Rating: 
Summary: My favorite book (fiction, anyway)
Review: I don't know what I can say beyond that title. Rand is brilliant. The scariest thing about this is how much of it seems to come true in real life. You don't even have to agree with her views 100% (I certainly don't) to benefit. In fact, I think anyone posessing an open mind should *want* to hear things that differ slightly from their own beliefs.And I wonder, could we ever get to the point of actually needing a John Galt? Would I be strong enough to join him? Dare I dream - to be him?
Rating:
Summary: Who Is John Galt?
Review: Greatest Novel of the 20th Century. "Everyone should be forced to read this book" -- if you can see the irony in that statement, then "you get it!"
Rating:
Summary: A book for people who think!
Review: There is no need to go into a lengthy diatribe in regards to this remarkable piece of literature. If you want to be petty then, it might be a bit too long, Galt's speech could have been pared down a bit, and the place in Colorado might be kind of a Xanadu, but that is about the only negatives an unbiased reader could come up with for docking this incredible manifesto. Yes, it's a manifesto, good read, novel, and for many people a guide on how to think. It certainly provokes thought and stirs up the spirit as well. The nay sayer's and other types of critics of the same ilk, should really get over it and accept the fact that this is one of the most important and meaningful discourses of rational thought has or will be ever lain down on paper. There is something in this sprawling epic for everyone, especially every American. Don't use it as a bible or self help book, rather use it as a guide towards developing your own unique style of rational thought. Sure it's hard not to just be engulfed by the work of a true genius at their peak, for she was and it is her crowning achievement, but don't ever let somebody totally think for you, for the author did not intend or desire that to be the case, with Atlas Shrugged. Enjoy it, embrace it, even reject the parts you don't agree with it, but don't look foolish and try to dismiss it. This is an astounding work which justly deserves to be on the short list of any logical person's must read's, and will be cherished forever. I suppose the critic's of this book think the Beatles were just a fad and idealistic hoax, also! Tune in, turn it up, and stay sharp. Yes, this book is as good as people tell you it is, and very few things live up to their hype. Thank you Ms. Rand for this wonderful legacy of the human spirit, free thought, and also for showing us what a true genius is, as well as what they are capable of doing. Moving, thought provoking, brilliant, and always relevant; this is a masterpiece!
Rating: 
Summary: Another pulprit for Rand to preach her philosophy
Review: Although the book was only a framework for Rand to prominantly display her philosophy of objectivism, it was rather interesting. Very convincing to the naive--I could even feel the persuasion tugging at my mind. However, I feel the characters are too cold. Big business is glorified unrealistically and altruism is spit upon. The virtue of altruism is certainly exaggerated but it shouldn't be spit upon. If someone gives a starving child on the street a piece of bread, should this person be chastised. yet this is altruism. I say everything in moderation, and Randists go too far in one direction.
Rating:
Summary: A well-crafted, complex tale!
Review: This was my first attempt at conquering the work of Ayn Rand and I am glad that I made the endeavor. The daunting task of conquering almost 1200 pages of complex fiction seemed, at first, to be insurmountable. However, I found this story to push me forward, always anxious to see what happened on the next page. I would have gladly given it five stars, except for the 60 page monoogue provided by John Galt towards the end--that was a bit tough to swallow. I don't mind long speeches, so long as they are purposeful and fit the charcter. In my opinion, Galt was succinct and concise enough in his beliefs that he could have stated his intent in about a tenth as much time. Thus, I felt that speech was out of character a bit. The other characters were very well developed, only flawed by the lack of balance within each of them. In other words, the "good guys" seemed to have few or no bad qualities, while the "bad guys" had no redeeming qualities. This may be a part of Rand's philosophy of people, but it is one that I disagree with. The story was complex, filled with irony, drama, mystery, even romance. I was amazed that it held together so well throughout. I look forward to reading other works by Ayn Rand.
Rating:
Summary: A Breath Of Fresh Air...
