You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.47 AVERAGE
3.47 AVERAGE
dark
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
Probably the best book I’ve ever read about something I don’t agree with.
adventurous
inspiring
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
challenging
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
slow-paced
I have heard this book raved about and referenced for years, and I was excited to finally have it at the top of my queue. I'm actually shocked by much I have disliked it.
It's not without merits. Roark's character is well made and has admirable traits. Also, I felt like the first half of the book did a great job illustrating what it's like to be an artist, and how those that end up being successful are either purely committed to their aesthetic/ideologies or they're connected and often both are required. It was a lovely exploration of the idea of originality in design during the modernist era. That idea of pure originality also an idea I disagree with on a philosophical level, because no one is creating in a vacuum and we absorb what is around us all the time, but I still appreciate the full rendering of that view point. Rand did her research about art and architecture and I appreciate that.
Dominique was also an intriguing character. I felt like she might be a representation of nihilism in the way that Roark was a representation of modernism and that was kind of fun and fresh, but once they got together things went downhill, and I started to be more annoyed by how wrong I felt like the fundamental messages of the Fountainhead are. Rand blasts community and religion and focuses on the individual and the individual's struggle to be true to who they are without pretense, i.e. unapologetically self-interested. I thought I knew what I was getting into because I know Rand is a libertarian sweet heart, but wow. Apparently in the whole city of New York there were only four people who could see what was "real" in the world, and everyone else? A mass of senseless bumpkins that just get in the way of the people trying to make and value pure and real art and thought. I'm trying to figure out how Rand thinks a world filled with people like Roark and Domonique could even function? Everyone would be a grade-A narcissists, not to mention jerks. Or maybe her point is that she doesn't expect most people to get the the level of intellectual "enlightenment" that Roark, Dominique, Wynan, and Toohey have obtained, and so who cares about them anyway?
Also, the assumption that religion just serves selfish purposes for controlling the masses (represented by Toohey) got a little tiresome. I am a religious person, and I don't believe in blind faith, and it gets annoying in general when non-religious folk think they can chalk it all up to religious people being simple-minded or easily manipulated and duped. But I knew Rand was a devout atheist going into this book, so I guess that's what I signed up for.
Then Dominique married Peter. Ugh. Her masochism intrigued me at first, but it went and on and then she married Peter, who we feel sorry for because he stands on the cusp of seeing what is "real", but in the end he sticks to his simpler ways of existing which include being self-interested (a good thing according to the Fountainhead) but lying to himself about it (absolutely unforgivable-we must despise his weakness.) Honestly, Peter, with his flaws and poor choices, was the only human character. I still wanted to find out what would happen, but once Dominique and Wynand decided to get married, I was just over all the self-righteous idiocy of intellectual people with too much time and money on their hands.
Anyway, to close off, these are the fundamental messages of the Fountianhead, I take issue with:
It's not without merits. Roark's character is well made and has admirable traits. Also, I felt like the first half of the book did a great job illustrating what it's like to be an artist, and how those that end up being successful are either purely committed to their aesthetic/ideologies or they're connected and often both are required. It was a lovely exploration of the idea of originality in design during the modernist era. That idea of pure originality also an idea I disagree with on a philosophical level, because no one is creating in a vacuum and we absorb what is around us all the time, but I still appreciate the full rendering of that view point. Rand did her research about art and architecture and I appreciate that.
Dominique was also an intriguing character. I felt like she might be a representation of nihilism in the way that Roark was a representation of modernism and that was kind of fun and fresh, but once they got together things went downhill, and I started to be more annoyed by how wrong I felt like the fundamental messages of the Fountainhead are. Rand blasts community and religion and focuses on the individual and the individual's struggle to be true to who they are without pretense, i.e. unapologetically self-interested. I thought I knew what I was getting into because I know Rand is a libertarian sweet heart, but wow. Apparently in the whole city of New York there were only four people who could see what was "real" in the world, and everyone else? A mass of senseless bumpkins that just get in the way of the people trying to make and value pure and real art and thought. I'm trying to figure out how Rand thinks a world filled with people like Roark and Domonique could even function? Everyone would be a grade-A narcissists, not to mention jerks. Or maybe her point is that she doesn't expect most people to get the the level of intellectual "enlightenment" that Roark, Dominique, Wynan, and Toohey have obtained, and so who cares about them anyway?
Also, the assumption that religion just serves selfish purposes for controlling the masses (represented by Toohey) got a little tiresome. I am a religious person, and I don't believe in blind faith, and it gets annoying in general when non-religious folk think they can chalk it all up to religious people being simple-minded or easily manipulated and duped. But I knew Rand was a devout atheist going into this book, so I guess that's what I signed up for.
Then Dominique married Peter. Ugh. Her masochism intrigued me at first, but it went and on and then she married Peter, who we feel sorry for because he stands on the cusp of seeing what is "real", but in the end he sticks to his simpler ways of existing which include being self-interested (a good thing according to the Fountainhead) but lying to himself about it (absolutely unforgivable-we must despise his weakness.) Honestly, Peter, with his flaws and poor choices, was the only human character. I still wanted to find out what would happen, but once Dominique and Wynand decided to get married, I was just over all the self-righteous idiocy of intellectual people with too much time and money on their hands.
Anyway, to close off, these are the fundamental messages of the Fountianhead, I take issue with:
- To be true to yourself means never to change.
- You should never consider the thoughts or feelings of other people (unless you're trying to manipulate them, I'm looking at you Dominique.)
- People are incapable of being truly altruistic and self-sacrificing for the greater good.
- Love has nothing to do with other people, but everything to do with objects and ideas and being an individual (saddest definition of love I've ever heard/read).
I'll probably finish it one day when my reading/listening time is less scarce, but I wasn't in the mood anymore, and more exciting books await.
challenging
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
This is a book which I have mixed feelings on. It is a good story, thought provoking,and even moving at times. It was hard to keep track of conversations, and some characters and their interactions are often too ridiculous to believe in. Despite that, I've grown to love some of the characters, and I would still recommend this read.
challenging
dark
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I enjoyed the complex nature of this book and drew parallels with society from its cast of characters