Rating: 
Summary: As unrealistic and dangerous as Marx
Review: I found this review of Marx:"How can anyone actually disagree with what Marx said? Everything he said turned out to be correct. If you disagree with his ideas then you simply are not intelligent enough to understand what he said. Communism is TRUE democracy,not what the US is running. Those who disagree with communism are cleary not open minded." Now substitute Rand for Marx and note that you have an "Objectivist" argument. In fact her "philosophy" is as worthless, unrealistic and dangerous as Communism.
Rating: 
Summary: What is Literature?
Review: Is it: (1) A vehicle for the promotion of one's (perhaps the author's) ideas, or (2) a depiction of what it feels like to live in a world where these ideas prevail? I don't think there is a right or wrong choice to the above quiz. However, if you chose (1), keep in mind that there is a better term than 'Literature' to describe the notion: Propaganda. The art of using logic and "reason" to advance one's cause is not new. It has been practised for millenia; the Ancient Greeks called it Sophistry; and in the Middle Ages it was known as Casuistry, a science by which black bread could be proved to be white, the moon square rather than round, virtue to be vice, and so on. The author has mastered the "mechanics" but hardly the "art" of the novel. She seems to have spent an enormous amount of time and energy in understanding and depicting what one can perceive with the five senses but hardly any in trying to fathom the inner human world. That may be why her writing reads awfully brilliant but leaves an aftertaste of lacking wisdom. Her work lies at an extreme diametrically opposite to that of Dostoevsky, whose understanding of the human soul borders on the absolute. But Dostoyevsky's work defies time and space; it has so far been impossible to peg it to any moment, place or situation in history; it is eternal, like the human soul itself. And that, in the end, could be the deciding difference that separates it from the work of Rand.
Rating:
Summary: Dogmatic teachings of a bitter woman
Review: A militant and dogmatic atheist, Rand preached a version of unmitigated individualism and what she called the "Virtue of Selfishness," an ethic that glorifies egoism and the material gratifications of Economic Man. At her funeral in 1982 an immense dollar sign stood beside her casket, and the characters in her books are always sketching the symbol in the air like early Christians sketching the sign of the cross. For all her hatred of religion, Rand managed to turn herself and her ideas into her own private church, and her intolerance of dissent rivaled that of the Ayatollah Khomeini. One story, about Murray Rothbard, shows how far she carried it and how seriously she took herself. Rothbard one of the world's leading free market economists and libertarian thinkers, was a lifelong agnostic, but his wife, Joey, was and is a Christian. When they were younger, they had some truck with Rand and her circle of worshippers, but then the Great One found out about Joey's faith. Rand gave Joey six months to soak herself in Rand's own screeds against religion. If, at the end of that period, Joey abandoned her beliefs, she and Murray could sign up with the Source of All Truth Herself. If not, Murray would have to divorce Joey, or else they would be exiled to the outer dark. Murray, quite properly, told Rand to go take a flying jump up in the lake (or words to that effect). He kept his wife, and his wife kept her faith, and somehow they managed to live happily without the benefit of Ayn Rand's wisdom. Rothbard was not the only thinker who penetrated Rand's buncombe and saw that she was in fact a dangerous enemy of the very liberty she championed. Whittaker Chambers wrote a withering review of her novel Atlas Shrugged in National Review. Calling it a "ferro-concrete fairy tale," Chambers noticed that despite "the impromptu and surprisingly gymnastic matings of the heroine and three of the heroes," no children ever seem to result. "The strenuously sterile world of Atlas Shrugged," he wrote, "is scarcely a place for children." Actually it could be argued that there are nothing but children in her novels. The Post story quotes one of her major heroes, Howard Roark, in The Fountainhead: "This country," he intones, "was not based on selfless service, sacrifice, renunciation or any precept of altruism. It was based on man's right to the pursuit of happiness. His own happiness. Not anyone else's." Really? It is typical of Rand and her self-obsessed followers that they conveniently ignore every sacrifice on which this and every other human society is based -- men who die in wars, women who die in childbirth, parents who do without so their children may prosper, leaders who surrender privacy and wealth for service, and whole communities that stand together against a common enemy. Men who died at Valley Forge and the Alamo, with a courtesy unknown to the Virtue of Selfishness, would have politely asked Ayn Rand to take her false and solemn platitudes somewhere else.