Review: In the dank cell of mindless philosophy. This is Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. A luminously rational philosophy in the guise of fiction. A philosophy which *can* be applied in real life. A philosophy which does not deny the existance of reason (wow thats a first) Something that does not speculate on implausible points that have nothing to do with real life. Something that can hold your attention for more than five pages (beat that Aquinas) In short, some get it and some dont. Some read the book for the philosophy. Some read it for the story, and get no more out of it than a yarn about a bunch of reclusive business executives (and may their God help them) Some dont see the point, say the philosophy cant be applied, and go back to the Bible. But for those who can comprehend, Ayn Rand is a shining beacon lighting the grim night of philosophy.
Rating:
Summary: A real potboiler
Review: We all read this book when we were 19--and I had great fun re-reading it three decades later. Rand portrays a world gone to wrack and ruin as a result of socialism-- although the word is never used. The plot involves a handful of incredibly handsome, intelligent, passionate, blond and thin industrialists holding out against a bunch of incredibly corrupt, unattractive, not very smart government types with odd names who have somehow taken over the U.S. Having said that, the plot grabs the reader at the outset and doesn't let up for 1100 pages, although I found the ending a bit over the top--picture Jack Welch of GE personally storming a military base. The author was prescient in forseeing 50 years ago the cult of victimhood which seems so prevalent today. At the same time, I find it hard to take her philosophy seriously--Rand is a big fan of cold-blooded capitalism, but in her perfect world there aren't any children, elderly, or ill people. Her view of how industrial society would evolve--her focus on trains, mines, steel mills--seems quaint--especially as the book was written at the beginning of the atomic age. The personal relationships between the sexes are positively Victorian. Most weird to me was the veneration shown to the guy who is the embodiment of Rand's philosophy--almost religious in tone. Modern Library did a survey of readers on the best 100 fiction books of the 20th century and this was #1--it was a good read but I must respectfully disagree with the voters.
Rating: 
Summary: Believe It or Not, I Neither Loved Nor Hated This Book
Review: Well, its been said that you either loved Atlas Shrugged, or you hated it. I guess I must be an exception then, because I neither loved nor hated it. This book does have a philosophical message, and it is obvious that the book wasn't written just for entertainment or literary reasons. So how do you judge a fiction book like this? Do you judge it based on if you like or agree with the philosophy espoused in the book, or do you judge it by the literary value of the writing regardless of the philosophical message? I guess, a review of this book should have at least some critique of both. I don't consider myself an Objectivist, and actually HAVE read most of Ayn Rand's and Leanord Peikoff's writings (unlike most people who aren't Objectivists yet attack Objectivist thought). The philosophy behind this book is a simple one; it basically is a story that tells a tale of why a laisezz-faire, free-market capitalist society is the best and most moral of all systems. Also, this book can be viewed as a critique of socialist and communist systems. Because this is a fiction book, you shouldn't expect to see too comprehensive an argument for the philosophy Rand advocates. Therefore, I think it might be a little too wrong of someone to attack this book JUST because they didn't agree with Rand's philosophy. Ayn Rand's philosophical writings are famous for painting obvious exaggerations of arguments she doesn't agree with, and then quickly dismissing these arguments with such little care that one wonders if Rand is actually being serious, or just playing a joke on her readers (this is the philosopher who openly attacks John Rawls (Theory of Justice) with some of the most emotionally based arguments you'll ever read by a philosopher, and doing so while admitting that she never read the book she is critiquing of his, nor does she ever plan to). Atlas Shrugged's characters follow in typical Randian fashion; they are exaggerations of exaggerations of what we usually call 'humanitarians'. These 'humanitarians' are those people that tell