Rating: 
Summary: Potential
Review: This book inspires the true believer in all of us. I've read this book a few times. I pick up something new from it each time. Is it simplistic? Yes. Is it realistic? No. However, it grants hope. It is a starting point towards a journey in learning. Fountainhead makes you THINK. This book either motivates you or enrages you. I, for one, think differently because of this book.
Rating: 
Summary: One of the greatest masterpieces of modern times
Review: Ayn Rand believed passionately in freedom, and nothing expresses why with the power or to the degree that does Atlas Shrugged. Originally titled The Strike, this "very long essay masquerading as a very long novel" (in the words of Morton Blackwell) chronicles the voluntary withdrawal from society of the inventive, entreprenureal class in the face of growing collectivism, and the societal collapse that results. While Rand wrote at mid-century, readers who lived through the following fifty years will appreciate just how insightful she was, and the haunting parallels to life in the East Bloc, socialist Western Europe, and our own United States.Atlas Shrugged makes the most compelling case for economic and political freedom you will likely ever read. Few books have ever had such influence, and the book loses nothing with age. Nevertheless, the reader must understand up front that Rand was more than a libertarian, and that her cultic "Objectivism" was far more than a philosophy. Much more of Atlas Shrugged than not (and far more of libertarianism than not) is consistent with Christian thought; but the Christian reader must pay close attention to Rand's more seductive passages (and would do well to analyze closely John Galt's 60-page [!] speech at the end), because some of her thoughts are not what they appear to the less astute reader, and her philosophy is militantly (hostilly) atheistic. Even so, this is a masterpiece of freedom, and simply must be read and appreciated. There is nothing like it.
Rating:
Summary: The culmination of Rand's Philosophy
Review: If the Fountainhead was Rand's approach to individual morality, than this book is her manifesto on the role of Human Government. It is suprisingly interesting for a philosophical book, and I found that it not only made me think for a long time afterward, but also to become involved in the characters and plot as I read it as well. For all its good points however, I find two major flaws with this book First of all, it can tend to get overly "preachy" at times. As an argument for a philosophy, actions can sometimes speak louder than words. The most convincing scene in the book is when an accident happens, an easily preventable disaster, merely because noone was willing to take personal responsibility for their actions. By following the natural pathway from cause to effect, she shows how misguided views that seem harmless at first can, in the long run, ruin a nation. Contrast this with "the speech", the 100 page long outburst by Galt about Rand's philosophy. The ideas are there, but they seem lifeless and unconvincing compared to the saga the reader has seen thus far. Even the shorter monologues, at a few pages each, are prone to skimming instead of understanding. Secondly, her world seems just a little bit too black and white to be realistic. Every character is either pure good or pure evil, as is shown by everything from their physical description to their sometimes amazingly dimwitted comments. Rand seems to be following a strategy of getting us to ignore opposing ideas by having them spoken by people who are mere caricatures without any good qualities, and therefore have us ignore them. The overall effect of this work on me however, was as a caution against extremism more than a radical shift in philosophy, Precisely because the characters had such extreme views that I saw the flaws in the extreme levels to which the views were taken rather than the ideas themselves, which is probably what Rand intended.
Rating:
Summary: 19th Century writer in the 20th century
Review: Atlas Shrugged is a masterpiece of a form not generally familiar to modern readers. It is a 'Romantic' novel in the tradition of 'Les Miserables'. One of the hallmarks of Romantic fiction: characters who exist as expressions of 'universal' problems, ideals, themes and conflicts. For those of you who think 'Atlas' is somehow 'unrealistic' because it's characters aren't 'normal' people, you are obviously used to only naturalistic fiction, t.v. etc.. The characters in 'Atlas' are concretizations of abstract principles and character traits and should be read as such. Victor Hugo's Jean Valjean is a 'romantic' character in the sense that he is a projection of any man trying to stay true to his values and overcome his past. Hugo's villain Javert is similarly focused to just a few important traits. Far from being a failing of Rand's fiction, this is a great achievement when you understand what sort of clarity you need to sustain this type of writing over such a large book. Anyone who's ever read 'Les Miserables' unabridged will see the parallels between that work and this- Hugo will take an enormous amount of time detailing the history of the French Revolution, the history of the Convents in France, etc.. Rand's digressions, while even longer than Hugo's in some instances, are actually more pertinent to the plot of 'Atlas' than the history of the convent is pertinent to Hugo's novel. Hugo digresses to give interesting information, but Rand digresses to give related speeches and lessons- the plot of 'Atlas' depends on the philosophical speeches, as most (but admittedly not all) deal with issues that are vital to the characters at the time they hear them. As far as the 'wooden' villains, etc- remember this: Javert in 'Les Miserables' is blindly, one-sidedly, doggedly in pursuit of Jean Valjean with the singularity of purpose of the coyote after the road runner. Is this a failing of that work? Rand's characters are not mirrors held up to life- ask yourselves if great art is made of the folks next door. 'Atlas' is the last and greatest book in the writing tradition of the 19th century- even though it was written and published in the 1950's. This is NOT Tom Clancy, Grisham or any of the other authors you're used to. This is a social-minded, issues-minded, serious work of the style noone else wrote in the twentieth century, but hopefully they will again in the twenty first.
