This cover is from the first edition of The Fountainhead, published in 1943.
I love the simplicity of it, and the way it invokes so many aspects of the novel. The architecture, the monumentality , the fact that it is the only thing on the cover, reflecting its individuality. Even the orange tint subtlety references the color of the antagonist’s hair.
—
, 2006-10-27 04:35:00 -0400
why dont covers like these exist anymore?
—
mike
, 2006-10-27 08:39:00 -0400
Probably because it involves drawing things by hand.
A computer sure would help to straighten up those vanishing lines…
Kidding…
—
, 2006-10-30 17:31:00 -0500
Too bad the goal of this book is to turn anyone who reads it into a selfish prick.
—
, 2006-11-01 04:32:00 -0500
really, you’re so funny. and right on.
—
, 2006-11-07 12:47:00 -0500
Not really selfishness… its a good book because it reasserts the value of pursuing ones own goals. Anyone can take something to an unhealthy extreme though, makes me wonder how ayn rand functioned? lol, Anyway, IMO the signet cover with the painting “man also Rises” was much better. I can’t seem to find it anywhere on the internet though, just the newer anniversary editions. That painting is a perfect microcosm of the book.
—
, 2006-11-10 14:11:00 -0500
No, really selfishness. It’s a terrible book with a beautiful cover.
i don’t personally liek the cover, i think it woudl repel a reader from reading it. at least it would repel me, but the fact that it is very powerful and repeling shows the chraristic of the book itself and the charcters inside. i think it’s skillfully chosen plus i looove ayn rand. :D
—
, 2007-01-20 06:28:00 -0500
WOW! A timeless beuaty.
FYI…
the film is even worse – in a good/bad sorta train wreck kind of way. the dialog is unmatched.
Wow, some of you don’t seem to have understood this novel. I’m PRETTY sure that Rand’s purpose was not to “turn anyone who reads it into a selfish prick” (really, 2006).For more information, look into her work on her philosophy of objectivism.
—
, 2008-09-09 09:11:00 -0400
You have the wrong definition of “selfishness”.
To be selfish means to put your rational self-interest first to achieve your own happiness. So let’s say a husband finally saved some money to buy the car of his dreams but finds out that his wife has cancer and will need that money to get his wife an operation. He, of course, gives up the car to pay for the surgery. Most everybody would regard this as a “selfless” “altruistic” act, as a “sacrifice” on the part of the husband, when in fact, the opposite is true. This is a completely selfish act. Why? Because he values his wife more than the car. The selfless/ altruistic choice would have been to do the opposite. To have acted against his self-interest. To “sacrifice” and go against what would have been better for his life by letting the wife die.
This is what Ayn Rand means by selfish.
—
, 2008-11-05 17:13:00 -0500
Good explanation of selfishness to those who misunderstand Rand. I love this book (and the movie actually) but Rand really was a selfish dickhead. Anyone who likes (or hates) Rand should read this book (even though it has a horrible, horrible cover):
The cover of The Fountainhead works for me only as a classic book from a different era, so vastly at odds, design wise, with what we see on shelves today. If I were to separate myself emotionally from the story I think the cover is kinda cheesy. There was some incredible hand drawn type done in this period and this isn’t it.
—
, 2008-11-07 07:48:00 -0500
How is this a “misunderstanding” of Rand? Blank out.
I agree on the last critique of the cover. It looks classic. That’s all.
How good (or bad) would it have been when the book came out?
The Fountainhead movie was terrible.
—
, 2008-11-24 08:23:00 -0500
The cover makes sense since the book is about an architect that would draw radical lines notoriously well. Hence, the novel’s cover could not go without lines. Tons of them.
—
, 2008-12-11 18:31:00 -0500
Re: the misunderstanding of Rand, I was talking about elmas' comments to Melissa regarding what Rand meant by selfishness (right before my comment)
—
, 2009-01-14 17:21:53 -0500
Anyone who thinks the book is about turning people into selfish bastards needs to study Ayn Rand. And I don't mean read Wikipedia, study Ayn Rand and Objectivism.
The Fountainhead
This cover is from the first edition of The Fountainhead, published in 1943.
I love the simplicity of it, and the way it invokes so many aspects of the novel. The architecture, the monumentality , the fact that it is the only thing on the cover, reflecting its individuality. Even the orange tint subtlety references the color of the antagonist’s hair.
— , 2006-10-27 04:35:00 -0400
why dont covers like these exist anymore?
