Atlas Shrugged

Rating:
Summary: Very Few Fence-Sitters on This One
Review: (PP) As one reviewer on this page has already alluded, a quick page-down through the reviews of Atlas Shrugged provides an excellent proxy of how politically and philosophically divisive this book really is: Rand's magnum opus either receives a resounding affirmation (nine or ten rating) or a similarly resounding rebuke (one to three rating). There are both knee-jerk and considered comments from both sides, but as always the most puerile comments come from opponents of Rand. (PP) One common objection is that Atlas Shrugged is to preachy, too didactic, too boring. This is true if the book is read without an active intelligence and is even more true if it is not read as it was meant to be read: as a treatise of philosophy. The uniqueness of this work can only be fully appreciated when one understands that Rand advanced, in literary form, a system of philosophy almost wholly of her own creation and as part of that philosophy devised an epistemological system based on Aristotle's metaphysics that Aristotle himself could not extrapolate from his own massive, seminal contributions to the field (non-contradiction, either or, A is A--contributions which Rand respectively pays homage to in the three parts of the novel). As central to this new epistemology, she advances a flagrantly controversial yet devastatingly consistent theory of thought formation (measurement-omission), builds a theory of rational, ego-based ethics upon it (defending man's right to his own mind and body, the first such defense in history) and also unveils a philosophical defense of capitalism based on egoist ethics, a first in human history. She also refutes of the separation of man into either mind or body, passionately arguing that both are inseparable, exposes the true motivations of most collectivist philosophers, politicians, and artists, and shows that human knowledge is both hierarchical and contextual in nature, refuting the contextless philosophy of the logical positivists of the day. She manages to wrap all of this into a novel that is a tribute to her chosen literary style, Romanticism, and is a through-the-uprights thriller to boot. If this is boring to some readers, it is because they have elected to prejudge the book in order to comport to their idea of what they believe it is and what they believe it stands for; this rush to judgment all too common among opponents of Rand. (PP) The second most common "objection" to Atlas Shrugged voiced on this page should not be worthy of comment, but unfortunately it needs to be addressed and then exposed as the leftist/collectivist trash that it is. When a leftist/collectivist cannot refute an idea, he or she smears an opponent as hard-hearted, mean-spirited, and all too often as a Nazi. This term has long dogged conservatives and has also become currency among collectivists when arguing against proponents of Objectivism, which in their ignorance they regard as interchangeable with conservatism. This is not only an insult to true, philosophically consistent defenders of freedom (as opposed to the anemic, truncated and vague natural rights theory mixed with theology advanced by conservatives), but is also an insult to Rand herself, a Russian Jew by birth. References to Objectivists or Rand as "Nazis" or "Aryans" speaks to both the historical and philosophical ignorance of her opponents as well as their impotence in formulating any kind of cogent refutation to an articulated philosophy of reason. Then again, it's hard to argue with reality. To those who still think Objectivists have anything in common with white supremacists, or are some kind of apologists for Nazi Germany, try to remember that one of the first things Hitler did after toppling Weimar Germany and becoming Chancellor in 1933 was to collectivize (read: socialize) the means of production and get rid of supporters of democracy. Then he proceeded to get rid of Germany's weaker band of barbarians: the Communists. Collectivists are all cut from the same cloth; this is a fact that all dedicated readers of Atlas Shrugged are well apprised of. If those who casually fling about these bromides were to entertain a close, objective reading of Atlas Shrugged, I believe that we would see an end to callous, offhand references to Objectivists as anything other than defenders of freedom and true, consistent natural rights theory in the Western tradition. (PP) I give this book, as you may have guessed, an unqualified ten. It is peerless as an integration of literature and philosophy, and it is peerless in its influence on minds that take the time to imbibe its wisdom. In short, this book is one of the greatest contributions to mankind ever penned. Read it with awe and gratitude to its author and then go out and live it.

