Scan barcode
A review by pinksreads
The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
3.0
To pretend to like this book would be the most ironic incident; because a good chunk of The Fountainhead is spent ridiculing people who pretend to like big books with big words that seem intellectual - but when read, don’t make sense at all. And most ironically, Rand created what she described in her own book, like breaking a 4th wall. The Fountainhead leaves much to be desired.
Writing style: garbage. It is too long-winded in its approach to explain moral issues and concepts. It took me so long to get through what Rand was trying to say, only to come to the other side of the paragraph and realise that it was a load of bullshit.
Ideas presented: not too bad! While, in the true essence of the word, I am the exact opposite of the protagonist Howard Roark - who is an ardent individualist with no regard for community - I can agree with a lot of philosophies presented in the book. However, it’s focus on linking individualism with art has many flaws, and Howard Roark’s character is repugnant.
Coming to characters; all of them fall flat in one way or the other. In fact, Peter Keating seems to be the most flushed-out character, even if he is portrayed as a sore loser and bootlicker (which he is). Character resolution is very poor.
It could’ve been a 300-400 pages short, and it could do without a rape scene. Just saying.
So the 3/5 is for some of the ideas, most of the speeches and some of the plot. Most of it sucked.
Writing style: garbage. It is too long-winded in its approach to explain moral issues and concepts. It took me so long to get through what Rand was trying to say, only to come to the other side of the paragraph and realise that it was a load of bullshit.
Ideas presented: not too bad! While, in the true essence of the word, I am the exact opposite of the protagonist Howard Roark - who is an ardent individualist with no regard for community - I can agree with a lot of philosophies presented in the book. However, it’s focus on linking individualism with art has many flaws, and Howard Roark’s character is repugnant.
Coming to characters; all of them fall flat in one way or the other. In fact, Peter Keating seems to be the most flushed-out character, even if he is portrayed as a sore loser and bootlicker (which he is). Character resolution is very poor.
It could’ve been a 300-400 pages short, and it could do without a rape scene. Just saying.
So the 3/5 is for some of the ideas, most of the speeches and some of the plot. Most of it sucked.