Rating: 
Summary: Great Premise, Wonderful Characters but........
Review: I loved this book but have trouble saying it. I enjoy reading books that are 1000+ pages which contain a great story but Ayn Rand seemed to be over verbose just for the sake of taking up more space. Atlas Shrugged could have been written in under half the number of pages and still could have been equally enjoyable. My other wish was that Ayn Rand would have used a Thesaurus to find another word for shrugged. Did anyone notice the number of times Ayn Rand used the word "Shrugged"??? Too many.
Rating: 
Summary: lets be up front about this RAND thing...
Review: okay, fine. the book is a little boring? i think so. flat and sometimes unbelievable characters? no arguement from me. so here's what you do: you like long complicated books? read atlas shrugged. but my advice would be to read it for the ideas, not for the literature. hey, how about instead you put the book down, and buy a copy of "OBJECTIVISM: THE PHILOSOPHY OF AYN RAND" by Peikoff. if your out for literature, go buy some Bukowski instead. incidently, i don't think the issue is that characters like rand's DON'T exist....it's that they ought to.
Rating:
Summary: Rand dramatized her ideas, but she'd created better fiction
Review: Most of the hundreds of reader reviews are quite accurate about the individualistic, rationally egoistic, life-affirming philosophy that Rand conveys in this book -- and that goes for those who both love and hate her work. What few have discussed at any length are the merits of "Atlas" as fiction.If you are interested in encountering Rand as a provocative author and literary stylist -- and it's an eminently worthwhile desire -- this is not the book with which to begin. Her earlier novel "The Fountainhead" (1943) is notably superior to "Atlas" (1957) in character shaping, plot construction, setting, and dramatic tension. "Atlas" changed, while Rand was planning it, from a straightforward story -- about the creators of value withdrawing from society -- to a project that entailed the description of a "moral revolution," as Nathaniel Branden termed it. Rand felt the need to make the essence of her philosophy more explicit and detailed, in order to properly depict her heroic characters and what they believed. Was that a genuine need? Within fiction, that is? Not in the wake of what she'd created earlier. The courtroom speech by Roark in "The Fountainhead" ended up genuinely dramatizing the essence of her philosophy, in how it was connected to the events of her plot, and in how it alluded to those Roark had defended or opposed. It didn't sit apart from the events that created the main conflict. The similar climactic speech in "Atlas," by contrast, is a piece existing on its own (though superbly self-integrated in its philosophic aims). It's set apart from the rest of her story, and unlike the shorter speeches of others earlier in the plot, it's not genuinely linked to the main events and characters. This isn't a minimal distinction. With a few minor exceptions (some polemical pamphlets), Rand wrote fiction exclusively until 1955, by which time she had worked on "Atlas" for nine years. When she turned at that point to the major speech (itself requiring two years to formulate and write), she shifted gears and aimed her writing skills at the exposition of philosophy, not at dramatizing plots. She couldn't sustain her work of writing in both ways at the same time. This makes "Atlas" into two books, not one. The book with a plot surrounds the book-length major speech in the heart of Part Three. One can see the rising and falling lines of Rand's talents, as she shifted interests. The most vivid and moving episode in the plot-book immediately precedes The Speech. (Rearden and the attack on his factory, and the young boy who attempts to prevent it.) The most conventional and least original plotting immediately follows The Speech and continues to the end of the novel, with almost visible efforts to tie up loose plot ends. (And in a use of overly transparent allegories, such as the main character being "crucified," albeit on a torture machine.) To know this road map helps in negotiating what is a long and yet rewarding fictional path. Don't mistake me: Even when the plot was below her best efforts, Rand's dramatic sense exceeds all her contemporaries, and hearkens back to Hugo in its concentration of effects. Yet this book attempts to bridge the gap between fiction and philosophy, and ends up being a weaker effort in both areas. Rand wrote better fiction earlier, and (The Speech aside) better philosophy later. "Atlas" is Dagny Taggart's story, much as "TF" was Howard Roark's. Rand was more adept at finding the greatness in human beings by looking at men than at women. She made little attempt to hide this point in her later nonfiction writings and interviews. Introspection was not her strong suit. This