Rating:
Summary: Inredibly jolting!
Review: Ayn Rand's John Galt, Dagny Taggart and Francisco D'Anconia are the nation's brain - and what follows from their story and Galt's speech is a constant verbal assault,every sentence, every idea has the effect of a whip on the mind, shaking us for giving in to the looters.And there is no respite. The thinkers are inevitably those who are ahead, who are sexually charged, and who belong on earth. The looters, are identified as those with no minds, only emotions, sexual impotency, no moral standards and absolutely no brains whatsoever. Halfway through the book, when you expectthe end, the never-ending "who is John Galt?" adds a new twist to the story and changes Dagny's world. Written from a powerful perspective, and given the pssionate writing that Rand is famous for, here's another book that's aerobic excercise for the brain!

Rating:
Summary: Shades of grey
Review: First off, read the book, make up your own mind. I read a couple of books at a time just to get a broader or counter perspective (for example, if you are going to read about Edison, grab a book about Tesla also.) I matched up Rand's AS with Heinlein's "Expanded Universe" and "Starship Troopers" while I was waiting with my army infantry unit for the "ground war" segment of the Gulf War to start. Philosophical treatise wrapped in a novel is a good description of this book. Its a chore but you can separate the book into the categories: the story and the philosophy. As far as the story part of the book is concern it was good if not bloated with the authors delineation of the tenets of "Objectivism". The characters are interesting and in some cases likable, if not much too black and white. The characters were their work and their work was their mind in its greatest form and glory but not a one of them seemed like they ever had a day off or were having any fun. You wouldnt invite Hank Rearden or Dagny Taggertt to your barbeque because they would be about as much fun as having a party with a bunch of mannequins. As far as the philosophy was concerned I dont see why people have such a Love/Hate relationship with it. Look at it, judge for yourself, take away from it what makes sense to you and move on. I dont know any religion or philosophy that you have to believe 100% of every word as dogma or you discard the whole thing. Some of Rand's philosophy makes sense a bunch doesn't. I like her stand on work and excellence and money. I don't particularly agree with everything she says about charity, social responsibility, self-sacrifice and government. John Galt and Dagny Taggertt would never do the work of Mother Teresa but would you want a world without the likes of Mother Teresa, I wouldn't. Rand is right on with the portrayal of people vilifying the wealthy, regardless of how they got that way. Thats very evident in America today and it I despise it. This is the land of opportunity, if you dont think so travel around, you will see.I dont see the Nazi/fascist/rascist connections everyone gobs off about, Nazism/fascism centers around nationalism and certainly there is no nationalism in the Objectivist world, unless you want to consider the Individual as his/her own nation. Well I'm digressing and diverging so let me wrap this up, the story was interesting and it kept me going through the redundant philosophical delineations. The philosophy itself is somewhat compelling and you should pick through it to find the good stuff, and there is, and decide for yourself. Heinlein is a good counterpart read to this book, there is common ground but they come to different conclusions. Anyone who says this is the worst book they have read or the best book they have read, needs to read more.

Rating:
Summary: "Words have discrete meaning. . .". . indeed. . contextually
Review: Withhold judgement and read the book and then make up your own mind based on its merits. I found that the book entertained me and challenged me to think and, in some cases rethink, my own personal philosophy regarding life and all its manifestations. However, I did find her philosophical stance and characters a bit too black and white, you would hang yourself with guilt for slopping together a peanut butter and jelly sandwich or feel like a rotter for taking the day off work without being productive if you followed the philosophy to its core. Great passage with Francisco questioning money being the root of evil. Again, read it, make up your own mind and take what you need.

Rating:
Summary: Altas Shrugged
Review: Ayn Rand, in a number of sequences with Dagny Taggart, portrays rape as romantic. Having seen what rape does to a young woman, this single plot device disturbs me so greatly and shuts my mind off to any ideas that Ayn Rand presents, however intiguing they may be.

Rating:
Summary: Thought-provoking and fascinating. A bit verbose.
Review: This stunning, fictional look at the potential demons of bureaucracy and social dogma is a lasting commentary on the weakness of the masses. Never mind the lengthy monologues and verbose expression of simple ideas. This book is a must read for all. Agree or disagree with the underlying message of the book, but do not be afraid of it. This book will help anyone with any type of open mind to reflect on our world and the policies of bureaucracies (looters) and the gutlessness of the masses (moochers) that make the bureaucracies possible. Amazing number of reviews tells me that this is one well-read book.

