Rating: 
Summary: Hey, look ma, I'm an intellectual!
Review: "Atlas Shrugged" is Ayn Rand's "masterpiece," as they say, and despite the book's popularity with legions of rabid fans, practically all PhDs and literary and social critics of any consequence completely ignore it. Why? Because "Atlas Shrugged" is a failure on so many levels, and ultimately has nothing to say that will have any resonance beyond coffee-sipping pseudo-intellectualism. The book appeals to people for a few reasons -- it's long, detailed, and describes an easy-to-understand philosophy that seems tempting on first glance but collapses into callous absurdity under any real scrutiny. All in all, people like this book because it smacks of "classic." But in fact, its poorly written, narrow, and strikingly cold, filled with a sort of "isn't this so revolutionary?" self-importance that seeks to cover up Rand's complete lack of philosophical skill (her non-fiction books that detail "objectivism" are laughable). You'll never meet any student of literature who worships Ayn Rand as many in the populace do, because once you have even a vague notion of actual "literature" you realize how toe-curlingly awful Rand really is. "Atlas Shrugged" is philosophical fast-food, but delivered in such bulk and mock-intellectualism that it manages to dupe many a book-shopper into believing that it has something to say. The pity is that too few leave it on the shelf to seek something more challenging and substantial.
Rating: 
Summary: Good points, bad writing
Review: When someone has an idea (say, a plow), they might make a fortune off that idea, but EVERYONE gets the benefit of that idea from then on because it's out there. A "creation" of wealth and a win/win occurs. This is why capitalism, for all it's troubles, works, and efforts to suppress capitalism (ie, the ideas that drive it) such as collectivism, socialism, "all you need is love", call it what you will, result in disaster as sure as OJ can do more with a buck knife than whittle. If you call the plow guy an "exploiter" and take his money and plow, who will create after that?? For bringing both sides of this out very clearly and resoundingly alone, I give Ms. Rand high marks. I also give her high marks for exposing another essential flaw in socialism etc. Separate the wheat from the chaff, and it's chief attraction is getting free work and stuff from people doing better than you. But read the fime print: people worse off than you can also get your work and posessions; and there's always someone worse off. And she should know. She got to watch the folly of plan B up close and personal before she and her family fled Russia. And although simplified somewhat, some of the things her "we just need to regulate the greedy and share the wealth a little more" crowd in her book say and do that bring disaster are eerily like things that often heard today (think California power crisis) I also vouch for her pointing out the eerie similarity between socialism and religion. Both believe we are inherently bad and must be forced to do the right thing (by who? Wouldn't be by the people peddling them, now would it?) I've lived in Ga. and Washington DC. and talked to both Christian right-wingers and uber-liberals. You would be stunned at the similarity between them. It really is high-time to check both their premises. On the downside, anyone who thinks this is a well-written book is sadly mistaken. The book is VERY repetitive so that by page 700 you're going "alright, already, I get your point. Sheesh" A lot of different characters making essentially the same speech. And a lot of "known looks" and "feelings without being named" Less would have been more. The characters are pretty 2-dimensional. The charge that she has an anti-family bias looks pretty true, and she conveniently ducks the issue of familite. In Ms. Rand's world, there is no clear reason for having a child or sacrificing for the child, so what...would the human race die out if it were left up to her?? Another question she ducks is what would she have us do? In her book, the only "answer" to mysticism/collectivism turns out to be the fairytale answer her characters take. Nice for Ms. Rand since she gets to end her book finally, but not much in the way of workable ideas for us Eddie Willers of the world.
Rating: 
Summary: A Life Changer, or at Least a Perspective Changer
Review: While Ayn Rand presents what some might call a rather dismal way to view the interaction between people as well as human motivation, I find it is a very interesting read that unavoidably makes you reconsider many of the desicions you make on a daily basis-- whether you agree or not with her philosophy. If one is ever discouraged by the thickness of the novel all I can say is give it 50 pages; if you're not completly absorbed in the plot, stop reading because it can't be your cup of tea.
Rating:
Summary: How so many miss the point
Review: This novel is inspirational and motivational. It is a literary work that everybody should be exposed to. Reading through the other reviews where readers have focused on the length of the book or the phases Rand uses too often, please realize this is totally missing the point. It should be understood that this is a philosophy, and as with most philosophers, Rand has a point to make and this is her forum to drive it home. It is up to the reader to agree or disagree adopt or reject the ideas presented. For all the reviews I have read on Amazon this is my first submission because I felt so strongly that the book was misrepresented, if you have come this far...."click to buy". It has influenced my thoughts, my reasoning and the way I live life. :)
Rating:
Summary: A book which will inspire you or horrify you
Review: This book cannot be read without creating strong feelings either for or against Ayn Rand's philosopy. For some, like myself, it is inspiring as you get a chance to envision what the world could be like. For others, it must be horrifying, as it does not tolerate those who wallow in thier victimhood, or who refuse to accept any responsibility for themselves. This is all of course extremely politacally incorrect in this day and age. The book is well worth reading despite the length however, as it will force you to think and decide what your own beliefs are, you cannot remain indifferent.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting, but fundamentally misguided.