Rating:
Summary: The Torah of the Objectivist religion
Review: Ayn Rand was not a remarkable philosopher but a rather a pathetic demagouge who lacked any well-formed, decent ideas. By all means, read this book if you are interested in the development of right wing ideas, but understand that this is not the work of a woman who knew much about what she attempted to describe. Influenced not by reason and truth, but by absurd fascist Ubermensch philosophy, Atlas is terrifyingly devoid of clarity. That it has become a holy book of a cult movement for 40 years is a testimony to the unholy persuasive powers of the author and to the dreadful pathology of her followers.
Rating:
Summary: A thought pervoking book that is as intresting as it is long
Review: I picked up Atlas Shrugged and read it with very little knowledge of "objectivism", other than it thrived off the virtue of selfishness. I found that I pretty much couldn't put the book down after I got deeply into it. The pages would pass by in hundreds, and even though the material was as long as 3 novels, it consistently kept my attention. For a book that's page count totals 1084 pages, 900 of them kept me riveted, which is a feat in itself. At around page 950, it seems as the story deteriates and Rand's personal views are the only topics remaining in the story. 50+ pages are used in a single speech (which isn't a hideous speech, do not get me wrong) but isn't exactly the approiate place for such a thing. From this point on, the story only deteriates into senseless acts that do not even reflect the Characters ideals. Atlas Shrugged seems more like a gigantic example of Rands Objective views. Even though Atlas Shrugged was a hefty delivery of objectivism, it brings up many interesting ideals and a clearly stated motive for objectivism. If anybody cares to listen to the word of neither a radical of objectivism, or a morally opposed patron, Atlas Shrugged is a decent book to read, but far from horrible, or the greatest thing written to date as long as 3 novels, it still kept my attention. For a book thats page count totals 1084 pages, 900 of them kept me rivited, which is a feat in itself. At around 950 or so, it seems as the story deteriates and Rand's personal views are the only topics remaining in the story. 50+ pages are used in a single speach (which isn't a hideous speech, do not get me wrong) but isn't nessicairly the approiate place for such a thing. From this point on, the story only deteriates into senseless acts that do not even reflect the Characters ideals. Atlas Shrugged seems more like a gigantic example of Rands Objective views. Even though Atlas Shrugged was a hefty delivery of objectivism, it brings up many intresting ideals and a cleary stated motive for objectivism. If anybody cares to listen to the word of neither a radical of objectivism, or a moraly opposed patron, Atlas Shrugged is a decent book to read, but far from horrible, or the greatest thing written to date
Rating: 
Summary: Economically correct, but advocates conditional love.
Review: Atlas Shrugged is logically irrefutable, but other reviewers are correct in that there is lacking compassion here. What seperates Ayn Rands' philsosophy from from other "Individual Liberty" thinkers such as John Locke or John Stuart Mill, is that she firmly does NOT believe in "unconditional love" of any sort. Love is a purely conditional thing to her: To be loved, you must earn it through achievements or admirable qualities, etc. So while John Locke would agree with her totally that nobody should be FORCED to provide another human a job, or have their liberty or property confiscated, for whatever the reason, he would have no problem with VOLUNTARY providing of assistance to a beggar. Ayn Rand, while acknowledging the freedom of people to do so, looks down on any altruistic act with scorn. Still her economic ideas, I at least believe, are quite correct and logically irrefutable. There are two world sets of premises here, the "capitalist" and the "collectivist" and the book then proceeds to run BOTH through the Logic chopper to their absolute conclusions. Human Emotions, which by nature aren't logical, are also sent through the logic chopper, which is what causes some people to have an uneasy feeling about the writing. One emotion/human idea that she hits dead on is the idea that people are "whole": Your outward life is a reflection of what drives you inwardly. You can't operate in one endeavour by one worldview and another endeavour by another, without having some cracks form. As Fransisco d' Anconia puts it: "Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I'll tell you his entire philosophy of life." That's true: Are you attracted to the form and function of an athletic body, and the discipline that went into making it that way, or are you attracted to the outward appearance of something, in the form of a specific type of clothing, and the message that conveys, etc. Try as some might to discredit Ayn Rand, nobody to this day has been able to refute Ayn Rands' economic ideas. At least not logically. The reason being is that her logic is absolute. Saying "I don't like it" is not a refutation, and "It won't work collectively" is not either, since what is the collective but a bunch of individuals. In that way, it's the Anti-Marx book: Marx CAN be refuted logically page after page, but it is a huge cry for humanity. (Logic example: only two classes--owner and worker/exploiter and exploited. It's a false dichtonomy since it does not take into account you can be both at the same time. I own stock in the company that I work for, which makes me an owner. So I am an owner of the company, but I'm also a worker, so therefore I'm exploiting myself.) "What if the Prima Movers stop?" Someone might ask. A typical response from an Anti-Rander would be: "Someone would step in their place." But if someone could step in their place so readily, then there goes all arguments against the absolute existence of malevolent monopolies and their creators. In closing, this book is a great book in telling you why the East Bloc collapsed with massive defections over here, or why LBJ's "Great Society" has become an Irony in itself. I wouldn't base my concept of "forgiveness" on it though.
