Atlas Shrugged

Rating:
Summary: The best writing by the best author
Review: Ayn Rand writes so beautifully and descriptively that it is difficult to put her books down. While the Fountanhead was a masterpiece, Atlas Shrugged, though long and at times tedious, is the finest written book I have ever been lucky enough to read. Her characters are masterful. The intrigue is gripping. Dagney Taggart and Hank Rearden are admirable characters who truly come to life. The book touches on subjects which apply today, over forty years later. They include: Big business and the role government; what happens when big government overtakes big business' ability to create and succeed. In many ways, it predicts the collapse of the Soviet Bloc. The book is deep, yet fun. I have never enjoyed a book more

Rating:
Summary: Atlas Shrugged is an amazing book.
Review: Ayn Rand's magnus opus is the most amazing book you will ever read, unless you have some sort of aversion to individualism and thinking. If you are a communist, this book might irratate, inflame and outrage you-- it might also enlighten you. I recently read this book for the first time, and I doubt it will be my last. It is a good, practical introduction to and illustration of objectivism. Rand's sprawling scope, masterfully crafted plot line and intricately woven characters will grip your mind and make you answer for yourself the age-old question: Who is John Galt

Rating:
Summary: Superb novel, unsound philosophy
Review: Though never a formal Objectivist, there was a time I was convinced that Objectivism was the ultimate ideal - that "Atlas Shrugged" dramatized the one philosophy of life which could really revolutionize human existence, & create THE ideal world. I don't think so any more.
Today, I am against most of Objectivism - i.e., most ideas of "Atlas Shrugged"
Having said this, I don't understand why Ayn Rand is criticized as a novelist.
I've always held, & still do, that "Atlas..." is one of the best novels ever written.
In affirming its stature & attempting to offer a clearer view of the novel, I'll take up a few issues raised by detractors:

1. LENGTH: Nearly ALL the greatest novels of the world are long: "Don Quixote", "Tom Jones", "The Brothers Karamazov", "Les Miserables", "War & Peace", "In Search of Lost Time".....
The length of a novel, in itself, doesn't detract from, or add to, its greatness ("Scarlet Letter" & "Christmas Carol" are short)
What is important is: does the novel succeed in making its point?
Are the scope, vision & depth of the novel concomitant with its length?
What are the problems handled by the novel - & what does it take to make the alternatives offered convincing?
If one were to carefully analyze these (& many more) points, one finds that the length of "Atlas..." is completely justified by the complexity of its vision - & the importance of the issues taken up.

In "Atlas...", Rand presents a radically different & unconventional philosophy - a philosophy of rational self-interest. To convince the reader of her point - she has to defeat, (from her perspective) a wrong system/ ideology that has remained unchallenged for centuries (e.g. altruism) - to "debunk" ideas which are, traditionally, accepted as ideally good, e.g. subordination of the individual to society.
She is not merely concerned with passing sweeping statements which stun & shock - she wants to show WHY are certain ideas right/wrong, tracing them to the fundamental epistemological & metaphysical roots, & building up from there.
And then, she has to present a thrilling suspense story, where these ideas & events are perfectly integrated. To accomplish so much - to present a comprehensive vision of human existence - to construct a plot that dramatizes it all - 100 pages won't suffice.
"Atlas..." is a BIG novel (the no.of pages) - because it is BIG (the complexity, profundity & no. of important issues handled simultaneously).

2. REPETITION: There seems to be considerable "repitition" in "Atlas..." But the question is: WHY? And further, is it merely repetition at all?
Confronted with this doubt, I questioned myself: What is the context in which the ideas are being reiterated? Is it required? Does it serve some purpose of a character (&/or author)? Given the specific situation, is it adding something to the evolving psychology, the spiritual struggle, the gradual enlightenment of a character? Is someone gaining a new insight?
Why is the author reiterating the idea - what does she want us to understand NOW, when we are already aquainted with it? What is it in the plot, event or present situation which necessiates a restatement? Does she want us to grasp something new?
Having considered all these points, I realized that there is no repitition in "Atlas..." - the reiteration is an excellently used tool of the step-by-step enlightenment of the character & reader.

The novel is about the gradual breakdown of certain erroneous ideas, of a specific social system (e.g. a socialistic system) - about an evolving, torturous grasp of the truth, of what is right - which proceeds in measured steps.
One has to grasp the new insight/connection to be made, relate it to the development of the story/character & grasp the author's statement more fully.
Only a superficial reading would call for the charge of repetition.

