|
Even so, it's a great read, though some might find it a bit too heady and somewhat dry. Do not put colums on my building. Maybe that's what this book should have been called. But that's why Ayn Rand was such a great writer, she wrote what she liked and didn't care what anyone else thought. I have to say, I really enjoyed this classic and look forward to reading Atlas Shrugged, though it may be a few months before I undertake that one.
Of all Rand's novels, this is my favorite and I highly recommend it. How many novelists really push the envelope and cause you to think.
I still pick it up occasionally now (20 years later) and read a chapter or two. I first read this novel in college and I found it very inspiring.
Her passionate, attacking style is also quite exciting and in stark contrast to most novels that are just simply boring. Rand's presentation of man as a heroic being is still very uplifting, particularly in a culture laden with religious ideas such as original sin, guilt, etc.
I also think Rand's use of metaphors is among the best of any novelist. I haven't come across many.
Paul Gehrman, Author, Kaleidoscope
Unless you are desperate to read Fountainhead on the Kindle I would wait until a better formatted version comes along. Luckily there were several Kindle versions of that book and I was eventually able to download a more readable one.
Like other books that have been Kindled the formatting for Fountainhead is awful. I have been anxiously awaiting kindle versions for Ayn Rand's novels and so far I am really disappointed.
I had the same problem when I downloaded a version of Anthem. It is actually so bad that it is difficult to read the book.
I do not understand why there is not better quality control when copying books to the kindle format. Unfortunately as of now there is only one version of Fountainhead.
(Oh and there is no table of contents and no cover).
It's funny how when its put in this light you all have a hard time standing by your own conclusions. She towers over her drone-like followers as they worship at the temple of their own primitive drives, now given legitimacy (at least in their minds) by this and a few other of her "novels", snapping and salivating at any who may have the audacity to question the sanity of their philosophy. The result: we're now in the 21st centure with an artifact in our brains telling us to do whatever it takes to maintain status, resources, and offspring.Now, what are the most base, shallow, crude, and salient indicators of reproductive fitness primitive man and woman would have looked for. With her bloated, pedantic, patronizing tome, glorifying monkey brain style status indicators and by god, your right to seek them at all costs.
Ethical self-interest you say. etc. Let's look at that under the clear light of science, not the murky bog of philosophy. The plot and characters are just paper-thin window dressing for said philosophy anyway.Ok, so altruism is bad eh. "Altruism is for the weak" shouts the Ape Queen. Never mind that there are people who are incredibly weatlhy now who have little intelligence, wit, or work ethic (eg Paris Hilton) our primitive brain still sees all that wealth and says "good good, me likey" or just "oooohhh shiny".Now we have Ms.
The former needs no explanation, the latter indicates ability to survive, intelligence, power, etc. Obviously, in the stone age, those who didn't get enough resources perished along with their genetic code, and those who produced more offspring were more likely to pass the code on to future generations. Because its morally bankrupt. It's been referred to with the most clarity as the "selfish gene": Not meaning that an individual has a particular gene that makes them selfish, but that we all have genes that demand to be passed on, and thus compel us to behave selfishly: to hog resources, to create as many babies as we can (for the males at least), to lie and cheat to clamber our way to the top of the evolutionary pile, or at least make sure that our particular genes aren't extinguished in this round.And it makes perfect sense. For the weak you say.
Rand- pseudo-intellectual poser writ large. Allowing outgroups to use your resources up IS altruism, plain and simple. Sadly no. We all have a primitive inner voice, some call it the "Id", some call it the lizard brain. If we have different genetic groups, let's call them "races" (though that term is somewhat dubious from a strictly genetic perspective, but we self organize based of "race" so its useful), and these races tend to group together to promote their own interests over those of other groups WHICH THEY DO (because at a, usually, unconscious level, they realize that they share more genes with each other than with those in the outgroup), and if there are limited resources WHICH THERE ARE.Now if we remove altruism from the picture because its "for the weak", and we say that the self-interest of the individual is paramount at all times, then it follows that the group in power could and SHOULD exterminate the weaker group(s).Ah, that's "unethical" you say. Why. Because no one in their right mind would say that's ok.
But that's the end result of your insane philosophy isn't it. You're either in a world where altuism is OK, or you're in a world of unending violence. Simple: Secondary sex charcteristics and wealth. Sociology 101. Can't we all agree in this age that this kind of dressed up selfishness just doesn't work. For those about to whine that I "didn't review the book", if the entire philosophy underlying the book is bankrupt, then by reviewing it, I am, in essence, reviewing the book. But there it is.
I'm not going to go deep into material for this review. you have 1000s of other posts for that.all i'm going to say is that it was a very entertaining book and a great summer read (even if i got through it in only a couple of weeks). I'm sure anyone would be glad to add this to their knowledge base and personal library.
|
