Rating: 
Summary: A "novel" approach to philosophy.
Review: ATLAS SHRUGGED is undoubtedly an interesting and thought-provoking novel. But unfortunately for Rand and her seemingly deathless (and hydra-headed) Admiration Society, there is more to doing sound philosophy (including political and economic theory) than writing a big long novel and then peppering a series of sloppily-reasoned short essays with quotations from it. The basic problem, of course, is that a novel is _fiction_. The fact that Rand can write a story in which something or other happens is evidence only of the vividness of her imagination, no matter how plausible she makes it sound in the artificial world of her novel. And in this case, the fiction in question is not without deep problems of its own. Other reviewers, including me, have called attention to the fact that Rand basically puts most of the world to death in this grandiose fantasy of hers, ultimately on the "argument" that some human beings aren't _really_ human after all. And other reviewers, including me, have called attention to the fact that outside of "Galt's Gulch," capitalism is _not_ dependent solely on the mighty creative efforts of a handful of geniuses but primarily on a vast network of cooperating human beings, pretty much any two or three of whom working together could out-survive a lone John Galt who is wholly dependent on his own resources. The free market _does_ (sometimes) reward (some types of) genius, of course, but primarily it rewards the willingness to engage in peaceful commerce even with relative strangers and the ability to provide those strangers with stuff they want in exchange for stuff they're willing to part with. A supergenius who was, like Howard Roark, "born without the ability to consider other people" would find himself either undergoing a serious attitude adjustment or else starving to death while he tried to find "other people" willing to let him exercise his sublime and incomparable genius on _their_ construction projects. (And we might well wonder how someone described in such clearly narcissistic terms could design buildings suitable for human habitation at all, let alone as wonderfully adapted to their occupants' needs as Rand says Roark's buildings are.) And just for fun, I'll add that a real-life Dagny Taggart would be damned lucky if she didn't get pregnant several times during the course of her bedroom escapades with metallurgist/adulterer Hank Rearden while she lived out Rand's ideal of "romantic love." (I hope Rand herself was so lucky. But in light of her ill-reasoned views on abortion, one has to wonder.) She'd be even luckier if a man who was willing to cheat on his wife was also willing to support any children he happened to father in the process. (But on Rand Planet, it's Dagny who tosses Hank over for John Galt. And guess what: Hank doesn't mind. Don't try this at home.) At any rate, Rand's tendentious fiction is hardly within tomato-tossing distance of the real free market or its genuinely philosophical defenses. Rand's bizarre and ultimately subjectivist ethic doesn't even permit us to say that, ceteris paribus, it would be _good_ if everyone had sufficient food, housing, medical care, and so forth; that, on her terms, would be "intrinsicism." The fact that capitalism accomplishes these aims in as economically efficient a manner as will ever be possible on earth, and that it does so without violating the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of the people who do the accomplishing, is not a fact one will learn from Rand. Oh, she mentions it once in a while, but she can't present any sound arguments for it -- and, really, she doesn't even think it's all that important. She acknowledges that there are ultimately no actual _conflicts_ of interest among "rational" people, but that our interests are, or can be, positively _coherent_ seems to have escaped her altogether. This latter is one of those facts that falls by the wayside owing to her impoverished view of "reason" -- which, on her kindergarten-level understanding, is satisfied by merely "noncontradictory identification." (Strictly construed, this view should have committed her to some form of logical atomism. Be that is it may, no intelligence worthy of the name is satisfied by the sheer absence of contradiction.) For the arguments that Rand couldn't be bothered to offer, one has to go to a _real_ economist like Ludwig von Mises -- who, despite his high volume of scholarly output, didn't write even one single novel during his entire career. And what a tremendous loss that is -- not.
Rating: 
Summary: Something Wicked this Way Comes
Review: This book was good because it said something. It had a purpose. We may attach good or bad attributes to that purpose, but in the end it had a point. If something doesn't have a purpose then it is pointless and of no concequence. But, this book did have a purpose and therefore it was a good book. I would recommend it to anybody who seeks a purpose.
Rating:
Summary: A great novel
Review: I enjoyed this book immensely. Though I don't agree with some of the ideas presented in the book, it was still an enjoyable read. I recommend it to those wishing to find a book that makes you think. Overall, the characters were well written, and the plot was amazing.
Rating:
Summary: Any book inspiring such extremes in reviews is worth reading
Review: This book is not necessarily scripture for the totally selfish, nor does it condemn the selfless. Ayn Rand's philosophy was not one of self-absorption and callous disregard for others (although aspects of her life might support such claims); it was simply an affirmation of freedom - freedom from restrictions imposed by any entity other than the individual. Of course her novels reflect the extreme examples - yet even within the struggles of her protagonists she indicates the nobility of the struggle, of creating value for the joy of the creation (and this does not preclude the joy of benefitting others).On the other hand, her villians ultimately derive their power and satisfaction, such as it may be, by seeking power - not power as a result of their own creations and abilities, but by denying others the freedom of opportunity. Yes, the characters are mostly two-dimensional. Yes, the book is absorbing and thought-provoking. Although it was written more than half a century ago, one need only reflect on much of what is happening in America and Europe today to recognize that (while it is overly extreme and flawed by the hubris of one of those who are too insecure to consider the possibility of one greater than themselves), a great deal of this book is very nearly prophetic. It should be a part of any thinking person's library, and should be recommended widely for thought and discussion - even as acrimonious as that coming from many reviewers on this site.