Rating:
Summary: Face it. It's brilliant.
Review: I absolutely adore this book. The philosophy it presents is the most satisfying one I have ever encountered. Sadly, I am not suprised that no teacher mentioned it even once during my years in college. Why at the age of 33 did I just now discover Ayn Rand? About the characters being black and white: the point is not that the heroes exist in real life but that they COULD and sometimes do exist. And that we can model our lives on the principles which they espouse. The book contains several wonderful passages that I love to read again and again: the description of Starnsville, the chain of command that leads to the train disaster, d'Anconia's speech about money, Hank Reardon's trial speech, and the tramp's description of what happens when the Starnes children take over the motor factory, where he used to work, the last of which is an apt microcosm of Communism and many other passages as well. I find this book to be joyful, an affirmation that it is okay to be happy. Most important to me personally is that we do not have to subscribe to what we consider evil in the name of misguided concern for our fellow man. Suffering in of itself is NOT a virtue. I can only surmise that the people who hate this book so adamantly do not agree. I welcome any responses to what I just wrote. It's hard to find people with whom to discuss books that I am so passionate about.
Rating:
Summary: Only Liberals
Review: This book is too liberal for extremely conservative people. If you are open-minded you will enjoy reading this book, but if you are narrow-minded and too conservative(not saying Conservatives are bad), you will NOT enjoy this book. This book is an excellent peace of literature and makes you think. There are some things I don't like about this book. For example, some of these peoples' personalities you will never see in anyone and they are too unintelligent and one-dimensional. But, I do agree that you cannot show too much sympathy, even to family, or you will not succeed in the business world. As a 14 year old, I found this book to be well-written, and it truly does make you think. (Yes, I understood it quite well).
Rating: 
Summary: Paperbacks stink!
Review: This is positively the single most influencial book I have encountered in my life. I could go on, expound on the objectivist philosophy, but that is not the point of my review. Suffice it to say that I consider the reading of this book as a defining moment in my life. Why then did I rate this masterpiece as merely two star? Quite simply to deter people from buying the paperback edition - mine fell apart. I am by no means a rereader of books, in fact, the only books I've ever read more than once are Snot Stew (don't ask) and The Wheel of Time series (Robert Jordan). In the past two and a half years I have quite literally read this book to pieces. Three of them to be exact. So if you are considering buying the paperback version, please, reconsider and buy the hardcover. You will not be disappointed!
Rating: 
Summary: Self-Indulgent Tripe
Review: Review title says it all...
Rating:
Summary: The greatest American Novel...
Review: It's funny when you read a talented writer like Rand, and look at all the drivel (Grisham, etc.) that is published today, and realize that there are not many great writers in the world now. Sure, all the pulp fiction are great STORIES, but the writing still comes off as a high school senior's creative writing project. Even if you didn't like the story, no one(of any intelligence) can say the writing is not top notch. While this is one of my fav books of all time, there are two reasons I didn't give it 5 stars: 1) J. Galt's speech is simply too long. 2) I didn't like the senseless killing of the guards at the end of the book. Aside from that, a terrific read.
Rating: 
Summary: Manages to get one to think, but...
