The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
2/5
As a novel, The Fountainhead fails. The protagonist, Howard Roark, is portrayed as perfect in all regards. He is an architect who is infinitely talented, who in every action represents integrity and staying true to one’s self. He faces obstacles created by others, who don’t recognize his genius, but he maintains his ideals uncompromisingly. Rand makes it very clear that he is a hero. Because of his initial perfection, he doesn’t undergo any character development. Other “enlightened” characters can recognize his genius just by looking at him. Thus, he is the most uninteresting character in the novel. He behaves for the most part utterly predictably. The exception is when in one scene he rapes a woman; disturbingly, this is not supposed to represent a character flaw but rather his strength and masculinity, because the woman wanted it despite not giving consent. The other characters are still fairly two-dimensional, but not to the same extent as Roark.
As a philosophical treatise, The Fountainhead fares slightly better than as a novel. It does provide a clear exposition of Objectivism (mainly because her characters give long monologues about it in the middle of conversations). Some of the basic principles are interesting and important: many of her discussions on maintaining integrity, creativity, and individual pride seem reasonable. Most of the book talks about the battle between individualism and collectivism. Rand would make a convincing case for the former if she didn’t take her arguments to such ridiculous, uncompromising extremes. It is certainly possible to write a novel that demonstrates a philosophy (cf. Camus), but Rand doesn’t quite pull it off. The Fountainhead is worth reading to understand Ayn Rand, and I definitely took some positive messages from her philosophy, but ultimately I had to overall dislike this book.