Rating: 
Summary: A well-done book about reality
Review: I have read this book several times and am constantly amazed at how much each read awakens my mind. The characters are extremely inspirational, and she does a fabulous job of showing the reader how complex and everyday concepts like love, freedom, evil, etc. exist in reality. (I mention this because one of the many important points the book makes is the importance of words/concepts being used accurately to describe reality---not 'floating abstractions' that cannot be built up from sensory perception.) People use abstract words constantly and yet often don't really know the meaning of these words---yet they believe in them and use them to form conclusions and shape their lives (and the lives of others).Many people feel that the book is too long, but I disagree because it deals with reality, which includes everything---how long should a book be that addresses everything? It definitely has philosophical approach to the plot and makes me think of all of those "philosphical" class-room discussions about philosophy and how silly they were compared to this book (e.g., brain-in-a-vat, how do you know such-n-such, etc.). This book is what philosophy SHOULD be, not irrelavent brain-teasers that belong in novelty books. I have always been centered in reality and find that this book approaches reality in the same way I do---by reason. (It's filled with intense emotion both by the characters and ellicited from the reader.) I think it's definitely one of the top 5 books in human history (and written so recently!). The reason I say 'top 5' is because I haven't read all the books and I'm allowing for the possibility for others to be as important (e.g., Principia?).
Rating:
Summary: Greatest Book Ever Penned
Review: This is written by an artist both subtle and powerful and in language that is beautifully poetic. Its plot excites, thrills, terrifies and keeps up a palm-sweating suspense. This book is a BIG, FUN story, not some dry, naturalistic examination of a neurotic's psychology (which some think is the standard of fine literature). But it is also the most profound philosophical fiction you will ever read. It is the story that conveys the meaning--the heroes just make it explicit.
Rand is uniquely unique and has about as much in common with Verne as Shakespeare does with Harry Potter, as much in common with earlier "right-wing" novelists as she does with Horatio Alger stories, and even Nietzsche didn't come very close to her profoundly revolutionary ethics.
It's both delicious and nutritious, but be ready for an emotional and intellectual bunker-buster!
Rating:
Summary: The thesis, antithesis and synthesis of thought and morality
Review: This book has been named the second most influential book in the US by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month club.
Yet a large number of reviewers blast it. How come?
It's simple. If you identify with the heroes, John Galt, Hank Rearden, Dagny Taggart, and Francisco D'Anconia, you will love the book, because it agrees with your idea of morality, and your sense of life. If you like your thoughts clear and focused, and think that a concept must be consistent with itself to the root, you will love this piece of work.
If you think the heroes are insensitive, evil egoists, with no appreciation for art, or for other people's needs, then you may identify more with Dagny's brother and his friends. (On the other hand, I don't think anybody could be that evil)
If your philosophy of life agrees more with a subjective sense of good and evil; if you think that the limits between good and evil are fuzzy, and that sacrifice is the leading value in life, you will hate this book, and blast its author. After reading this book, I realized that this work is a test of moral character. (Within reason). If you like this book, you are probably a self driven, self motivated person, who holds his own values above everything else. You are self assured and derive your self esteem from your own perception of yourself. If you hate this book, you thrive on relationships, you are sensitive to other's perception of yourself, and seek to influence others. Your self esteem also derives from how you are perceived. I gave the book five stars, because I can't give it six.
Enough said.
Rating:
Summary: Don't forget your sense of humor
Review: Main complaints of those who gave the book 1-2 stars:
1. Ayn Rand isn't a philosopher, she has to create a world
2. The book is long, I couldn't even finish it
3. (I doubt I should legitimize this guy's complaint with a comment) the characters don't support trade
4. Her characters are all the same "beautiful, hyper-intellectual, rich, and super-moral according to their own standards"
5. She hates children
denouncing these claims:
1. Ayn Rand is a philosopher. She wrote nonfiction works AS WELL as her fiction to describe her philosophy. Quoting Merriam Webster Online, fiction is "something invented by the imagination or feigned" like her world. Her fictional world is meant to show an example. Read her nonfiction for true philosophy.
2. The book is long...ungodly long (go figure, she's an atheist)and one would think she was paid by the word, especially when reading John Galt's speech. However, if you did not finish this book, you wasted however many weeks because the VERY best part of any book ever lies at the end of Atlas Shrugged. Don't want to spoil it, but Pirate Fight. And it takes the first 1100 pages to develop the strong ties to the heroes that make the end SOOO worth it.