3. CHARACTERIZATION & STYLE: The characters are well constructed, given the concept(s) they represent - but credible psychology IS lacking.
In fact, "Atlas..." is a queer mixture of unconvincing psychology, & penetrating perceptiveness. Eddie, Francisco, Dagny, Cherryl & Hank Rearden are beautifully rendered characters - PSYCHOLOGICALLY. Since Rand believed in projection of essentials, in total purity & concentration in portrayal of a character, she builds characters that are philosophical representations.
Her aim was not the examination of the contradictions/anomalies in human nature as such, but the exploration, denunciation/ glorification of certain value-systems; - more importantly - the portrayal & delineation of a certain ideal - of identifying the fundamentals, & developing characters from the necessary abstractions.
When a character holds a contradiction, Rand portrays it with brilliant psychological insight - as in Dominique & Wynand in "Fountainhead" - or say, Hank in "Atlas..."
The point is, this is FICTION - & a novel is a different entity than a newspaper column. Characters are not supposed to be copies of "real life".
If her aim was to project the Ideal Man (in a work of fiction) she has accomplished it with superlative virtuosity.
Sometimes, though, Rand's OUGHT TO BE is simply indigestible. I really can't accept the fact that Francisco & Hank are so jolly & joyous after Dagny moves over to Galt. This kind of ideal, "rational" man simply can't exist.
Rand's all-white-all-black stance in "Atlas...", which seems to be philosophically wrong & literarily all-too-convinient - is grasped in the proper spirit if one understands that the real conflict is between the good characters - say, Francisco & Hank - not Francisco & James Taggart.
The story is, PRIMARILY, about the intellectual illumination of certain characters who, being good (acc. to Rand's views) hold certain wrong ideas - the story is not, primarily, about denunciation of bad characters themselves; THAT is basically a part of the background of the story.

As for style, I fail to understand criticisms such as "stilted", "wooden", "sloppy", "stodgy"... I can't counteract such remarks since they are subjective. But I know that in "Atlas..." , Rand has mastered clarity, precision & brevity.
Re characters not talking as people do in "real life" - well, neither do Hamlet or Lear. It is more than sufficient that they make their point very clear to the reader.

3. PHILOSOPHY: The philosophy of a novel doesn't detract from its literary merit. I disagree with many of Dostoevsky's ideas, for e.g., but LOVE his novels.
This is not a place to write a dissertation on the weaknesses of Objectivism - but I'll say: DON'T TAKE THE VISION / IDEAS OF THIS BOOK LITERALLY. It is AYN RAND'S vision of the truth. Not necessarily the truth as it is. Her philosophy is full of misrepresentation, distortion & ignorance - even sheer lies, & massive evasion.
Consciously or not, Rand has misinterpreted & misrepresented many concepts (e.g. mysticism, "sacrifice") - her statements, & definitions (especially in the John Galt speech) are simply untrue. It is not ALL wrong, though - some ideas of "Atlas..." are really good - many criticisms are true & valid.
The rest is simply juvenile, superficial, & untenable - even outright silly. The vision is too narrow, closed & limited.

4. INTEREST VALUE: Without any doubt, I've never read anything MORE interesting than "Atlas..."
What interests a person is again, subjective; one can't objectively define what ought to be "interesting" & what not. Some may find it boring.
I'll say that "Atlas..." has an original plot, a continous stream of unusual events, powerful emotional scenes, breathtaking suspense - all woven together by flawless logic. It is both an intriguing, philosophical suspense thriller, & a modern epic on the grandest scale.

5. PROPAGANDA: Rand hadn't really thought of propagating a proper philosophy called "Objectivism" until sometime after "Atlas...", so the view that the novel is mere propaganda, is baseless. Through her story, Rand sought to defend ideas which have always been (according to her) hated & denounced (e.g. egoism, individualism, efficacy of reason).
To present her Ideal, to show how the others are wrong, it was crucial to present a complete vision - to strike at the very root of error/untruth; to logically defeat every other premise - to explain her vision in terms of fundamentals, & an action-plot - to write a consciously philosophic novel. This makes it indispensable to project all the relevant ideas, concepts & reasons - clearly, logically, & explicitly. "Atlas..." dramatizes, masterfully, a grand theme: glorification of human reason.

The fact that she considered every pertinent aspect of human life from this viewpoint; & realized that, to delineate her ideal she must tackle every every important problem of human existence CONCEPTUALLY - & present a coherent, TOTAL vision -- & that, to do this she has to develop & state her ideas with utmost clarity & unambiguity, doesn't make it propaganda.
It makes it visionary literature.

In conclusion: As an emotional & literary experience, "Atlas..." is TREMENDOUS, given you read it in the proper spirit (though I cannot take its philosophy seriously).
Howmuchever I disagree with Objectivism, I'll re-assert that Rand has written a brilliant novel: recognize her genius, & applaud her for it.

