I as junior in highschool was asked to read this book. At first I was deeply dissapointed to have to read a 1000 page book, but once I started reading it, I could not stop. I personally do not agree with objectivism, but Ayn Rand, brings you into Dagny's life. You find yourself w/ relating to the characters and their struggles, and dreams . I have also read Anthem, by Ayn Rand, and find Atlas Shrugged her best work, by far. Atlas Shrugged is now a beloved book by me, and the rest of my english class. John Galt will live forever!

This book will make you stop and think about your values and what if anything you can do for others through doing it for yourself. This book tells us that we live by societies rules whether we like it or not because we do not want to rock the boat! And when we choose to live like that, we become immune to the world around us. This book reminds me so much of how the government of the U.S.A. is working today. This is a must read for anyone who wants to live life the way we were meant to live it. Undoubtedly one of the best books I have ever read or listened to. I listened to this book on tape while driving back and forth to work, (I drive an hour each way)and I can tell you that I was at work or home before I knew it. There are 12 hours on 8 tapes. Ayn Rand had a unique quality in her storytelling and I would recommend this book to anyone wanting a good read to pass the time.

"Greed, for the lack of a better word, is good. And greed will save the United States of America." One has to suspect that Gordon Gekko's famous speech in Wall Street was inspired in small part by Ayn Rand's masterpiece. Reading it, even a dyed-in-the-wool Communist will understand why free markets work and government intervention and planned economies do not. Rand's masterpiece is timeless and a must-read for every political-science and economics major in our colleges. Unforgettable (if somewhat one-dimensional) characters, a purposeful plot, and an unquenchable belief -- the freedom to choose one's own destiny, good or bad -- make this not just a book, but THE Book.

This is a well-edited colection of Ayn Rand's writings. It is quite good in light of the fact that it contains selections from her fiction and non-fiction writings. For those of us who have a hard time getting through her over-blown, ponderous works of literature, having the key philosophical portions excerpted in one book is a good idea. Also, the book contains only stuff by Rand and therfore is not contaminated by her second-hand followers, like some other collections of her works.

One thing about the book is interesting. Editor Gary Hull tells us that "I have, of course, made no changes in AR's own words." That's not accurate. In the selection "Attila and the Witch Doctor" which was originally published in FOR THE NEW INTELLECTUAL, Rand states in a footnote: "I am indebted to Nathaniel Branden for many valuable observations on this subject and for his eloquent designation of the two archetypes . . ." (FNI, 14.) Although the paragraph to which this footnote is keyed is quoted in full in the READER, this footnote is left out.

For those of you who are honestly interested in learning about Ayn Rand, I fully recommend this book as an introduction to her philosophy.

It's very disheartening to see that Ayn Rand detractors have overwhelmed most of the review boards for her books.

If you read this book, please keep in mind several things that its detractors have not:

1. Ayn Rand's philosophy is an integrated system of looking at life and reality. It distorts her view when you grab one of her ideas and take it out of context. Before you pass judgment on Ayn Rand, please know what you are talking about and learn the fundamentals of her philosophy.

2. You have to be honest to learn from Ayn Rand. Reading her books won't dislodge the falsehoods from your mind, nor cram the truth into your brain. She has created a roadmap for learning the ideal philosophy, but YOU have to look at reality and learn it yourself. Because of this, there are people who have distorted her ideas drastically. Please look at what she has written to learn about her, NOT what others interpret her to be.

That's why this book is so important in clearing up the chaos surrounding Ayn Rand. So many people have misinterpreted her. Here you can get the information firsthand. In her own words.

This is an excellent compilation of Miss Rand's writings -- an introduction for beginners and a treasured condensation (of her writings) for her ardent fans.

Although I have (read) all Miss Rand's fiction and non-fiction, the Ayn Rand Reader permits me quick reference to many of my favorite passages and essays.