us we should all sacrifice for the common good. They are altruists that believe that a person is being moral when they give up something of their liking to help someone else. Some of the things uttered by some of the 'bad guys' in this book are so off the wall that no rational person could ever believe they are actually the mind or thoughts of any important thinkers of our time (yet you can tell Rand hopes you think that they are). For example, one of the 'bad guys' of the book actually advocates that no new scientific/technological advances should be allowed to occur because they would upset the current order of the system, and give one man (the one with the new tech.) an unfair advantage when competing with the rest of the people in his field. So, if I were to judge Atlas Shrugged on its philosophy, I'd have to say that it is a very poor book. You can't learn much about a certain ideology without the author giving SERIOUS arguments from the other side, and then giving thoughtful critiques of those arguments. Rand presents a straw man argument of her opponents so that her ideology looks like the most wonderful think man has ever thought up when compared to the ideologies of the 'bad guys' in the book. It annoys me when I see writers doing this, and I find that to be the work of a weak thinker. Now, let me review this book based on its literary value: I am not one of those people that likes plot lines that deal with the archetypal 'bad guys always wear black, good guys always wear white'. I find it boring to read books that reiterate the same obvious struggle btw good and evil, and where it is all too obvious what is good, and what is evil. I don't think reality is really like this (though I'm sure most of the Objectivists will disagree with me here), and it doesn't appeal to me when reading stories that are shaped in this fashion. Atlas Shrugged is shaped in this very fashion, so this is probably the main reason why I didn't like it. I tend to like plots that make you think a little more when dealing with the good and evil elements in society. I also don't like books that have the characters of the book representing ideals, instead of them being like real-life people. The characters in Atlass Shrugged are obviously exaggerations, and when reading this book, they really didn't come off as being real people to me. They seemed so fake, and flat. I like stories where the characters are more real and dynamic. So, why give this book 3 stars instead of 1? Because it is an interesting story. It is truly unique. and THAT, I like. Plus, even though I attacked the presentation of Rand's philosophy in Atlass Shrugged, and admitted I'm not an Objectivist (Rand's philosophy), I still think that this book has some important messages to it. Some of the arguments presented by the 'bad guys' of this book I HAVE seen presented by many of the talking heads on TV and heard them slipped into many political discussions. I am against the idea that the means of production should rest with the workers, and I felt that Rand did a pretty good job attacking this idea. Also, I do consider myself an advocate of capitalism, and though I am not for the laisezz-faire capitalism that Rand advocates, I still find this book to be a good defense of capitalism, and a decent explanation of just what the hell capitalism is (since it seems that many people are clueless as to just what it is). If you want to know anything about capitalism, this is a perfect book to read because you'll the basic ideas of capitalism without having to read some dry academic text.
Rating: 
Summary: Appaling
Review: Does Objectivism work in practice? There is one way to find out. When one looks at Ayn Rand's own life (there are several biographies) to see how the objectivist-in-chief conducted herself, it is just stomach-turning and doesn't really inspire the wide-eyed admiration her heroes ellicit among some readers. Her life was in the end a failure and a dead end which is what the life of anyone who buys into this philosophy ends up being. You will find out for example that the people around you are not interested in knowing the virtue of your selfishness. I have to say though, she does a remarkably good job making us feel ok about our prejudices, if that's what you're looking for. This comes out for example when she treats other countries and people as barbaric, showing herself to be shockingly ignorant when it comes to the factors that made the United States the great country that it is. Hint: it isn't just the Constitution.