3. Dagny and Hank...they trade when it helps them
4. Howard Roark (granted, he wasn't in this book) also Eddie Willers, Eddie Willers, John Galt (produced much, made VERY little money) also Howard Roark, and so what, that's a GOOD thing
5. Her characters were not ready to have children in the book. Hank and Lillian could've, but they didn't- OH well. They were responsible enough to realize they shouldn't bring others into the world when they weren't ready. Besides, she has one woman in each book. She doesn't preach against family.
One thing I think people miss with Objectivism is that you CAN help people- and you should- in the same way as "give a man a fish and he eats for a day. teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime." The fewer people in poverty, on the streets, etc. the better for the rest of us, so it is beneficial to help people, just not for their own sake- for yours.
I'll probably read this again, if you want to argue, I'll be glad. AIM sn BizarroLauren
Rating:
Summary: Most Flawed 5-star Novel of All Time
Review: Just for her humorously sarcastic skewering of the left-wing, socialistic mindset, Ayn Rand deserves great credit. Lillian Rearden's dinner party early in the novel, complete with the introduction of many of the left-wing intellectuals who despise her husband, Hank, is Rand at her best as she yields her witty, satirical stilletto to great effect. However, Miss Rand's characters are almost all narrowly black or white, good or evil, and thus unrealistic. James Taggert, Orrin Boyle, Kip and Ma Chalmers, Cuffy Meigs, Wesley Mouch, Dr. Floyd Ferris and Dr. Robert Stadler are all evil and parasitical. Hank Rearden, Dagney Taggert, Francisco D'Anconia, Ellis Wyatt, Ken Danniger, Midas Mulligan, John Galt and even Eddie Willers are virtuous, wonderfully absolute egoists and industrious. Few people are portrayed in shades of gray- the Wet Nurse, who begins bad but is taught the value of the virtuous egoists at the hand of Hank Rearden; Cheryl Taggert, who originally has the values of the egoists but is corrupted by her marriage to the evil James Taggert; the hobo, Jeff Allen, who belatedly understands the morality of the egoists; and Eddie Willers, who, though he shares the morals of the egoists, is simply not a superman. The egoists of Galt's Gulch are superheroes. That must be completely understood. And with these superheroes, Ayn Rand receives her own ego boost. Dagney Taggert is her alter-ego and the male superheroes are the men who are stalwart enough to be her lovers. These superheroes are extensions of Miss Rand's personality and her perception of her own brilliance. The superheroes- Dagney Taggert, D'Anconia, Wyatt, Rearden, Danniger and the rest- are all the best at what they do. Most of them excel at industry but others are the best the world has to offer in music, law or acting. Each can work twenty hour days and arise after a couple hours sleep to put in another twenty hour day of complete brilliance. Almost all the more developed characters fly their own planes the way we mortals are limited to driving our autos. Comically, the philosophical superhero Hugh Akston, withdrawn from society and operating a diner in Wyoming, cooks the best hamburger Dagney has ever eaten. Better than my outdoor hamburgers? I think not, Dagney. But there is little that these superheroes can not do. ... As one would expect with a woman with an enormous ego, Dagney is assigned three lovers in the novel. The three are arguably the three greatest men in the world- D'Anconia, Rearden and Galt. Though D'Anconia's willing separation from Dagney is more plausible and his acceptance of other lovers in her life is more believable, Rearden's ready acceptance that Dagney becomes Galt's lover is hard to fathom. Rand hints that Rearden accepts Galt as the greater man- hardly likely. ... Ironically, due to the manner in which Rand writes her novel, Galt is the most boring of the three lovers in her life. In fact, one might say that the long-suffering Eddie Willers is more interesting than Galt. But, in the end, Rand feels compeled that Dagney must bed down the three brightest lights in the world. Finally, ...the weakest part of the novel is about ninety pages boring the reader with Galt's speech to the country about the virtues and wonders of objectivism, Rand's philosophical "gift" to the world. And, of course, everyone listens intently for two hours as Galt plods through Randian objectivism. A speech by George W. Bush would be more interesting. At least Bush can be undeliberately funny. --This text refers to the Mass Market Paperback edition
Rating:
Summary: A suggestion
Review: There have been nearly nine and a half hundred reviews, thoughts, diatribes, and feelings written about Atlas Shrugged, and, upon inspection, you will find that almost everyone falls into two opposing camps of opinions. Those that think the book is one of the greatest pieces of literature written, or those that think its the most shameful rubbish ever put in print. This division is due to the fact that the novel is really a philosophical one wrapped in fiction which is bound to lead to heated disputes. So in light of all that, I will not right a review or share my thoughts on the book, I will simply point out my rating (5 stars) and then make a suggestion: Read the book. IF you're worried you may hate/dislike/disagree with it and won't want to read it again, then get it from a friend or library. If you think it will be money well spent regardless of your opinion after you finish it becuase it challenges you in deep and profound ways, then go ahead and purchase it. Enjoy.