didn't mean that she was bad at it -- for Dagny is an intricate, passionate, complex character, the most compelling by far of Rand's female protagonists. Yet this woman writer fit better by far within the "skin" of a man such as Roark. The secondary characters in "Atlas," with the exception of Francisco d'Anconia and his sardonic wit, don't match up to the detail and quality of those in the earlier book. The men in "Atlas" who sell their souls, such as Boyle, Ferris, and Stadler, are far less compelling and chilling than the delicate balance shown in Peter Keating, in Rand's earlier novel. Too many of those appearing on either moral side in "Atlas" shade into caricature, whether in Rand's descriptions or in their immersion into plot twists. The main hero of "Atlas," Hank Rearden, accepts far too many blows from those who are being parasites upon his values -- too many, that is, for a man possessing the strength of intellect that he is shown to use. By contrast, the earlier book's Gail Wynand, who is far less moral in what he has done, knows his weaknesses and is more realistically self-aware. "Atlas" is set in an undefined time in the future, and the science-fiction touches have fallen short in 40 years (watch for the 35-inch TV set). The backbone of the story, using passenger railroads, also threatens to be anachronistic. Yet if a bit of "alternate universe" sensibility is used, thinking of this as a world of might-have-been that's even more bleak than our own, it becomes less of an obstacle to the present-day reader. All of this aside, "Atlas" is a compelling, challenging, and dramatic work of fiction. If you want to genuinely understand Rand's strengths as a fiction artist, though, begin with her earlier novels. And when you do read "Atlas," read it for the plot. Don't let the 70-page major speech slow you down ... skip it if you wish, absorb the essence of the plot, and then encounter it on your second reading. As with all of Rand's work, the perceptive reader will want to encounter it a second time, if only to appreciate the workings of her mind and the skills of a master dramatist.
Rating:
Summary: Credit where it's due.
Review: Yes, Ayn Rand admits to writing differently. Yes, she tends to be redundant on the main thesis of her book. But never once did I feel bored or annoyed. The Speech of John Galt in my opinion is Atlas Shrugged's climax. Never before did I feel as relieved as when I read that speech and finally got to hear at least one person speak out with a loud and clear voice and with intelligence twinkling in his eyes. Yes, Ayn Rand is talking black and white and never grey. So what? That's what you do when you talk philosophy. You define right and wrong. You tear symbols from reality and project them on a wall. Not life-size but bigger than life -- lots bigger -- so people way over there still can see and reflect. I'm not interested in the shades of grey that you may feel you have to live your life in. I'm interested in truth. If your main concern is that there's people in the world that are neither good nor evil, or that not everyone is born "productive and smart etc.", or that there's only a mere 1% Randian Bigger-Than-Life people out there, fine. You are right. But we are still talking philosophy. It's ideals, black and white. Galt's Gulch is the Objectivist's ideal environment. Nowhere does Rand claim that hidden away somewhere in some remote mountain range really is that valley so rich of natural resources and the greatest of people. Nowhere does it say that only said greatest have a place in an Objectivist society. Of course we need bakers, assembly line workers, messengers, mechanics and whatnot. It's just that John Galt is right, too, when he feels, that he owes nothing to nobody. He is not born with the original sin. He is born free. He is born a human. Nobody has the right to make him do what they think is right, and be what they think is a good person. Nobody should be throwing stones at him. It's just that he should be exempt from sh*t. What Ayn Rand has sold to me is a glimpse of her ideals and ideas. Where we go from here is in our own hands. In how far the book changes my life is my own concern. Or rather it should be. Only they won't let me. While you may say individualists don't make a society, they are your pillars. While you are the static force, they are the driving force. If after all you still don't want to give credit where it's due, i beseech you, please, at the very least, Get out of our way. Thank you, Ayn Rand.
Rating:
Summary: A must read in understanding freedom.
Review: Perhaps one of the most inspirational books I have ever read. Amazing depth, great story line, thoughtful characters, and a provocotive philosophy. A must read for every American citizen who wishes to understand the basic tenants of capitolism. Caution, if you are a modern day liberal, it may change your philosophy.