Review: Ayn Rand was a novelist who convinced herself that she was an important philosopher. Rand was wrong; she was just a novelist, but was decent at what she did. She stopped writing novels after this one, and I can safely say that her nonfiction lacks all of the good qualities of her fiction while taking on all the bad ones. Atlas Shrugged is a sort of period piece, where the brilliant ethically selfish industrialists of the world go on strike and bring it into chaos in the hands of the "altruists." I say period piece, because it was written in the time when the United States was involved in its Cold War with the Soviet Union, and embodies the anti-Communist spirit of the era, which also conflated Communism with Socialism. If taken as a large anti-Communist tract, Atlas Shrugged isn't all that dismal in terms of philosophy...just the misguided ideas of the times. However, it has no bearing on the world itself. The fundamental assumption of Atlas Shrugged is that capitalism really does work exactly as idealistic conservatives say it does, with shining, heroic geniuses rising to the top. It deals with the laissez-faire capitalism of Industrial society as opposed to Communism (as I said, it's a period piece; we are in the post-Industrial era, which has quite different rules). However, industrialists weren't really the moral, mental, and creative giants Rand depicted them as, and the rest were not grossly incompetent. An industrialists' strike would've led to the rest capably taking charge. As we see today, effective presidents of corporations are not at all super-executives like Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart; the top ranks of a corporation are a strong network, rarely so effectively autocratic and never so constantly right. Atlas Shrugged suffers from Rand's psychological disorder of Narcissism, which separates everyone into all-good and all-bad, scapegoating the all-bad. It even has a very distinct way of expressing that: all the all-goods in AS have the same thoughts, with any differentiations (Rearden's guilt, Dagny's relentless optimism) as simply errors that need to be ironed out. Only in one case does a character ever break the boundary and become interestingly unique: Dr. Robert Stadler, who is quickly given the brush-off by the all-goods of the novel. Stadler, who once held to certain ideals but has seen them broken by the world, is victimized by Rand to become simply another all-bad. A pity. The dialogue ranges from stilted to unthinkably bad; nobody ever made the mistake of thinking that Rand knew how people really talk. Occasional speeches interrupt the flow of the story, and John Galt rants on for 50-some odd pages just to get the point through. A shame, because the story itself is a fairly interesting dystopia mixed with lackluster philosophy. You see, the heroes of Atlas Shrugged really aren't all that heroic, but the villains remain quite plausible. Their real villainy isn't in their philosophy, which is just as simply a justification as the Nietzscheanisms of the Nazis or the Marxism of the Soviets. They are rather hypocrites and liars, men exploiting the people for their own desires while spouting meaningless platitudes. Against these people, even Objectivists seem sympathetic. Rand's view that philosophy fundamentally shapes history is wrong, and Atlas Shrugged actually proves this...it is not because the villains are altruists that the world goes to heck, but rather because they are liars and hypocrites. A better message than "collectivism will ruin you all!" is "power corrupts," and AS actually goes a long way to show it. During all those speeches, Rand tries to impress her ethics upon you: a man's highest value is his own life, and the right thing to do is that which benefits yourself. This is a corrupt, morally dead principle derived not from reason, but from Rand's psychological disorders. Rand's all-or-nothing mentality meant that all good was to the self, or to others, in her regard. Hence, she could easily dismiss an altruism no rational person would ever accept, for an egoism that was equally unsound. I am reminded of the myth of Narcissus and Echo: Narcissus wasted away because he was concerned with nothing but himself while Echo faded out because she was concerned with nothing but Narcissus. (Funny, a Christian explaining morality in Greek myh terms...) In other words, we cannot rely solely on ourselves or on others for our values, but must strike a balance in the middle. We live in symbiosis, and must care for our own needs and the needs of others. Rand's black and white view did not properly account for the complexities of reality. So, what do you get? A decent dystopia with philosophically unlikeable heroes and a lot of philosophical dead weight. Rand's thought can be dismissed after taking an unbiased introductory course in philosophy. It's 1069 pages, but 50 some is the eminently avoidable Speech; it goes by pretty quickly, and when it has its moments, it has some style. Worth reading after you've had a decent philosophy course, and can further bolster your own ideas by countering Rand's. And at 1069 pages, it's an accomplishment to read....
Rating:
Summary: Philosophies are Narrow, Book is Poorly Written....
