Atlas Shrugged

Rating:
Summary: well........
Review: I believe in making moral judgements, I dont mind being viewed as a prejudiced individual, ( I am), I support capitalism in all its glory, I despise collectivism, I believe that each individual is who he has chosen to be, yet even I can tell that Objectivism is primarily a philosophy for the psychologically weak and irresponsible.
Surprising that I am not an Objectivist, just look at how many times the word "I" was used in the preceding sentence. Unbelievable.
And by the way, Ayn Rand did not create Objectivism, nor was she the first to put the philosophy into practice; Leopald and Loeb were acting on these principles quite a while before Rand ever jumped on board. Give me a break. She just gave it a name.
As for the book, well, the writing is sloppy, and the woman was in desperate need of editing. No truthful followers will admit this, however. Everyone at the ARI seems to be completely blind to any fault that can be brought against her, even if it only concerns her writing. She was not the greatest writer in the world. Please.
The book is great for shallow intellectuals. Not a whole lot of depth really. Perhaps best read by the very young and/or the very stupid. I hope I am not struck down for saying this, (lackeys are often quite tough, you know), but the truth must be said.
The characters are just not real. They come across as paper-board cutouts whose sole existence is to spout endlessly on Ayn Rand's philosophy, even when you have just read these same ideas only a page before. No one in the book reacts as real humans. Really I would say that this is the main flaw of Atlas Shrugged, and of Rand's fiction in general- No Humanity. Its just not believable. It all boils down to Ego, which according to Objectivism, is a wonderful thing; but its about like reading Joyce's Ulysses. People created to act as monkey-puppets for the author. I honestly dont care about the author. I want to read a good book.
Try listening to Beethoven's symphonies and then read this novel. Which individual best expressed the heroic possibilities of Man? The struggle for individualism? The triumph over all that stands in the way of the thinking, creative individual? Why give so much credit to Ayn Rand? Beethoven expressed, long before, the epic conquest, spiritually and emotionally, of the human race.
Listen to Beethoven instead. Heck, listen to Tom Jones instead of this.

Rating:
Summary: Good book needs great editor
Review: Unfortunately for Rand and the characters she writes, the axiom of "Never use two words, when one will suffice," is not one they're very interested in. Despite being obviously enamoured with Classical ideas of a perfect man, Rand doesn't seem to have much use for Classical ideas of rhetoric. The book is certainly well written, but after about the first part it quickly becomes rehash with slightly different examples, and thus impatience and deja vu sets in long before the book reaches it's conclusion. If she'd had an editor that would have done his job, a third if not a half of the book would have been slashed. If you're a quick reader, however, you can get through the more repetitive blatherings to the salient plot points without too much hassle.
As for the philsophy contained in the book, it's a mixed bag, certainly not without its merits but a bit too extreme to be a practical way of approaching the world. The problem seems to be that she paints her "good" characters too ideally, and pretty much everyone as buffoons that can barely put their own pants on. Maybe if her ideal characters could actually exist it would be a better philosophy, but I couldn't help but feel that in real life, individuals strenuously following objectivism would be a bunch of Raskolnikovs, killing little old women because they think it's okay to crush and destroy anyone who gets in their way.
The stars are for the book, by the way, I don't really think philosophy is something to judge on a scale of stars.