Rating: 
Summary: Inspirational but whimsical
Review: I like this book. I read the harcopy twice, and I've listened to the taped version many times. I find it to be fun and inspirational, and I have recommended it to many friends. The problem I have is that the characters are flat and predictable. They don't portray the depth and complexity of real people. They wear their philosophy on their sleeves, and they fall into two distinct camps: Those with high self esteem who are productive and confident, and those with low self esteem who scheme to live a parasitic life off of the first group. The productive geniuses live in peace and harmony in Galts Gulch while the leeches inhabit Washington and executive boardrooms across the country. I can't imagine Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, or Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla ever living in harmony hidden in the Rockies together. Just because you're a productive genius doesn't mean your philosphy and values are the same as that of your peers. This is what Ayn Rand implies, and this is why I claim that the characters lacked depth and complexity. Read it and enjoy it as a fairy tale, but don't expect Pulitzer Prize winning story telling.
Rating:
Summary: Great story, philosopher or not
Review: I love the story of the book. I happen to like Ayn Rand's philosophy, but even if you don't that shouldn't stop you from enjoying the book. Also, if you're not reading it for the philosophy, there's huge sections you can just skip -- you'll know them when you get to them. Other than liking the plot, my favorite thing about this book is Dagny Taggart, a main character, female, strong willed, intelligent and sexy. She is, in a word, cool.
Rating:
Summary: The greatest book ever written for those who chose to think.
Review: Atlas Shrugged is the masterpiece of one of the world's most brilliant writer/philosophers, Ayn Rand. For those who accept the responsibility of becoming the new intellectuals, Atlas is of paramout importance. The plot itself is remarkable for its planning and execution. The thematic elements are of such a calaber that similar achievements in literature are rarely, if ever seen. Ayn Rand had a gift for expressing powerful philosophic concepts in terms, which anybody who was able to think, could easily understand. Atlas Shrugged relates the story of a world where capitalism is slowly being asphyxiated by governmental edicts, and the mind is regarded as a powerless lump of cells. The metaphysical similarities between Rand's portrayal of the United States, and the future we seem to be hurtling towards are both sobering and terrifying. This is a book for those who accept that joy is the natural state of man. Who believe that human life is only sustained through productive work, and that to deny a man the fruit of his labors, is to deny him life. This is a book for those who live their lives by reason, neither using emotions as a tool of cognition, nor looking to the supernatural for guidance. In short, this is a book for those who wish to exist on Earth.
Rating:
Summary: The finest book I have ever read
Review: This book is the most fantastic book I have ever read. In this novel Rand puts her objectivist philosophy into action. What transpires is a novel that shows her ideas about the power of the individual and reason. However, the book is also a fantastic read, it is easy to get caught up in the story and only later realize what Rand was exemplifying. This is one of the few books I have ever read that has had a direct and lasting effect on the way that I think.
Rating: 
Summary: "Atlas Shrugged" deserves very little literary merit.
Review: I decided to take up the task of reading "Atlas Shrugged" after having just finished "The Brothers Karamazov" upon reccomendations from several friends who had read it and loved it. I also enjoyed "The Fountainhead" immensely. I was quickly upset by the quality of work presented in "Atlas Shrugged". The book is boring from the onset, never truly 'picks up', and offers no semblance of a substantially redeeming quality in Rand's literary style. I know the Objectivist Fever finds many people reading and LOVING most anything Rand ever wrote, and to them, I think the book would be far more fun. I find Ayn Rand's philosophy, while accurate at points, to be extremely esoteric and even contradictory at others. Throughout the book are located speeches by the main characters, characters who, I must mention, are not remotely realistic. The good guys are all in actuallity Objectivists, the bad guys are all simply philanthropists or uncompelled Socialists- she never gives the ideals she opposes a fair shot. There ARE two sides to every argument. This fact is ignored throughout the book. The good guys know why they're good, the bad guys know why they're bad. Things are not cut and dry like that. The speeches to which I refer happen many times. Each one is a 5, 10, or 20 page ode to Objectivism, essentially the exact same words revamped and stated by a different character. By the end I was so exasperated by the assinine redundancy of these casual dissertations that I skimmed over most sections. I have found this book, not because of its philosophy but because of its lack of literary integrity, extremely dissapointing, and must strongly urge potential readers not to waste your time. "The Fountainhead", as I said, was a slightly more succinct and far more pertinent novel, which I would highly suggest in place.
| 