Review: Disclaimer: (I would have liked to give this a 2.5 star rating, but since that was not an option, keeping in mind that reading is never bad I went ahead and gave it 3 stars)... One the things that Rand does manage to accomplish in this book is to have the reader reflect upon their own personal convictions and think seriously about them. In the sense that the book instigates such an intellectual journey, it is not a bad start. In terms of fictional stylism, this book truly deserves mixed reviews. Compared to characters in any serious work of fiction Rand's characters are one-sided, shallow, and dull. Rand does a horrible job trying to portray any living human being - even Rand herself and other objectivists have lead far more complicated and intricate lives than those of the characters, and Rand seems woefully ignorant of this thing called "life" out of which other competent authors design their characters. However, her use of imagery and descriptive writing is superb. The mental pictures she paints are almost crystal, clarion clear. The plot is intriguing and fun to follow, until about 3/4 of the way through after which it simply becomes ridiculous. There is no obscurity, however, about her central message, and the clarity of the theme does not really interfere with the other elements of the work, except perhaps characterization. Furthermore, I have no hesitation in cautioning readers against being carried away by her flawed philosophical arguments. On a superficial and quick reading, the arguments Ayn Rand presents in her self-proclaimed "philosophical" system are very intriguing. For example, consider the title of a chapter "A is A." However, in the spirit of philosophical inquiry, when one inquires what sort of justification Rand has for this, she simply says that this is "true" and appeals to a sense of self-evidence. However, the appeal to "self-evidence" is simply inexcusable. For when we say something is "self-evident," that does not mean it is in some sense "absolutely true" - it only means that we, for whatever reason, strongly believe it to be "absolutely true." Excuse the philosophical jargon, but what Rand does is try to provide a phenomonological justification for the foundations of the "rationalism" of Descartes&co. In some sense, she wishes us to believe that "A is A" is an "encounter" with some sort of "truth" that is in some sense "out there" independent of human consciousness of it. This borders on Platonism, which Rand herself vehemently denounces. But the "immediacy of encounter with the 'truth'" for Rand (a phenomenological act) is the sole source of justification (which, by the way, is not made very explicit in this book) for her statement "A is A." Of course, modern symbolic/mathematical logic has also accepted this premise. However, symbolic logic has accepted it as an "axiom," that is, a statement "true" by definition. There is a not-so-subtle distinction between an axiom and a vague, philosophically meaningless "sense of truth" that Rand advocates for its justification. Furthermore, the statement that "reason is the grounds for epistemology" is simply absurd. First of all, by "reason" let us understand this as the study of "implications," hence making it a "subset" of logic in terms of its objection. Aristotle, along with his medieval worshippers, one of the most INCOMPETENT philosophers ever (read the first sentence of the Nicomachean Ethics, or go check out my review on that work), also believed logic's greatest value to be epistemological. It is (in my opinion) for this reason that he never progressed beyond the rudimentary syllogism. It is not worthless, epistemologically speaking, and rational thought is a foundation of knowledge, but it is not the only foundation. While this works very well in a universe that is composed exclusively of valid (I.E. truth of a conditional under all "interpretations," e.g. "if p, then p") statements and invalid statements, it fails miserably in a universe such as our own that is composed mostly of consistent statements (e.g. if p, then (p and q), which is false if q is false, but is true if q is true or p is false). For example, if I say that if I take an umbrella out today, then I take an umbrella out and I will be dry. This may come out true...I may block myself from rain, or it may not even be raining. However, it is still conceivable that I will be pushed into the ocean and get wet. Hence, the truthfullness of this statement is "consistent" - it could be false or it could be true. In this case, logic alone fails to provide anysort of truth value to this statement. However, because the statement itself can conceivably be true and false, it is not a meaningless statement. It is out of such shaky foundations that Rand constructs a system of political and ethical prescriptions. However, the real problem with the work is in her line of reasoning. We may accept her self-described "metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical 'systems,'" but even granting her this much there are philosophers who have used her starting points and arrived at arguments for democratic socialism (Adler's "Four Dimensions of Philosophy" is an excellent contrast to Rand's line of "reasoning"). Far from being the works of incompetent moocher academicians, such thinkers as Adler present coherent, well argued conclusions that help illuminate the limitations of Rand's personal attempts at constructing a system of thought. In conclusion, I ask that the reader seriously think about Rand's reasoning and her premises. Her writing may sway you to be persuaded, and her imagery will surely make an impression on you. However, her actual "philosophical statements" are objectionable at best and at worst simply wrong.
|