Rating:
Summary: The best philosophy available
Review: I'd like to respond to those who suggest that a first-year course in philosophy should be sufficient to rebut the theses in Ayn Rand's books. To the contrary, it is the philosophy contained within first-year collegiate courses that insures her continuing and future popularity. I've taken first-year philosophy courses, and second year and third-year. I've hob-nobbed with our black-clad café philosophers, and I await a single intelligent reason to abandon the straightforward yet romantic world-view of Ms. Rand. The alternative to Rand seems to be the postulation of the existence of a reality unprovable by our senses followed by thousands of years of debate as to what the nature of that postulated reality might be. Plato postulates that an alternative world of Forms exists, that reality might be akin to shadows in a cave, with the 'real' world existing in the unseen sunlight without. I see. St. Augustine would have us subordinate ourselves to a moral code that most people couldn't fully describe without justifying their efforts by reference to the historical significance of this man. Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas take philosophy to new, abysmally boring depths, from which few have ever emerged. William Blake wonders how we can know that a world is not contained within a grain of sand, without explaining how he can know that one does or how we should address our inability to prove the truth either way. Kierkegaard uses reason to prove that we must eventually abandon reason. Sartre insists that we feel anxiety about our choices after having firmly established that no wrong choices are possible. Hegel has yet to be read by more than a handful of exceptionally dull and uninspiring people. Marx, one of the few known exceptions to the prior sentence, has fallen flat on his face. A few long days with Richard Rorty, Jean Lyotard and their ilk and one can confidently engage in friendships and relationships without any interference from meta-narratives. Eventually, those of us who must sooner or later put down our books and go to work realize that philosophy has nothing to offer other than a challenging way to spend an afternoon. If a man has ever read 'A Critique of Pure Reason' and changed his life for the better, I have not met him. Nonetheless, the academy ridicules a writer like Rand who refuses to waste either her time or ours on speculations that she can't prove, however interesting they may be. To the contrary, she concerns herself only with life on this earth, a self-imposed limitation that would have served many in the Western Canon well. As an example, we have the following passage from 'Atlas Shrugged' in which Dagny reacts to John Galt's refusal to let her out of her employment contract to live with Francisco, another friend of theirs, despite his pleas. This is Rand's description of the altruistic code and its effects: 'Part of the sincerity of her relief ' she thought, as she walked silently by his side ' was the shock of a contrast: she had seen, with the sudden, immediate vividness of sensory perception, an exact picture of what the code of self-sacrifice would have meant, if enacted by the three of them. Galt, giving up the woman he wanted, for the sake of his friend, faking his greatest feeling out of existence and himself out of her life, no matter what the cost to him and to her, then dragging the rest of his years through the waste of the unreached and the unfulfilled ' she, turning for consolation to a second choice, faking a love she did not feel, being willing to fake, since her will to self-deceit was the essential required for Galt's self-sacrifice, then living out her years in hopeless longing, accepting, as relief for an unhealing wound, some moments of weary affection, plus the tenet that love is futile and happiness is not to be found on earth ' Francisco, struggling in the elusive fog of a counterfeit reality, his life a fraud staged by the two who were dearest to him and most trusted, struggling to grasp what was missing from his happiness, struggling down the brittle scaffold of a lie over the abyss of the discovery that he was not the man she loved, but only a resented substitute, half charity-patient, half-crutch, his perceptiveness becoming his danger and only his surrender to lethargic stupidity protecting the shoddy structure of his joy, struggling and giving up and settling into the dreary routine of the conviction that fulfillment is impossible to man ' the three of them, who had all the gifts of existence spread out before them, ending up as embittered hulks, who cry in despair that life is frustration ' the frustration of not being able to make unreality real.' Whatever pejorative terms our scholarly brethren may wish to attach to such observations, it actually addresses something that the reader might be better for knowing. I'm quite glad that Ms. Rand rescued me from the generally held conclusion that the more one mocks the rational, the more profound one is. Ayn Rand will always be my Gwenda the Good Witch, showing up later than preferred to remind me that I always had the capacity to escape the murky, useless blathering of those who would debate the details of life on a particular star before they even knew whether life existed there at all. If there is a reality out there unknowable by our senses, can we at least establish its existence in some form before we subject our students to long treatises containing the author's best guesses as to what that reality might be? As the philosophy sections in our bookstores shrink and shrink and the philosophy majors in our colleges become fewer and fewer, we can at least hope that the stultifying crap that has passed for profound thought for too long is on its way out. Consciously or not, most people seem to realize that, as far as the academic alternative to Rand is concerned, the emperor has been nude for quite some time.
|