Rating: 
Summary: Beautiful, but not flawless
Review: I began reading this book immediately after finishing The Fountainhead. Rand's philosophy intrigued me and I was told that this was the best of her four novels if one wanted to learn about Objectivism. The book was very good, the plot was always twisting to reveal more players, more connections, more motives, more everything, it isn't until near the end when you finally get the whole picture. I love the characters, especially Dagny, she is a role model now to me. The only things I didn't like: There are parts of the novel where the story seems to be stuck. Times like one characters sixty page radio speech were excruciating to get through, I know that she couldn't have gotten rid of them (they're essential, sorry), but geez . . . sixty page speech? Also, many of the characters are very similar, almost too similar. Rearden, Galt, d'Anconia, Ragner . . . all essentially the same man, with Dagny close to them except in a skirt. All in all, the book is worth reading, if only to shake up your views. It IS NOT Captain Nemo (in response to another review), nor is Rand promoting anti-family values (just anti-moochers, one of her characters talks about her job as a mother), the book just throws out into the world a view that some will embrace and others will snub. I plan to buy my own copy soon (I got the one I read from the library) and mark quotes in it, both of Rand's novels that I've read have had beautiful quotes to use, I quote her frequently now. If anything, read it so you can answer the question "Who is John Galt?"
Rating:
Summary: don't you collectivisionists read me!
Review: Wow! I've been just finished Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand witch is a great book and you all need to read it too! Ann Rand is a great woman and i wish all her stuff had been put in books post-humously even earlier, like back in the twenties maybe. I used not to think much of myself, but now i know that its everyone else who is just a collectivismist looter who want to take what they didn't earn at all. Atlas shrugged taught me that I am the best, but I shouldn't contribute to the world until they worship me and don't take anything more from me, i mean it! Atlas shrugged and so will i. Thats why i don't buy atlasses again, only fold out maps now. If everyone behaved like john Galt we'd all be happy, but you'd have to pay me to read this, so I'm not like him yet. You can read for free now. And what atlas shrugged says about love isreally a big eye opener! I mean who would have guessed that rape is a wonderful way to say I love you? But do the collectivist greeting card companys use that? No! Theyre too collectivist. I told my gurlfriend that she disgusted me like the character dagny's second boyfriend did in atlas shrugged, but she wasn't like dagny, she got upset. She didn't like my pillow talk at all. She even put her clothes back on before she answered me, not like dagny. And then I told her that I was going to only thenk about my happinesss and not hers, and also about how dagnys boyfriends all treated her, but now she got a restraining order. She's just a looter who seeks death, like the people that all got killed in the train wrech in atlas Shrugged, so I dont like her anymore. Besides dagny's second boyfriend only gave her bruses and blood their first night together (p237), so she dumped him for a better guy who is more perfect and treated her more like being a woman. Its in atlas shrugged, but i don't no why so many people say bad things about this. I told my algebar teacher about atlas shrugged when all the other looter students were making answers on the test liek a=4 and a=9, but i put down A=A for all my answers and he wanted to know why I did that so I borrowed to him my atlas shrugged and he read it. Then he gave me an A, which means I got an A. I wasn't like the collectivist students all trying to be the same and putting on the paper the same answers. Then my algebar teacher said we didn't have to do the quadratic equasion and i asked him why we dont half to do the quardatic equazion. Then he said that engaged in wishfull thinking. Its irrational thinking that says one problem can have too solutions, when rational thinking says there is one best answer, and wishful thinking makes you think there are two. Hoe can one problum have too solushuns!!?? It is only wishfall thinkin. Atlas shurgged says this. Wow! I didn't even think like that, but my algebar teacher is way more educated than i am. He said we won't do circular geometry either any more because pie is irrational. He's really educated. I guess the more educated you are, the more you can find in Atlas Shrugged that you didn't know before.
Rating:
Summary: What I always knew, but could never find the words to say.