Miss Rand's writings are my continuing source of spiritual (mind) and moral strength in a world (currently) dominated by collectivism and altruism.

Her writings will, in time, be the foundation of a New (and much needed) Renaissance.

In 1793, the immediate after-effects of the French Revolution are being played out: the Republic is beset by assaults both from outside France and by counter-revolutionary forces within its borders. The Marquis de Lantenac arrives in Brittany to lead the counter-revolutionary insurgency which has been centred on the Vendée. The Convention has already sent de Lantenac's nephew, Gauvain, to the Vendée with a force to put down the rebellion.

This is the main thrust of "Ninety-Three", although Hugo weaves several other sub-plots into the novel. The action takes place principally in Brittany, but there are scenes in Paris with interesting vignettes of Danton, Robespierre and Marat.

The main thing to be said about "Ninety-Three" is that it's no "Les Misérables", no "Notre Dame de Paris". It has its strengths, but the faults in the plot and in Hugo's writing made it for me a less satisfying read than those other works. "Ninety-Three" is melodramatic (frequently overly so), the use of coincidence is often outrageous, there are wildly improbable sections (the accurate identification of each ship in a French squadron at night being one early example), there are long sections devoted to descriptions of architecture, and one long part which is merely a list of the members of the Convention.

All these traits are present in other of Hugo's works I've read, and I suppose could be expected of a "romantic" writer, but I felt that in "Ninety-Three" they were out proportion, making up for the ordinariness of the main plot, and outweighing the fine sections of good descriptive writing, of meaningful reflections on morality, political convictions and war.

Overall, not his best, more of a cross between Walter Scott and "The Scarlet Pimpernel".

G Rodgers

This book show-cases some of the most brilliant writing I've ever read. Hugo is a literary God.

The events of Ninety-Three occur during (and somewhat define) the period of the French Revolution. For this reason, all the characters' actions are tremendously important. The fate of a large part of the world literally hangs on their actions. Toward the end of the book, during the battle at La Tourgue, you can almost see the future itself, balanced on a knife-edge, swaying back and forth with the actions of the main characters.

The characters in Ninety-Three are giants among men. Lantenac, Gauvain, Cimourdain -- all are heroic in their own way. Even minor characters like Radoub the soldier, Tellmarch the beggar, and Halmalo the sailor are honourable and admirable people.

There are scenes in Ninety-Three that are among the best I've read anywhere. (The "loose cannon" on the Claymore and the fire at La Tourgue being good examples.)

The only problem I had in reading Ninety-Three was one of my own making. Hugo makes a lot of historical or mythological references, especially in describing the Convention in Paris, which I didn't fully understand. That was due only to a lack of knowledge on my part -- it is no criticism of Hugo's descriptive genius. I am sure that when I read it next time (as I will), I will take more from the reading.

Ninety-Three is just about perfect. Read it.

I have read four novels of Victor Hugo(and the synopsis of a fifth one)."Ninety Three" is the one in which he has reached perfection.
This specially applies to his plot-structure which is one of the best I've come across.
Hugo's rather naive artrifices and linking devices,which he used for making tight plot structures,but lent an unconvincing coherence in his earlier novels are absent-giving rise to an ingeniously linked sequence of events-where every event,keeping in mind the moral purposes which the novel seeks to achieve and the moral premises and goals of the characters,necessarily leads to the next event,to the climax and the resolution.

The theme,most appropriately pointed out by Ayn Rand is:"Man's loyalty to values."
How every character and every event expresses the theme is the greatest technical virtuosity a writer can achieve.
(However,as I see,Hugo's conscious intention was to dramatize:"The conflict between the logic behind the French Revolution and the philosophy behind the French Revolution.)

The plot-theme is:"The conflict which arises when a ruthless revolutionary(of the French Revolution)-a priest- is sent to keep a watch on a courageous but compassionate revolutionary-the only man he loves in this world- pursuing his granduncle-a proud,haughty,fanatical Royalist-with three innocent children and their helpless mother caught up in the cataclysm of this savage,frantic battle."