Rating:
Summary: So Misunderstood, it's sad...
Review: It's almost truly amusing to read some of the negative reviews from people who were once "angst-filled objectivists", saying that they hated the world; that they loved to be hated; that they thought "the mob" and the commies would win: to these people, I suggest you read the book again.
That mentality is the polar opposite of what the author espouses. Firstly, in answer to the many "I hated the world" comments: she addresses this attitude specifically in the book, in the character of Dr. Robert Stadler. An Objectivist does not hate the world, as the emotion is often self-destructive. Secondly, if, as a previous reviewer has stated, you "love to be hated", you were not an Objectivist: caring what others think of you is a primary tenet of the opposite philosophy. Third, if you took the plot of her novel seriously, as a prediciton of the immediate future, you do not need to be on the computer, you should be on a therapist's couch.

That said, it should also be noted that not all Objectivists are angsty, rich teenagers with no world experience. That is as innacurate as to say that all altruists are Ellsworth Toohey's brain-brothers.

Whew. I got that off my chest. Now, on to the actual review. Whether or not you liked this book depends largely on whether plot or characterization is more important to you. If you prefer the latter, then don't read Atlas Shrugged. The author only develops characters insofar as she has to to advance the plot. Then, consider your attention span. This book is 1168 pages long; not the longest book ever written- both Les Miserables and War&Peace are longer- but for today's modern reader, it can seem daunting.

But if you enjoy fast-paced mystery and suspense combined with sex, action, and philosophical speeches, larger than life characters and fantastic scope, read Atlast Shrugged- even if you disagree with what she says, it is an experience you will not forget.

Rating:
Summary: It grows off you
Review: I first read this about a decade ago. Coming from a persistently anti-intellectual rural American public school, I absolutely loved it. At last, something that validated excellence and reason and thought! Even at the time I recognized that the characters were wooden and I thought her economic theory was oversimplified, but those seemed to me minor flaws next to a philosophy that gave me justification in being smart and using reason rather than emotion. I'd venture to guess that something like this is the root of Rand's ideas among adolescents, especially since teenagers haven't really necessarily lived enough to experience the limits of that philosophy when you try to live it.

So, yeah, I loved the book. It really did change my life at a time I needed that justification. And it's clearly affected a lot of people quite strongly, not just me.

But I just tried reading it again and could hardly get through it a second time. The flaws I dismissed as minor before now seem overwhelming. For one thing, her economic and political theory is completely inapplicable to the real world, in which political and business leaders (to make the most profit) would be rationally best served by completely screwing over their workers and 95% of people on earth. I've spent a fair amount of time in some of the poorest countries in the world, and the unadulterated capitalism you see trying to grow there is much more in line with Rand's philosophies than the guided and regulated capitalism that serves us so well in America (or even to some extent in Europe). Her philosophy was obviously formed by her past growing up in Russia, but though there are some obvious flaws with extreme communism, it does not at all follow logically that the other extreme is the best alternative.

From a more literary perspective, her characters are uncompelling and unbelievable -- not just in their ability (you expect that in some novels, and part of the point is that they're geniuses) -- but in their utter certainty about everything and their utter *sameness* to each other. In my experience, one of the marks of independent thought and rational thinking is when you see people disagree, but that certainly doesn't happen among any of her heroes except when they misunderstood each other. It would have been a far, far more interesting book if the characters had had more depth and questioning and sense of being torn between different values, the way real people are.

That said, the book still has a very interesting premise. And while lots of the writing (especially the monologues) is clunky and wooden, some of it (particularly the descriptions of the cities and the mills and the railroads) is quite evocative. The sex and the relationships are cringe-inducing, but I quite enjoyed some of the microscopic interactions, particularly those involving Francisco - one of the more interesting of a set of fairly uninteresting characters.

And, really, it should be read, for a similar reason that I think the Bible and the Quran (and, heck, even the Left Behind series and the Lord of the Rings) should be read. Believe it or not, like it or not, it's formed the basis of a lot of people's thinking on an array of issues that are very relevant to the world we live in.

Rating:
Summary: Mildly interesting, poorly executed, 0 believability
Review: That being said I agree with Rand's philosophy, to a point. There are not 3 kinds of people in this world: sinister looters/moochers, screaming ingorites(yes I made this word up), and creative Jesuses. There are not only 2 motives in life: domination and creativity. There is no purity in anything. That is the only absolute. Everything has flaws, imperfections, and inconsistencies. The only thing perfect is chaos which by definition is imperfect. Then why would Rand write this voluminous tome that contains nothing but absolutes?

There is no solution to the evils of the world. They will continue because of the imperfect nature of our universe. Protection from them is impossible because we are all by nature evil in our own way. We struggle daily with right or wrong be it helping someone who doesn't ask for it, or ignoring someone who does. Which of these things are wrong? There is no answer to that question. All of our decisions are based on what will make us respect ourselves tomorrow. Our responsibility to our actions go only as far as the ability for us to see the consequences of those actions. Furthermore, those consequences are valued by everyone differently. We're all different and inconsistent so obviously we have to restrict everyone's abilities to judge right or wrong by determining a basic standard of values. But those restrictions can, and do at times, go too far. So we need to restrict the restrictions. Balance of power, checks and balances: nothing is perfect or constant.