Rating:
Summary: who is john galt? howard roark.
Review: it is basically a sequel to fountainhead with the characters the same but renamed. Howard Roark as John Galt, Gail Wynand as Hank Rearden, Floyd Ferris as Ellsworth Toohey, and Dominique Francon/Keating/Wynand as Dagny Taggart. With that said, it is a much better read than Fountainhead, obviously, since it was a later work. The first half particularly the beginning is tough to get through, but the end is worth it. Reads like a good action thriller after about half way through. My complaints: Very annoying use of the words "Austere", "Depravity", one of these words have to be on every other page, it one form or another, and it gets annoying. Why does Rand feel compelled to add some love triangle like some cheesy grocery store novel. I agree with most of the free-market type philosophy, but I don't like the fact the main characters don't believe in God, but then proceed to create a "Tower of Babel" like Galt's Gulch. Anyway, I don't want to get preachy, but we can't acheive a heaven-on-earth like Galt's Gulch, but I agree with the power of the individual philosophy, and I realize the characters are meant to be ideals, but they are incomplete as human beings and sometimes seem like robots. How about other virtues like compassion? I think most people read it just to say they read a 1000+ page book, but it is pretty good!!

Rating:
Summary: Think, now, think!
Review: I think it's interesting and illustrative that those who believe this book has changed their lives use the equation "Those who gave it X rating are like the heroes of the book, those who gave it Y rating are the weak villians". Because that's what AS is about, isn't it? Black and white. The truth is, this book is the embodiment of her philosophy "Objectivism", and great for those readers who otherwise wouldn't read philosophy and are kind of wandering around dissatisfied and trying to put their finger on *why*.

It's a great read. Yes, the heroes and villians are both exaggerated caricatures of good and evil. The good has no evil and the evil has no good. The charity cases deserve nothing. But if you don't take the characters too literally, understand that they just illustrate the two extremes, and that the vast majority of people will fall in the middle somewhere, there's a great book in there for you.

I'm a little confused about the "changed my life" aspect of some reviews, how some readers use this book as a template of how to live their lives. Isn't that exactly what Ayn Rand described the gullible public as doing? Just listening to what someone tells you to think and taking it on as your own personal philosophy? How can one espouse free thinking if they say "I read this book about free thinking and it changed my life and now I want to live *exactly* as Ayn Rand says is the ideal. Because the heroes work hard and think freely and the others whine and snivel. And I have to choose sides so I choose the good one." But how can you be a free thinker because you follow Ayn Rand's thinking to the letter? hmmmm... (does this call to mind The Gallant Gallstone for any of you Fountainhead readers?)

But if this book makes people want to go out and work as hard as they can, achieve and produce, (and it does), more power to it!! And the philosophy that you should be proud of your achievements and expect compensation for them is right on. And let's face it, this book is illustrative of the horrid mess our health care system has gotten into. There are certainly worse philosophies for people to take literally and try to live by.

I enjoyed this book a lot. I found a lot to bring away from it, but I wouldn't get too carried away. Stop and think for yourself a few times along the way, and yes, skim the Galt radio speech, it's the philosophy over and OVER and over and kind of like a Cliff's Notes for the philosophy in general.

I recommend this book because it apparently has the power to make a great cross section of the population think, and that's an accomplishment. But please try to THINK while you read it, not just absorb, accept and repeat.

Rating:
Summary: Funnier than the Bible
Review: The best aspect of reading this book today is the amusing corollaries to our very own Clinton government. I could rate it a 7 on humor alone for its embarrassing, yet hilarious, characterization of what's going on in America. From the attempt to choke us with a bossy health care system to its limited success in promoting racial set-asides, the Clinton government is the government of Atlas Shrugged. Fortunately for us, however, the book is an extreme exaggeration of reality -- the establishment is far too incompetent to control us as well as it does in the novel, and for that matter we don't have any John Gaults. The book presents an ideological archetype, a form. A reader can get a lot out of a form by recognizing where and how it applies in his own life. Don't cheat yourself of a good read (and some good humor) by dwelling on the writer's personal inconsistencies, the atheism or the stark imagery. Read it like the Bible. Read it for its ideas.

Rating:
Summary: Atlas Shrugged Brings the truth into focus.
Review: The simplicity of the characters and plot is a stroke of genius. Through the polarization of her characters, she brings into focus the simple truths and absurdities around us.