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: A very good novel
Review: I have to admit that I am not normally big on novels, but I thoroughly enjoyed this one.Fans of Nixonite authors who try to sell you on "The Rich are getting Richer" will not like this book and that is exactly why they need to read it. Although this book is a novel, there is a lot of truth in what Ayn Rhand writes in here. I highly recommend Atlas Shrugged. It will blow your mind.
Rating: 
Summary: Some of the good, some of the bad...
Review: Ayn Rand was a woman who, at her best, believed fiercely in the near supernatural worth of the human animal. I cannot and will not argue with her on this idea, as I do not completely disagree with her. However, my comment on this novel revolves around her attempt in this novel to describe the various elements extant in the world which she believes work to destroy this near-godly spirit embedded in the persona of modern man. "Atlas" is not a work for the fence sitter. Reading it will make all but the most stubborn minds take one opinion or the other about her viewpoint. This polarizing effect makes many people hate the book, and it made me want to hurl it at the wall several times. Frequently, I found her view, which describes the Objectivist philosophy, destructive and unrealistic. To be honest, when you consider man to be a demi-god whose purpose in life to destroy the elements of life that try to crush him, it is nearly impossible to write a book that is either realistic or that will appeal to all who read it. At best, Objectivism scores its best points in its economic statements. The way it is presented, it certainly makes sense that the primary goal of industry should be to make money, and the public good be damned. For what other purpose should industry exist than for the building of wealth? From the viewpoint of this novel and from other sources on Objectivism, it makes as much sense to suggest that businesses look out for the public good as it does to insist that charitable organizations should exist to make money. In the end, I do not agree with Objectivist philosophy, but that does not mean I do not admire this book. To be sure, this story is pure fantasy, and those that would endeavor to follow its example are, in my opinion, foolhardy, but this novel exists as an exhilarating work. Sure, the characterizations are wooden and one-dimensional, but I dare anyone to read Rand's elegant prose and resist getting swept up in it at least once or twice.
Rating:
Summary: The most important book of the 20th century
Review: I highly recommend this book along with the Fountainhead. Ayn Rand is a master in portraying heoric individuals triumphing over the collective-relativist mentality. She elucidated their aim in crystal clarity - the enslavement of man as a rational thinking being. One only need to look at the corrupting husk of the Soviet empire to validate her prescient observations.
Rating:
Summary: 21st century ideas
Review: Every so often the reviews on this book fail to describe the book itself. Too bad, it's a great book whose theme is the role of intelligence in society. What happens when society gets "dumb and dumber," when reason is attacked, and morons take over? Industrial society falls apart. This book anticipates the exact condition of America today. Look at public schools, the Jerry Springer-types, and astroloy. AR's view of selfishness is novel. Unlike most people who have no conception of peaceful selfishness, Ayn Rand showed that this overlooked virtue is the essence of human progress and a peaceful civilization. When people forget that virtue, if they uphold sacrifice, the mind gets sacrificed, and then violent human sacrifice is unleashed. Isn't that the battle at work in the story--and in the world today? The inspiration of this book is that the good wins over the evil, peaceful selfishness wins over violent human sacrifice. Isn't such a victory what we all need to live? Well, that is the battle of capitalism over socialism, of reason over the irrational, the self-destructive, the parasitical. Too bad Bill Gates doesn't care about philosophy; he could use it to his advantage---as John Galt, the story's main protagonist, did to his.
Rating:
Summary: A Book for our Time-Atlas Shrugged
Review: Atlas was the god who held the world on his shoulders; and when he had had enough-he shrugged.
The first thing you need to know about Ayn Rand is that she didn't write anything without a good reason. Another thing you need to know is that this book isn't really a novel, or you could say it's much more than a novel. Atlas Shrugged is a big book by any standard. It's all about how very important ideas play out in the real world, the single most important of which is REASON. Unless society and the individuals who make it up, believe in, and live by reason, they will come to a bad end. Mankind will be "doomed" so to speak. In Atlas, the Great Day of Reckoning approaches-just like in the Bible. Society, corrupted by the stagnant ideas and beliefs of the mainstream, is collapsing under the weight of its own defects and inadequacies. John Galt and his secret band of conspirators hasten the day. They represent America's "men and women of ability." The conspirators go on strike, but nobody except they know it; and the world grinds slowly to a halt.
Rand believes passionately that ideas move the world and this book more than all her other works, reifies that idea. Beside reason, such concepts as independence, liberty, honesty, integrity, perseverance, and hard work are always exemplified by her heroes, as is their antitheses dramatized in her villains. Running throughout the whole (indeed throughout all of her works) is the theme: mankind's incalculable debt to men and women of creative genius; and as a corollary, what happens to the rest of us when these benefactors of humanity are removed, or remove themselves, from the picture?
The question of course is: is she right? I've had considerable time to ponder that question. What's my conclusion? For the most part she is. But think of any great work or thing in the world; any book, any religion, any nation, any great leader or thinker. There are always flaws. Since we can all think for ourselves-when we have the courage-we can all decide what to accept and what to reject. All I can say about this book is that it is no exception. Still, it is one of the great achievements of our time. Anyone who is interested in the Big Questions (the great ideas, the meaning of life, etc) should read it at least once.
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?
|