Welfare is evil if its purpose is to solidify an aristocracy. Accumulation is good if it is earned. I don't think these last 2 sentences should take over 1000 words, much less pages, to explain. What she tried to do was make everyone believe those words by repeating them incessantly. I don't mind point blank bluntness but I do mind being hit in the face repeatedly by a 2x4 and that's what reading this book feels like.

I can't wait for the film to be made. Hopefully it translates well to a screenplay given that they could cut out 90% of the book as repetitiveness. The plot was obviously just a tool that she used to infest the reader's mind with her opinions but for the most part it was a solid story. Ideally they'd make it surprising and suspenseful rather than predictable and repetitive. Did I say this book was repetitive?

Rating:
Summary: Great read - flawed philosophy
Review: I read this book for the first time when I was 20. It was a great read - I loved it and subscribed to everything in it. I thought - finally, I have found somebody who thinks like I do. I went on to major in Economics and Philosophy in part due to the influence of this book.

However, as I have grown older (I am 27) I have come to see some flaws in Rand's philosophy. For instance, where do children fit in? There are no kids in Rand's book, and I dare say she would have been a scary mother. Also, since when is efficiency the number one goal? It's a good goal, but there are higher goals in life. Rand is also not high on religion, which is not surprising, as she thinks she can handle everything herself.

So while I appreciate the story - it is a great ride - I have to limit my review to 3 stars because of the potentially damaging philosophy Rand is espousing. While her philosophy is useful in many situations, if carried out 100% it would lead to a hateful, spiteful world with little compassion and love. So if you haven't read her book, do read it, but do so with a grain of salt.

Rating:
Summary: Good, but with some reservations
Review: I enjoyed most of this book. I am pretty sympathetic to the message of the book, but I can understand why some people would be turned off. The book is set in a futuristic United States that is being slowly taken over by collectivism and by folks more concerned with "fairness" than excellence. The book proceeds with an ever growing amount of protectionism being implemented on various industries, with the best companies and the best men unfairly hurt in the process. The protagonist of the story fights back by convincing all of the high achieving men of the country to quit working in the system and runaway to a restrictive enclave in the mountains. The point was to show the world what would happen if the creative and business energy provided by these men were to be suddenly removed, as if on a strike (Indeed, the working title of this book was "The Strike" Rand changed it on the advice of her husband). It is an interesting premise, indeed think of how our history would have been altered in the last 20 years with out Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Michael Dell and other such mavens).

The entire premise does require some suspension of belief. How many multi billionaires would quit their day job, sell off all of their worldly possessions in order to follow a kid out into the mountains and live in a commune? However, the story is a means to the end, which is ultimately to get Rand's philosophy out.

I found most of the story quite enjoyable, however it got very tedious towards the end. Rand descends into long spiels about the evils of collectivism and how the individual is the ultimate power. I think most readers will get that after the first 5 times she says it. The other 40 are overkill. On this score, I agree with a previous poster who said she was in dire need of an editor. The character construction led a lot to be desired as well. None of the "good guys" had any detrimental attributes. They were all smart, capable, dashing and good looking. None of the "bad guys" had any redeeming characteristics. They were all conniving, lazy, indecisive and frightened. But, based on the premise that the story is a means to a larger philosophical end, this shouldn't be surprising.

Overall, I liked the book. I do feel that "The Fountainhead" was a better piece of work, but this one is still worth reading if you don't mind the time investment (it is over 1000 pages). I am fortunate that my current situation gives me spare time to invest in reading (I am currently deployed in the army). If I were back in my civilian job in the army, I am not sure this is where I would spend my reading time.




Rating:
Summary: This book is about being and trying your best
Review: This book is about living your life to the best of your ability and respecting that effort in others. A college professor once told my class that "everything you do has your name on it; reflects your values, your self respect - if you do a shoddy job that's how you value yourself and how others will value you. Do everything as best you can."

That's what this book is about: values, respect, worth, work, effort, doing your best and therefore making a contribution. And what is against is having no values, no respect for yourself or others, making no effort - i.e., becoming a parasite living off the efforts and work of others.

This is the philosophy behind the story that includes mystery, suspense - everything for a good novel.

It is not written for the MTV/CNN generation that needs everything in 30 second sound-bytes; but certainly should be read by them.

Rating:
Summary: As our need for alternative energy sources...
Review: becomes increasingly desperate, let us not forget the books of Ayn Rand. Especially where home heating fuel is in short supply.