— mike , 2006-10-27 08:39:00 -0400
Probably because it involves drawing things by hand.
— Ben Pieratt , 2006-10-27 10:37:00 -0400
Beautiful!
— Olof , 2006-10-29 19:54:00 -0500
A computer sure would help to straighten up those vanishing lines…
Kidding…
— , 2006-10-30 17:31:00 -0500
Too bad the goal of this book is to turn anyone who reads it into a selfish prick.
— , 2006-11-01 04:32:00 -0500
really, you’re so funny. and right on.
— , 2006-11-07 12:47:00 -0500
Not really selfishness… its a good book because it reasserts the value of pursuing ones own goals. Anyone can take something to an unhealthy extreme though, makes me wonder how ayn rand functioned? lol, Anyway, IMO the signet cover with the painting “man also Rises” was much better. I can’t seem to find it anywhere on the internet though, just the newer anniversary editions. That painting is a perfect microcosm of the book.
— , 2006-11-10 14:11:00 -0500
No, really selfishness. It’s a terrible book with a beautiful cover.
— historyisaweapon , 2006-11-19 06:52:00 -0500
I think it’s the best book ever written.
— , 2007-01-17 09:07:00 -0500
i don’t personally liek the cover, i think it woudl repel a reader from reading it. at least it would repel me, but the fact that it is very powerful and repeling shows the chraristic of the book itself and the charcters inside. i think it’s skillfully chosen plus i looove ayn rand. :D
— , 2007-01-20 06:28:00 -0500
WOW! A timeless beuaty.
FYI…
the film is even worse – in a good/bad sorta train wreck kind of way. the dialog is unmatched.
— mark , 2007-04-17 09:42:00 -0400
Wow, some of you don’t seem to have understood this novel. I’m PRETTY sure that Rand’s purpose was not to “turn anyone who reads it into a selfish prick” (really, 2006).For more information, look into her work on her philosophy of objectivism.
— , 2008-09-09 09:11:00 -0400
You have the wrong definition of “selfishness”.
To be selfish means to put your rational self-interest first to achieve your own happiness. So let’s say a husband finally saved some money to buy the car of his dreams but finds out that his wife has cancer and will need that money to get his wife an operation. He, of course, gives up the car to pay for the surgery. Most everybody would regard this as a “selfless” “altruistic” act, as a “sacrifice” on the part of the husband, when in fact, the opposite is true. This is a completely selfish act. Why? Because he values his wife more than the car. The selfless/ altruistic choice would have been to do the opposite. To have acted against his self-interest. To “sacrifice” and go against what would have been better for his life by letting the wife die.
This is what Ayn Rand means by selfish.
— , 2008-11-05 17:13:00 -0500
Good explanation of selfishness to those who misunderstand Rand. I love this book (and the movie actually) but Rand really was a selfish dickhead. Anyone who likes (or hates) Rand should read this book (even though it has a horrible, horrible cover):
http://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rand-Cult-Jeff-Walker/dp/0812693906/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226089263&sr=1-1
The cover of The Fountainhead works for me only as a classic book from a different era, so vastly at odds, design wise, with what we see on shelves today. If I were to separate myself emotionally from the story I think the cover is kinda cheesy. There was some incredible hand drawn type done in this period and this isn’t it.
— , 2008-11-07 07:48:00 -0500
How is this a “misunderstanding” of Rand? Blank out.
I agree on the last critique of the cover. It looks classic. That’s all.
How good (or bad) would it have been when the book came out?
The Fountainhead movie was terrible.
— , 2008-11-24 08:23:00 -0500
The cover makes sense since the book is about an architect that would draw radical lines notoriously well. Hence, the novel’s cover could not go without lines. Tons of them.
— , 2008-12-11 18:31:00 -0500
Re: the misunderstanding of Rand, I was talking about elmas' comments to Melissa regarding what Rand meant by selfishness (right before my comment)
— , 2009-01-14 17:21:53 -0500
Anyone who thinks the book is about turning people into selfish bastards needs to study Ayn Rand. And I don't mean read Wikipedia, study Ayn Rand and Objectivism.
— Anonymous Coward , 2009-02-18 19:43:18 -0500
who designed this cover?
— Ian B. Shimkoviak , 2009-02-26 12:03:43 -0500
turkiyem
— garlica , 2010-01-20 07:24:05 -0500
biber hapi
fx15
lida
rent a car
magna rx
penis büyütücü
elektronik sigara
— red pepper , 2010-01-28 06:12:27 -0500