The merits of this novel are numerous.First of all,it is one of the best suspense-thrillers among the explicitly philosophical novels of the 19th century.
The neck-breaking speed with which the events suceed one other will keep you biting your nails till the last paragraph.

Secondly,every page-nay,every line in this novel gives a sense of something profoundly important,grand and dramatic.There isn't a sentence,conversation or scene which is trivial,silly or commonplace.Everything is grandiose,with a heightened sense of solemnity and tension.

Thirdly,one cannot overlook Hugo's heroic view of man.Whether it be a literate beggar or an illiterate peasant woman;a wicked rebel who can go to any lengths of inhumanity or a young soldier who has lead an insignificant life-every character has been endowed with such moral courage,focus on one's values and goals,strength of conviction,fearlesness,intransigent integrity and above all,such a capacity to value one's values-that one has to conclude that for Hugo,man was a Titan or a Giant-nothing less than a demi-God.

I would not call "Ninety Three" Hugo's greatest achievement since it's scope is rather small.Further,Hugo's usual obsession to insert long historical and political essays hadn't left him while he was writing "Ninety Three".Luckily,they maybe ignored.Anyway, I would recommend them for their fascinating poetry;compelling,powerful style and tremendous universal significance.

It is strange that although "Ninety Three" is a thoroughly interesting read-moreover glorifying humanitarianism,compassion and non-violence-it is not a well known novel.One of the common criticisms is that,as the critics say,it has "unreal characters" and an "exaggerated sense of heroism".
But let me tell you this reader:If you want to look up with a sense of worship to the image of the Ideal-the Ideal whose essential nature you might not have grasped;if you want to take pride in the fact that you are a man;if you want someone and something to affirm your deep-rooted conviction : "Yes,it is possible",then you ought to read Victor Hugo's "Ninety Three".

READING IS MY PASION, IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN, AND I'VE READ NUMEROUS BOOKS BUT I'LL TELL YOU THIS, IF ANYONE HAS EVER READ THE FOUNTAINHEAD BEFORE IN HIS/HER LIFE...WILL KNOW WHAT A REALLY GOOD BOOK IT IS. I WAS GIVEN THIS BOOK AS A GIFT FROM A SPECIAL PERSON, FIRST, FOR IT'S SIZE I THOUGHT TWICE BEFORE DECIDING TO READ IT, BUT AS I READ IT I COULN'T STOP MYSELF. IT'S DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EACH CHARACTER, AND THE PSYCHOLOGYCAL REASONING THEY CHARACTERS MAKE, MAKES THIS BOOK THE BEST EVER.

IT DEALS WITH THE STRUGGLES US, MANKIND, GO THROUGH, IT ENCIRCLES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PEOPLE, WHAT SETS US APART FROM ONE ANOTHER AND THE WAY WE THINK. I IDENTIFIED WITH HOWARD ROARK...OH WHAT A WONDERFUL CHARACTER! NEVER GIVING UP! MY RESPECT FOR HOWARD.

THE FOUNTAINHEAD IS CLEARLY THE BEST BOOK EVER WRITTEN AND IT HAS BEEN FOR MANY GENERATIONS LIKE MINE. READ IT, YOU'LL LOVE IT!

CONGRATULATIONS AYN IS THE BEST BOOK EVER.