Rating: 
Summary: Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here
Review: If you intend to read this book for the joy of literature, by all means, do as you please. However, should you choose this book in search of some philosophical enlightenment reccomended by friends or mentors, I warn you - read with a panoptic gaze! Rand uses a series of tricks and machinations to seduce the reader into believing her opinions. Interestingly enough, to those who read more of her works, in "Philosophy: Who Needs It?" Rand claims that evil philosophers often use beautiful writing to convey their evil messages so that you subconsciously know them. Her writing represents the epitome of this claim! Her criticism of popular socialist movements are unfounded in that they make several false assumtions: 1. Socialism ALWAYS turns into a military and dictatorial authoritarian egalitarianism. 2. Socialism NEVER works. (see France, Britain, China although a bad example) 3. Socialism ALWAYS denies self-worth. The humorous part is that her solution (WARNING: some may think this part spoils the plot a little) is to topple such a regime by destroying it and all that support it! GREAT! The deaths of the socialists are AOK by her, because they're worthless people anyway! At the heart of her philosophy is an elimination of concern for others, and although she makes it seem glamourous, it is far from it. When the book was originally published, some people actually did what she advocates in Atlas Shrugged, society didn't crumble, and no regime was toppled. Her dream is a utopian vision with no light at the end of the tunnel beside the illusory one she paints with this book. Reading this book taught me to hate capitalism, objectivism, and all that she stands for. Read it to understand the arguments and fallacies that she utilizes in it. You will most likeley enjoy reading it, but when there is a philosophical passage, do not lose face. The book is a step backwards in social progress and only serves to reinforce the growing cult of fitness, strength, and regularity in those who follow it.
Rating: 
Summary: There are better books.
Review: The book is entertaining. The reaction of Americans to it is puzzling for me. 1. The philosophy is (by Rand's own admission) anti-christian (anti-religious) and yet most Americans are religious (mostly christain). I would have thought the "christain right" especially would be horrified by objectivism, but they don't seem to see any contradiction - even if it is in print. 2. The novel itself has had a "life altering" influence on people who seem incapable of judging the literary merit seperate from the philosophy. These are not complex characters and the structure, plot, setting, atmosphere, and language are neither ideal nor original enough to make it the "greatest novel of all time" - no matter how much you "love" the plot and message. 3. Reader views seem so extreme. Why is this novel so loved and scorned? I suspect that the controversy is more political than literary. Contrast Atlas Shrugged with The Autobiography of Lincoln Steffans and you get a glimpse of polarized America. Steffans documents the real life graft, waste and corruption of America when industrial magnates did rule unfettered by laws. I do agree, however, that Atlas Shrugged is worth the read. It reveals a great deal about America and the blind passion of some Americans (although not exclusively Americans) for a certain kind of freedom and independance.
Rating:
Summary: A definite must read
Review: This book is a must-read. While sometimes wordy, everything written was done so with care, and even the "long speeches" of which she is denounced for are interesting. This is a good look at a way of thought not popularized on television, the radio, in government, or even other books. It isn't a long standing seller through a quirk of fate. The book is not too long at all, as some might lead you to believe. This book was intended to give a world-view of what's wrong in today's life. This is no small feat, to say the least. I have read many negative remarks about both this book and her philosophy, and let them continue to say such things. Les Mis is considered great, too, but I couldn't stomach it. I couldn't even watch the movie. If you like philosophy, melodrama, and thought-provoking literature, then there is no way you should pass this up.
Rating:
Summary: This is final
Review: To all of you with 5 stars: She just showed you what you allready knew. To the ones with only one star: you should at least understand that the rest of us doesn't care about you and your opinon. Your time will be over anyways.
Rating:
Summary: Railroad Magnate, Hell No!
Review: I am more of an Eddie Willers type, I couldn't build it, but I could save it from immediate destruction. As for my life, I have realized that there are no contradictions in life or in nature, you just have to check your premises. The thing that I was wrong about was that people like you - you "morally and politically justified" looters - couldn't exist. How Wrong I Was. I have been irrational, but then again, not so irrational as you. And another thought for Monty in Texas, John Galt in a salt mine, how fitting. That wouldn't really have benefitted the looters, now would it? In fact, I think that that is just the job he would have taken had Dagny Taggart owned it. Oh, and Bob, keep trying, you'll get it right some day. And to the Communists and Socialists who said that Ayn Rand led a cult because that's the only way of life they can concieve of, go read von Mises, that is the only thing Mordecai and I agree on.
Rating:
Summary: Intelligent but flawed author
Review: Her idealogy was only valid in a time of a real or imagined communist/socialist/collectivist threat. She apparently wanted to change the world -- and extremes (masked as objective "realities") are so much better for herding than real political nuances.
|
