spaceage's Full Review: Ayn Rand and Leonard (AFT) Peikoff - Fountainhead
When I was in 7th grade, I was given a book list by my English teacher of books that all "educated" people should read in their lives. Granted, it was about 20 years old and didn't have some contemporary authors that are worthy of reading, but it seemed like a reasonably comprehensive list of classics, some well known, some more obscure.
Now, about 15 years later, I've read most of that list. I'm still checking off books occasionally. I've read some amazing books, fell in love with a few, and re-read many of them, sometimes several times over. I've also learned something else...
I'm probably going to get kicked out of the club for this, but I think it's time the beans were spilled about it. Sometimes people who fancy themselves intellectuals read really bad books, and then tell you they are great in order to get you to read them. I have a couple of theories for this phenomena. One is that they don't want to be the only ones duped into spending way too much time reading a book that wasn't worth it, so they want others to feel the same pain. Then neither of them will admit that they hated it, because smart people don't read bad books. My other theory is that they know once someone has read it and didn't like it, you can act superior to them because they "just don't get it."
Well, let me start on my rant. Going into this book, I was familiar with Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism. I was also aware that The Fountainhead was pretty much a treatise on Objectivism, thinly disguised as a novel. I had fairly good understanding of Rand and her ideas prior to reading page one. I disclose this so that you don't think that I was simply turned off by reading a novel and finding out that it was really a book of philosophy.
I actually like reading philosophy, so I figured reading a philosophical novel might be kind of interesting. What I found out was that the philosophical portion could have been covered quite easily in about 50 pages. The rest of the book simply hammered it out over and over with characters that were simply too uninteresting and unrealistic to care about. They are like soap opera characters.
Howard Roark, the brilliant architect who knows more than anyone else in his field, but is stifled by "the man" for being too unconventional. Stifled to the point of becoming a misfit in his industry, understood only by his aging mentor who is willing to give him a job as a draftsman. But Roark is too hot headed and self assured of his own brilliance that he just cannot bastardize his art just to survive. He becomes self destructive because he just cannot "sell out" his genius, his art, or his vision.
Peter Keating, on the other hand, is the exact polar opposite of Roark. He is only interested in how he can further his professional and social standing. He is the ultimate sell out. He has no integrity. He has no vision. And he's simply not very smart. He is extremely successful because he is willing to buy into the conventions that rule the architecture industry. He always knows deep in his heart that Roark is his superior in every way, and that tortures his very existence.
Dominique is the privileged rebel. She knows what is right in her heart, but always makes poor choices. She refuses anything that might make her happy, and wishes to spend her life in misery. She seeks out turmoil and hardship and makes decisions based on what might bring her the least amount of pleasure in life. She loves Roark, but chooses to hate him. She despises Peter, but he is somehow like her misery touchstone.
This could all play out like a Melrose Place episode. There are those who will argue that the characters are intentional caricatures used to illustrate a point. No one expects you to believe that there are really people this extreme, but Rand "masterfully" creates characters that fit so neatly into a profile that her philosophy comes to life in their very existence. Yes, there are those who will argue this. I'm not one of them.
If people who read this are so intelligent, why should they need to be bludgeoned repeatedly with characters who are stupidly driven to prove a point? There is no subtlety in this book. How am I supposed to form an attachment to characters that I despise so much. I spent much of the book wishing for something very large and very heavy to fall on the lot of them. If I can't identify a character in the book that is worth turning the page for, what is the point of wading through such a hefty novel? There is one reason I finished this book-- to put another check mark on my list. The convention would now dictate that I should speak high praises of this novel, so that you will want to read all 704 pages. I simply cannot do that.
There is one reason to read The Fountainhead, and one reason alone. So you can say you've read it. I recommend not bothering. You can gain much more satisfaction knowing that you spent the time reading something worthwhile.
Now that the Intellectual Police will be knocking on my door to take away my membership from their Smart People Who Read Hard Books club, let me attempt to redeem myself in their eyes. Have you read The Sound and The Fury by William Faulkner? Oh, you really should. It's a brilliant book, I loved it and so will you. No seriously. Oh never mind. I hated that too. Do your worst to me....
General Fiction - When it was first published in 1943, The Fountainhead--containing Ayn Rand’s daringly original literary vision with the seeds of h...More at Barnes and Noble
Howard Roark is an architect whose genius and integrity will not be comprised. He has ideas that work against conventional standards.More at Buy.com Marketplaces
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.