The fountainhead is the kind of book that changes your life. I have read it over four times now, and each time i find something different to make me think. Some of the speeches drag on but they are necessary to explain Ayn Rand's far reaching ideas. The characters are fantastic as is the plot. When i first read it I couldn't put it down...I read for two days straight. Howard roark is the best hero of modern literature. Read this book!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The teeming mob and the single individual.Howard Roark, the hero-oh what a radical if ever Ayn Rand conjured up one!But is he a hero?Isn't he a rapist, a self-centered monster?Just when you thought he would relent that one bit, just like Keating and Toohey in the book, he says no, and no and no again!Readers stand baffled as they fall down from the height of creativity to the depth of menial labor with Roark.Gail Wynand represents the film or mafia hero, the one who conquers all after being repressed for long, only to bow to the sheer strength of belief of Rand's ideal Roark who is far ahead of his times.You will be left mentally dishevelled, but there's still Dominique to come-unpredictable, uncomprehensible and brutally honest.Ayn Rand writes in vitriolic undertones,the cutting edge is that her protagonists are not those who shout from rooftops but those who utter a single word that sets fire to ice.It's crude at times but always brilliant.People might brand the 'Fountainhead' as capitalist, but it is essentially humanist, the intensity of love against the backdrop of the pillar of creative self-expression. Nothing more, nothing less.

I have always enjoyed the novels of the great writers, writes like Tolstoy, Dostojevskij, Hugo, Jane Austen, Hamsun, Ayn Rand. In this book, Ayn Rand explains what to look for in a novel in order to enjoy it more. Her analysis of several well known authors makes reading the great authors even more satisfying.

The book is based upon informal seminars given by Ayn Rand in 1958. Since it is transcribed from recordings of these seminars, one would expect the text to look as if it were "spoken", but the text looks as if it is polished writing; the style of this book is so elegant that it could have been written by Ayn Rand herself. The editor, then, has done a marvellous job.

A surprising exclamation of "Thank You!" was my instant gut reaction, undeniably ordered by my subconscious, right after reading her last word of this remarkable book. Trying to compete with such authority, "Time well spent" my next cognitive thought.

Have you ever felt the type of gratitude towards a professor who achieved to engage you in a lecture full of clarity, energy, wit, objectivity, intellectual stimulation, and who had you mesmerized, to the point of where you forgot the sense of time? A lecture that didn't register as yet another missionary and boring message by somebody only out to convince you that his/her religion is the only valid one, using all sorts of cheap rhetorical tricks or biblical mystery to sway you? Well, you're in for a treat.

Whether, in the end, one agrees or doesn't with Ayn Rand's points she submits in this remarkable analysis of fiction writing is not what you'll end up with if you allow yourself to go beyond simple judgment of her viewpoints. This is not just another debate with an achieved author seeking approbation about her opinion on what is better or best in literature. This is neither a religious manifesto merely destined to justify or reinforce the credo of her fans.

It is way more valuable, for it is a candid sharing of accumulated cognition, a march of intellect of somebody who has the gift of one of the most precious forms of communication of human existence: the imparting of knowledge and understanding of excellence onto others, not in the abstraction or with self-serving generalities, but with enough of a concrete of information that is powerful enough to stimulate the positive creativity in others, whatever form or shape that may take in the end.

This is not your typical "how to" approach to writing fiction. At least, it is not what one would typically expect. There's more depth here to just writing. It's about writing with a conscience, and thus as much about the author as it is about the writing. This compilation of Ayn Rand's informal courses offered to friends and acquaintances by "popular demand" explores the nuances so often missed by writers and readers alike. Ayn Rand presents and defines--with her usual clarity--the underlying premises that characterize any great work of fiction. She offers comparisons that help illustrate her points and allow the reader immediate comprehension of the concepts presented.

I think the Fountainhead is inspiring and capable of actually changing one's entire attitude towards life. However, it can also be a bit damaging in that it makes unrealistic demands of its "converts." One thing that really bothers me: Ayn Rand seems to believe that repressing all emotion, even the deepest pain, is "heroic" while allowing emotion to show is a sign of "weakness." Howard Roark seems to be completely untouched, emotionally, by the setbacks and attacks he suffers. To me, this seems inhuman, but the message in the book is clear: He's superior to those of us who spinelessly exhibit emotion. In fact, in Atlas Shrugged, one of the good guys is actually physically tortured and barely exhibits discomfort! Does this mean that to be a true "hero" of your life you - almost literally - must not feel pain?

