them. I will save the rest of what I want to say about her atheism for my review of Atlas Shrugged.

Ms. Rand was Howard Roark. She lived his life. No, she didn’t build pieces of avant-garde architecture; she wrote books people hated, vilified and misunderstood. And yet she knew what she believed and she stood by it regardless of what others thought of her. She had a rare and total integrity to her principles.

I admire her very much. A classic work—certainly flawed and a bit campy for my tastes, but hugely entertaining. I will return to it again! Now on to finish AS.

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

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.

Ik heb een kanjer gelezen. De roman The Fountainhead telt 805 pagina's en werd mij hartstochtelijk aangeraden door ondernemer en drie boeken-podcastgast Rudi De Kerpel. Zò hartstochtelijk, dat hij het kocht en mij cadeau deed. Hij vertelde dat dit boek zijn leven heeft veranderd.

The Fountainhead gaat over een architect, Howard Roark, die sinds zijn studententijd exact weet wat hij wil bouwen en op welke manier. Hij is eigenzinnig, op een extreme manier: hij wil dat er niets verandert aan wat hij bouwt. Dat is de enige voorwaarde waaronder hij wil werken, wat het erg moeilijk maakt om opdrachten te krijgen.

Zijn medestudent en collega-architect Peter Keating daarentegen maakt wat het publiek wil, hij buigt naar de trends van de tijd en waait met de wind, wat hem aanvankelijk veel succes oplevert. Het boek vertelt het levensverhaal van deze twee personages, aangevuld met mediamagnaat Gail Wynand en de merkwaardige vrouw Dominique Francon, die Roark tegelijk steunt en saboteert.

The Fountainhead is een roman uit 1943 die het individualisme, de sterke persoonlijkheid hoog in het vaandel voert. De roman bejubelt sterke individuen als drijvende kracht van alles wat de samenleving voortstuwt. De rest wordt 'tweedehands mensen' genoemd: mensen die drijven op prestige, dus op de mening van anderen. De afwezigheid van enig 'zelf' bij mensen is verschrikkelijk.

The Fountainhead is naast een ode aan de scheppende kracht van de mens vooral een kritiek op het collectivisme, op de gelijkschakeling van iedereen. Eén voorstander van het collectief in het boek, de socialist Ellsworth Toohey, doet in zijn werk als cultuurcriticus zijn best om het begrip 'kwaliteit' te vernietigen. In zijn krantenrubriek hemelt hij middelmatigheid op, probeert hij elke notie van excellentie te verdelgen. Niets mag uitsteken boven het maaiveld. Op die manier bekritiseert het boek ook de populaire media, die middelmatigheid ophemelen en hoogstaande artistieke prestaties belachelijk maken.

Delen van het boek deden mij hard denken aan wat ik bij Nietzsche las: The Fountainhead verkettert het concept zelfopoffering als een uiting van zwakte en bekritiseert een maatschappij waarin opoffering centraal staat. Volgens Nietzsche hebben we dit te danken aan het christendom.

The Fountainhead is een te lang, maar op zijn minst een interessant boek dat doet nadenken over de verhouding individu - maatschappij, over ambitie, liberalisme en de functie van een sociaal-maatschappelijk stelsel. Ook al ben je het niet honderd procent eens met het politiek-filosofische uitgangspunt. Howard Roark is een inspirerend personage, dat vanuit zijn ijzersterke wil niet in staat is om compromissen te sluiten, maar wel snoeihard zijn eigen weg volgt.

Volledig leesverslag: https://wimoosterlinck.wordpress.com/...

"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.

Malonė skaitytojo akiai, intelektui. Niekur nebuvau skaičiusi taip preciziškai atlikto veikėjų charakterių pjūvio. Keturi skyriai- keturios asmenybės. Kai kurie be galo sudėtingi, man taip ir nepavyko jų perprasti, galbūt, skaitydama knygą po daugybės metų, įminsiu jų paslaptį Sluoksnis po sluoksnio, asmenybės lupasi, lupasi lyg svogūno galvos, kol prieinama iki pačios šerdies. Ji gąsdina, graudina, kelia susižavėjimą arba pasibjaurėjimą.
Prisitaikėlis, Manipuliuotojas, Diktatorius ir Kūrėjas.
Yra sudėtinga meilės istorija, kuri vertė stebėtis, o kartu džiaugtis dėl originalaus, savininkiškumą atmetančio požiūrio į mylimą žmogų. Kūnas tik mėsa, koks skirtumas, su kuo ją daliniesi.
Faktas, kad romanas pirmąkart pasirodė 1943m., o toks aktualus ir šiai dienai, verčia lenktis autorės talentui ir toli siekiančiai akiai.

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.

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!