Well, the "best book of the 20th century" is now in the past, and it's quite something.  Briefly, I find Ayn Rand and her objectivism deeply troubling, reminding me of both Nietzsche (although I know she disagreed with him) and Dawkins (clever, funny, and amoral)...  The book itself, however, is amazing.

The purpose of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged is purely to convey Rand's personally developed philosophy, objectivism.  Objectivism, simply put, is worship of man (or woman).  It takes the best parts of the individual and says "this is the best there is" and only through pursuit of those qualities can the world be changed for the better.  Howard Roark (the main character) is that man in the Fountainhead, and he is the rugged individualist, the man who cannot compromise his vision for anything, the man who makes all other men feel inferior just by entering the room.  His greatest creation is a temple to the perfection inherent in man.  His purpose is the subjegation of the earth to man's will.  He is God- we all can be God, if we are only strong enough to realize that.

Obviously, it's a philosophy to make you feel good about yourself, right?  Not exactly, as anyone not living up to the prideful perfection is really a failure.  All progress comes from the few men who realized perfection is them- they are the fountainheads of human progress (yeah, a title!).

Despite my problems with her, it seems that objectivism has had a long lasting impact on the American psyche, consciously or not.  While most have never heard of her or read her work, it certainly reflects the general undertones of the American philosophy- self-interest is the "noblest" path a man can take, and only through self-interest will the world be improved.  Individualism is the highest virtue (foreign policy?), screw everybody else- they aren't worth your time.  Pragmatic, but hardly a Christian view (I'm sure Rand would agree with that)...

More troubling is her associations with Alan Greenspan.  While I'm hardly a philosopher, and probably not qualified to make any intellectual critique, her self-interest "man-worship" (to use her own words) seems a poor basis for making economic decisions.  Those who benefit from such a philosophy don't need economic help, those that need help don't benefit from that philosophy.  And yet our Federal chairman, Alan Greenspan, was a member of Rand's "Collective," closing intertwined with the objectivism movement, and a proponent of her ideals.  Here's a brief wiki on the subject.  Interesting how that pops up... 

Our financial system has been controlled by a man who follows the philosophy of the individual, the philosophy which explicitly says only those that are "good" enough to financially succeed deserve to, and all others are truely not worth consideration.  In fact, the public is only to be considered insomuch as to how their resources and buying power impact the designs and purposes of the greater men, the "self-actualized" god-men.  Is it any suprise that the folks rewarded in our financial system are those ruthless individualists, who value their own success and goals higher then any social resonsibility, and those who work for the common good, who work to help out the poorer members of the community (and the environment!) are those who make the least?  Since our society is capitalistic, based almost entirely on money, selfishness is rewarded in the only way it can- with money.  Good to know the system works.  (There's no doubt there are other rewards, higher ones even.  Thank God!)

Anyway, I'll hopefully add to this later, but it's late and I'm tired...

(I use "god" in there, but Rand was certainly an athiest.  However, she literally did equate that sense of power and almost holiness with man's potential.)