I still think this is one of the greatest books ever and it influenced me deeply in a lot of positive ways. However, be alert for the flaws. Ayn Rand and her philosophy were not quite perfect. I spent a few years after the first time I read her works believing that if I got "too emotional" over a situation, or preferred a folk song to a symphony, that I had serious character defects.

Still and all, I'm glad after all these years people are still reading and being inspired by her works.

Its such a positive book I thoroughly recommend it. The characterisations are brilliant, no muddled mixed grey areas, Rand unashamedly creates extremes to illustrate the book. It made me want to go to America in the 1920's and be an architect! The fresh, forward looking joy of life is genuinely uplifting.

The lead character, Howard Roark, with his abrupt, polite conversation with the various people who attempt to sway him provides amusing, cutting but innocent one liners you'll want to use. His independence, demanding nothing from others, was so refreshing. I particularly love the part when Keating rushes up to Roark and demands to know what he really thinks of him. "I never think of you" Replies Roark, with un-contrived honesty. A more enjoyable read, in many ways, than the broader "Atlas Shrugged" which I would recommend as follow on to this book, after a couple of months rest!

And you'll never meet a more vile man than Ellsworth Tooh! ey, nor a more broken man than Gail Wynand. To detract from the book, saying its nazi-ism or social darwinism is ridiculous, I can see no connection! There is scene of the greatest benevolence involving Roark in the book. The infamous 'rape' scene, that many find objectionable, comes over as a private fantasy of Ayn Rand. Its hardly a shocker, it seems nothing like real accounts of rape. Don't let that cloud you.

The story is rather 'black and white', but I feel that's deliberate. It is a fictional story, Rand was a novelist first, then a philosopher. It may be currently a favourite with younger people, but its a book that gets richer as you get wiser. I think suggestions that the book is naive are a non-criticism by people who cannot consider a constructive criticism, its the "I'm, older and wiser therefore you wont understand, but I'm right" argument. Incidentally, I'm not that young!. Rand did not write it with a specific demographic audience in m! ind!

My advice? Go for it, but only if you're going to ! read it closely and thoroughly, you may as well get as much from the novel as possible.

I first read The Fountainhead as a junior for my English research paper. I was skeptical about such a large book, and my attitude toward reading it was likewise. However, after reading it the first time, I could not stop talking about the intense philosophy Ayn Rand introduces with Howard Roark. The idea of Objectivism, essentially the glorification of individual man's prominence, is intriguing and worthy of consideration. I love the character of Howard Roark because he is the perfect example of a man who becomes successful despite the restraining presence of a society bent on the normal. Our greatest historical thinkers were Howard Roarks: Galileo, Einstein, Newton, and the list goes on and on. This book, although fictional, gives proof to the reader that mankind has the desire to move forward regardless of other people. I see Roark not as a depressed and pitiful weakling who blames society for the downfall of man, but as a true hero among men. He stands out because he does not fold under the pressure of the majority; he does not bail out on the obvious answer when he knows a deeper meaning exists. Now, I am reading the book again, one year later, and I find myself underlining most parts of the book. The story line is filled with true-to-life situations; social darwinism, society v. man, revenge, desire, lust, and every other symptom of life the reader could think of. The Fountainhead is truly more than a classic, and it is worth reading time and time again. The more it is read, the more the reader knows about the idea of Objectivism and how accurately it pertains to the life of mankind. This is definitely a five-star reader, and I encourage everyone to give it a look.

The first 250 pages until chapter 9 are absolutely fabulous. The events up to the train ride are a testament to human determination and are extremely well written. The book should have ended here but it didn't.

Rand is a formidable negotiator and a master linguist; left unchallenged her arguments seem flawless. If you exercise your mind while reading this, you will realize that the insides are hollow and rotten like Eddie's oak tree. If you don't, Ayn will fill your mindless void with her perceptions. Considering that Rand shows contempt for >>99.99% of the people, perhaps this was her aim all along.