Rating:
Summary: Paradox
Review: Had I written this review a year ago when I actually finished the book, I would have given it five stars. However, even as I finished the book I had an uneasy feeling about what I had read. Even as I recommended it to my friends I had that little voice that said, "spare them". For months I couldn't really put my finger on why. But now I understand. I was totally in love with Rand's economic theory and her view of the great things man's mind can achieve. At the same time, her view of humanity is totally scewed. Rand's economic view of the world is, in my opinion, quite correct. Yet she fails utterly to put a human face on it. The love story is terrible. Is that love? In fact, I don't think there is an ounce of love for humanity in the whole book. The characters don't even seem to love themselves. . .just their minds and what they can produce. Overall, the book is a testament to the great things man can achieve through hard work and perseverance, but it ignores that which makes us who we are . . . our humanity. This book had no soul.
Rating: 
Summary: A true masterpiece - I love it !
Review: In case you may think I am a fan of Ayn Rand, I have to say I did not read any of her other work before reading this wonderful book... and I was hooked ! The intricate storyline, the vivid characters, the engrossing setting, everything is perfect. It tends to get long-winded but hey, it's a philosophical novel. Not necessarily a great introduction to Objectivism, but a great novel. Deserves the title of second most influential book of the century, in fact it deserves first place, that's for sure !
Rating:
Summary: On cults, prophets and dangerous philosophies
Review: Atlas Shrugged is a great story and a great title. The four stars are five for a great story and minus one for overbearing philosophy. I don't particularily care for Ayn Rand's philosophy, but the amazing depth of the plot and characters makes up for it and makes for a fascinating read. However, a word or two of caution is advisable. This book reminded me of the Communist Manifesto in that it looks good on paper. It is almost understandable, though, when you consider that Ayn Rand grew up in Russia in the two decades before the Russian Revolution and wasn't much older than I am when it exploded. Being one of the young, tender, impressionable high schoolers that one of the reveiwers further down is trying to protect-- I understand that this story was carefully constructed to portray the morals and wisdom of Ayn Rand. She was a master story-teller and not to be forgotten, but perhaps used as a cautionary tale? This will not happen here any time soon. I found it interesting to note that the obvious symbolism of the characters in the story does not have to be interpreted to such an extreme as it usually is. The book almost sounds like something that could have been written recently by someone venting about modern politics (and exagerating, of course). I find comfort from the two radical differences in oppinion of her works in a quote from Wise Child (I paraphrase) "Those that are really special don't flaunt it".