Review: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Thus, the hero of Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged chooses sides in an epic struggle for man's soul - not in heaven, but on earth. The central plot of Atlas Shrugged is a mystery story: as Dagny Taggard, a successful railroad executive, watches the entrepreneurs and inventors of her society disappear one by one, she seeks to discover the source of the scourge that is destroying her world. She witnesses the consequences of the ethics of altruism and collectivism as her society descends into socialism, productive men are turned into slaves, and mooching beggars into her masters. Throughout the novel, Ayn Rand presents clear examples of her philosophy in action through strong heroes and treacherous villains who demonstrate the importance of philosophy and the consequences of moral and immoral lives. Her characters ask and answer numerous important questions such as "Is reality independent of our minds or is it shaped by them? What is the result of basing our actions on emotions and what happens when we base them on reason? Why are so many successful individuals hated for their success? Should love be free or must it be earned? What is the proper role of government?" However, the most influential question Atlas Shrugged answered for me was "what kind of life must a man lead to achieve a state of guiltless happiness?" The influence of Atlas Shrugged on my life has been so profound that I am still learning new applications of the philosophy Ayn Rand presented every day. This book is for everyone who has ever questioned the ethics of altruism and asked "what is the purpose of my life?"
Rating: 
Summary: For the benefit of . . .
Review: . . . the many teenage and / or college undergraduate fans of Ayn Rand (and there are virtually no others), I must now provide a service, explaining why *Atlas Shrugged* is a bad book. Now pay attention, dudes and dudettes -- you might learn something. First off, just because the heroes and heroines of the book are really good-looking, glamorous people who essentially say to the world, "You're all lame, and we're dropping out! C'ya!", a sentiment that all young people can relate to, doesn't mean that these are interesting characters. OK? Now -- next. For a writer that wrote a 1000+ page novel about capitalists, Ayn Rand doesn't know a lot about how capitalism works. Her heroine, Dagny Taggart, runs her own private transcontinental railroad: did you know that, minus one very short-lived exception (The Great Northern Line), all transcontinental railroads were subsidized by the Federal Gov't? (Read the history and weep, Vanderbilt worshippers!) Referring back to my statement about Rand's complete misunderstanding of capitalism, two words come to mind: ADAM SMITH. Adam Smith, kids, was an 18th-Century economist who basically laid down the principles of economic science as we understand and practice them today. Now this Smith guy talked a lot about "cooperation" in trade -- indeed, without cooperation, there can, of course, BE no trade! The very word "trade" implies cooperation. No duh, right? But why do Rand's predatory capitalist heroes keep saying (over and over and over) that they will not do anything for the sake of another human being? If one wishes to facilitate trade, and gradually accumulate capital, one needs to cooperate -- indeed, give up something to get something -- with a trading partner. A selfish capitalist that burns all his bridges soon finds himself out in the cold. And the capitalist who takes selfishness to the extreme by ripping people off will be shunned and shamed (cf. ENRON, to cite a recent example). This guy Smith talked about this concept, as well as a bunch of other stuff about the "flow" of economic trade, hundreds of years ago. Most of his writings were an attempt to clarify existing trade practices, with an eye toward improving the morality AND profitable application of those principles (not mutually exclusive things!). But you'll read him soon in your next Economics class. Finally, one word about this "Objectivism" stuff. Another reason why teenagers like you enjoy this book is because the main characters do not have any KIDS -- i.e., they don't have too many more responsibilities than you guys got right now. Again, this makes them easy to identify with. But ask any parent, and they'll tell you that the LAST thing they're "objective" about are their children. Rand's stupid "philosophy" can't permit her characters to raise a family, take care of elderly parents, etc. etc. Why? Well, having a family implies a certain level of involvement with your community, a concept Rand (endlessly) claims is a hateful, despicable thing. I mean, you be the judge, dude. Oh, and don't be too impressed with her adherence to Aristotle's formulas: it's a cheap trick of hers to gain intellectual "legitimacy" for her sophomorisms. And why do all her characters look and sound exactly the same? The villains are all Nordic heroes who say the same things; the villains are beetle-browed totalitarians who say the opposite things of what the heroes say. Rather contradictory for a novelist who claims that individualism is the greatest thing since sliced bread. (So much for non-contradiction!) So, guys, listen up: you'll grow out of your current Rand infatuation sooner than you think, once you're exposed to more life-experience. Trust me. Still unsure? Ask any respected thinker from the Right, Left, or In-Between about Ayn Rand, and you'll soon find that no one takes her seriously. And if you think she's a good writer, well, what do you know --? You've watched MTV all your life. *Atlas Shrugged* is bad prose and half-baked philosophy. Be warned. And grow up, while you're at it -- why wait? Good sense and youth aren't mutually exclusive.
|