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises." So I did:

"Money is a virtue" (Money = production = virtue)
-------------------------------------------------------------
First is money earned commensurate with ability or effort?? Next she refers constantly to the looters arising from the "foundation of men of honesty." Who are these men of honesty? She mentions it once. They are the oppressed slaves, traders, shopkeepers and industrialists. Do the oppressed, forced to produce, automatically become highly moral creatures?

A philosophy that can justify murder of:
------------------------------------------------
"[A Housewife] who elected politicians of whom she knew nothing,"
"A school teacher who turned children into miserable cowards"
"[A philosopher] that taught that there is no mind."

"A man who wanted to exist without the responsibility of consciousness"

This is no more than the reduction of all men's characteristics to a handful of decisive metrics pushed under the guise of a new so-called "Objective" morality. Discriminatory murder goes against every civil and moral code every culture has worked hard to uphold. Explain the difference between this and Germany's Jews?

The new intellectual whore
---------------------------------
A slut would likely go after the guy with the most money; Dagny goes after the guy with the superior mind - From Francisco, to Rearden to Galt. As a philosopher, what message is Rand saying about commitment, adultery or responsibility? Fidelity only to intelligence?

There are so many more failed premises/contradictions:
- Advocating no government intervention yet Rearden demands a patent.
- Intelligent elite without responsibility to the elements that made them.
- The willful destruction of natural resources and environment.
- The virtue of smoking? Where's the responsibility to one's physical posterity?
- A motor with limitless energy fueled by the air? Conservation of energy?!!
- Consistent lack of solid counter-arguments.

Ayn Rand's jerky literary style is a touch hard-edged. It doesn't have the poetic flow of a Kerouac or Hemingway. The dialogue is not witty and the characters are just a touch wooden.

However, the story is beautiful. It teaches one to rise from the pool of mediocrity that is failure. The plot is one of triumph over tragedy and victory over bleeding heart drama. The book also makes an almost unarguable case for capitalism. We watch the decay of our country as the government grips tighter to save our society, only to see it slip through their fingers like sand.

The book is a necessity for all those who treasure the freedom that most have taken for granted, the freedom to think. Though not exactly a piece of art, Atlas Shrugged is a manifesto for the true intellectual, teaching that each and every person should build their lives in pride, disregarding forces that would rob them of their free will.

There are points in which Ayn Rand has flung aside some necessary rubbish of humanity. Spirituality for instance. Her very own characters are an argument for the importance of faith in dire situations, such as the hobo that jumps her train. He has criss-crossed America working in one closing factory after another, and he has hit the end. The man has no where to go and nothing to live for. Here is where he should put his trust in himself, faith in his ability to survive, in the very wilderness if he must. I suggest reading "The Cliff Walk" for more thoughts on this.

Also, though only briefly addressed in Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand downplays the importance of raw human emotion in art, but I say what is the point, for then you've removed humanity from the humanities.

I heard about objectivism and the ideals of it and was skeptical of them before reading this book. After reading it however, it all fell into place. The book is one of the most thought provoking books I have ever read. Even though I feel there are some slight flaws within objectivism, the book is still definitely worth reading.

The idea of having a philisophical utopia if everyone just acts in an individualistic, egoist way is quite absurd however. For one, you can never achieve this, and secondly people are not created equal. Some people are geniuses, while other are illiterate. Having an entire individualistic society would require that everyone can live as an individual, which is not so. If objectivism is to be viewed as black and white as Rand wishes us to, then we should not help the elderly or starving unless we have something personal to gain from it.

Even though the book is long, I find the characters extremity intruiging as well as the story. Even though the philosophy reaches the extremes and sometimes goes over, it is definitely worth the read. Keep an open mind and read it as a story instead of trying to agree or disagree with everything on the way.