Rating: 
Summary: Grandiose Potboiler
Review: If there ever was a novel written with a single minded purpose of proving the author's philosophy as a panacea for all human problems, not by the merits of the philosophy and convincing arguments but by relentless propaganda, this must be the one. Even if one were convinced by Ayn Rand's philosophy applied in a narrow sphere in her other two novels "Fountainhead" and "We the Living", after reading "Atlas Shrugged" one would realize how absurd her philosophy is when it is extended beyond the narrow sphere. Choosing the novel as a medium to explain her philosophy through a bunch of unreal characters and a comic book story line, far from proving her philosophy as a means of attaining utopia, actually puts into question the philosophy itself. Though the novel as a medium for teaching her philosophy might not have worked for Ayn Rand, it proves the inadequacy of her philosophy for the real world. The theme of the novel is bordering on absurdity and the plot and events are exaggerated out of proportion. A bunch of God like super heroes (geniuses) stop the motor of the world by refusing to use their creative minds for the progress of mankind, thus depriving the mediocre society of all their inventions and contributions. They do this because their philosophy is diametrically opposite to that of the society which is infested with the greatest ills of the world according to their (i.e. Ayn Rand's) objectivistic philosophy - collectivism, altruism, charity, and selflessness. What made me feel annoyed and amused as well was the fact that she projects her philosophy as a panacea for all the problems of the world and tries to prove that an utopia can be created just by following her philosophy. Her philosophy is purely materialistic and far removed from reality. It applies only for that fraction of mankind which consists of geniuses, intellectuals, inventors and scientists and conspicuously ignores all the other "mediocre" people. Ayn Rand's objectivistic ideas are not so worthless as to be rejected in whole. I myself am an admirer of her ideas of absolute individualism and her theory of man's ego as the fountainhead of progress. I like her absolutely egoistic characters, not for the perverted principles they hold and their presumptuous philosophy, but for their unbending ego, absolute integrity, extreme individualism and undaunted courage in standing against the society to which they don't come to terms. Ayn Rand's ideas make sense only when they are limited to the individual. They lose their credibility and become absurd when they are projected as the means to create an utopia. Though her eulogy for the genius of Man, which has made him achieve such a tremendous progress in all fields, is to be appreciated, it seems absurd to read her explain away all the problems of the world by glorifying steel, foundry, oil and railroads. The way she glorifies the industrial achievements of man one would think man is born only to build bridges and railroads. Coming to the novel itself, I felt really bored by the way she sings her philosophy page after page, making the whole novel a massive work of propaganda in which she beats Goebbels. In her attempt to make her philosophy as the only way for utopia, she confuses and contradicts herself in many places. For example, one of her characters Richard Haley retires from public life the day after his first grand success as a musician, saying in essence that people appreciated his music rather than his genius mind which produced that music. Here Ayn Rand contradicts her own philosophy that man is an end in himself and consequently should not depend on others for anything including appreciation. This is not the absolute ego which her philosophy tends to glorify. The characters in the novel and the world she has created for them to live in seem just out of a fairy tale. It looks as if she has invented an imaginary world different from our own to suit her philosophy rather than using the real world which is too complicated for her philosophy. Her characters are incredibly identical, like the preconditioned inhabitants of "Brave New World". While there are at least six types of human beings in Huxley's dystopia, there are only two types in Ayn Rand's world - those who follow her philosophy and those who oppose it. Throughout the novel each type behaves in the same way, like a keyed toy. Those who follow her philosophy (heroes), right from the highest intellectual genius to the lowest "intellectual" foreman, recite her philosophy unvaryingly like a nursery rhyme and in a sickening frequency as if to din it into the reader's mind. Those who don't follow her philosophy (villains) oppose it in the same way, glorifying all the "evils" of objectivistic philosophy - altruism, charity, social responsibility, and so on. It looks as if people exist in her world only to follow or oppose the objectivistic philosophy. Those who don't support her philosophy fight against those who do for no reason other than to destroy that philosophy and its followers. An incredible theme on which the whole novel hangs. Here there is another contradiction of her philosophy. Both the kinds of people have the same "virtue" of selfishness which her philosophy preaches, though the motives and means may be opposed when viewed from conventional moral point of view. As Ayn Rand does not consider morality from the conventional point of view and the war waged by the opponents are ideological, the qualities of both the characters are essentially same implying that both follow her philosophy, a corollary which is contrary to Ayn Rand's intention. While she makes her heroes larger than life, showing them in their best and giving them God like powers over humanity, she portrays her anti-heroes as a vulgar, slipshod imbeciles, their actions always bordering on absurdity. May be she tries to convey the point that all the intellectuals follow her philosophy and all the imbeciles are opposed to it. Her utopian valley "Galt's Gultch" with all the intellectual egoists in pompous and ridiculous roles is as comical and fantastic as Alice's wonderland. The stilted dialogues of her characters who always seem to understand more than the words and attribute philosophical meanings even for ordinary conversations are other sources of irritation. Notwithstanding the grand theme and philosophical pretensions, Atlas Shrugged degenerates into a pot-boiler with a turgid philosophy and frivolous story line.
| 