Review: Upon reading Atlas Shrugged, I expected the book to be a mind opening experience, being that I am a recent college graduate learning to deal with the corporate world, in which I expected this book to have it's themes. I have never been more disappointed in my life. Here are the reasons: As an economics major, I can speak first hand to the invalidity of Ms. Rand's philosophy. Her philosophy is narrow-minded, and really has no factual basis. She has little understanding of capitalism, it seems that all she really does is highlight the extreme negative qualities of communism (she spent part of her life under that system in Soviet Russia). She fails to recognize the many different social programs and government interventions that are absolutely necessary for a sound economy, instead she offers a utopian view of laisse faire capitalism in which everything works like clockwork when the government just butts out. A history lesson for all of you that agree with her...look up the late 1800s and read about what happens when there is laisse faire capitalism. Exploitation, poverty, etc. Another example is the dust bowl of the 1930's before subsidized farming. Another reason I did not like this book is that the plot dragged and I felt it was poorly written. Ms. Rand really beat a dead horse through many of the chapters to prove her points, which of course I didn't agree with at all. The book also gave a view that people are an "island", meaning what we do does not affect other people, so in her view everyone should be completely selfish and do things only for themselves. This is also entirely untrue...everything that people do has a ripple effect through those around us, whether we see it or not. Once again, Rand offers a very adolescent philosophy on life. Another thing that surprised me was Rand's chaevenistic view of women and condescention of the common man. I expected Dagny Taggart to be a strong, self-sufficient character, which she is in the beginning. But what Rand is really saying through her need of and submission to Francisco, Reardon, and ultimately Gault, is that even the strongest woman ultimately gives herself up to a man. This is part of Rands whole "hero worship" theme, which I think is rather warped. She also treats the common man as a useless, mindless creature that the world can do without, as the world crumbles when Galt recruits the great minds to his utopia, and of course the utopia flourishes with just the "producers." In her world, only the greatest minds, essentially the leaders are needed (hero worship again.) Once again, she fails to see the big picture. Where would the world be without people to tend farms, work in factories, pump gas, and flip burgers? She fails to see that everyone is part of one big machine, again she thinks that people are all individual islands that either produce or loot those that do. I thought that this was also ridiculous, as I disagree with just about everything Ayn Rand stands for. This book was nothing more than a pretentious, drawn out manifesto in the disguise of a mystery story if you ask me. Her ideas are warped and her philosophies are narrow and innacurate. All in all, I don't see how people consider Ayn Rand and influential thinker. She offers the viewpoints of a troubled teenager, not a great thinker.
Rating:
Summary: I was Inspired/thrilled until 3/4 of the way thru
Review: I had to agree with all the positive remarks made about this book until about 3/4 of the way through at which time I couldn't believe how "unbelieveable" it all became. I felt the pain and frustration with the characters and hailed Ayn Rand for her courage and insight most of the way through. But then all at once she fell far from the mark in my estimation - totally one sided - out of balance with unreasonable conclusions. I found her lack of touch with the reality of human psychology and intimate relationships almost maddening. And as for that 50 page speech - so boring and further more incomprehensible that anyone would sit still to listen to that endless, repetitive summation of "true value" etc. let alone an uneducated general public. I loved the first of this novel and wanted so badly to claim it as one of my all time favorites, but I just can't do it based on the final chapters. A must read though - despite the disappointing conclusion.
Rating:
Summary: Wondered what all the hype was...
Review: And am still wondering. As both a novel and an outline of philosophy, this book failed for me. The first third of the novel or so had me going--it was almost a suspense story and I wanted to solve the mystery of "who is John Galt?". But as the book moved on, I found myself not caring about any of the characters. Real people do not fit into such narrowly black and white categories. Everyone is either an industrialist paragon of virtue or a government bureaucratic type who is spineless, selfish, and stupid. Dagny Taggart, the only real female character in the novel, jumps into bed with one powerful man to the next, and they cede her to each other as a sort of prize won. The last third of the book was torture. I have read few things less enjoyable to plod through than Galt's 60 (60!) page radio broadcast at the end. I kept reading, though, because I thought surely the author wouldn't have put this in without having something important or new to say? Nope, just a repetition of everything that had already been hammered home without sublety in the rest of the book. The whole book would have benefitted from a more judicious editor
Rating:
Summary: Atlas Drugged
Review: First, I'll start by commenting on Rand's philosophy. I agree in large part with what she says about producing, self interest, etc. But she presents everything as SO black and white, so all or nothing, so extremely one way or the other. Another reviewer used the word "caricature" which is right on the money. But I don't get the impression that she saw it as such. The philosphy she espouses as she presents it is dangerous because it is not as simple as she would like for you to think it is. Don't let yourself be fooled. Secondly, I'd like to comment on the literary merits. I find it ironic that she spends a long 1,100 pages writing ad nauseum about exemplerary, almost superhuman people who are capable of producing extraordinary work while her own craft (writing) is barely even worthy of the compliment of mediocre. I would love to find out how many times she used the phrase "he/she felt as if" or "he/she suddenly felt such-and-such without naming it". Subtlety is not her strong point but redundancy apparently is. Her ideas were crystal clear on page 400 but she careened ahead. In summary, boo.
|
