Atlas Shrugged

Rating:
Summary: Huge book, huge concepts
Review: Atlas shrugged is huge, both in word count and in the scope of it's subject. It is a book espousing a life philosophy, but it portrays the philosophy against the backdrop of an industrial love story. The story line is pretty good, but the real reason to read the book is to understand a philosophy that has become a classic and created a cult following.

Atlas Shrugged is a thousand plus page book that is tedious at times, especially the first third of the book. The dialog, culture, and technical details are straight from the 1950's when the book was written, and Ayn Rand makes no attempt to make the book timeless in this sense. Sometimes the dialog reads as one would expect people to speak in a Humphrey Bogart movie. Detailed descriptions of clothing, drinking, and smoking are very much postwar United States. Rand puts many industrial details into the novel story line. These perceptions are from a time when steel and railroads ruled the United States. For readers under 40 it may be hard to imagine such a time. Again, these are not reasons to avoid the book, only understand that there may be an extra effort required to look past those dated references to see the philosophical story.

The story itself becomes more and more interesting as Rand throws one amazing twist after another. You won't find yourself saying "I know what is going to happen next." If you do, you will probably be wrong. Ultimately your enjoyment of the book will probably depend on your political persuasion at the outset. Persons already leaning toward Ayn Rand's philosophy are ecstatic at finding an author who has qualified many viewpoints with philosophical logic and a real life situation. At the same time her very rigid and comprehensive life philosophy will turn off others.

To describe Ayn Rand's philosophy, now referred to as objectivism, would be to give the book away. Suffice to say that the philosophy is perhaps even more relevant in today's society than it was 45 years ago. Cult groups have emerged on the Internet to discuss the philosophy. There is even an official web site run by Ayn Rand's executor. Once you read this book you will be able to converse with those at parties who like to drop names such as Ayn Rand when you casually say "Yeah, I read that." It really is an undertaking and a journey.

Rating:
Summary: The good, the bad and a warning
Review: The good: When I read "The Fountainhead", I remember feeling as strongly about Howard Roark, Dominique Francon, Peater Keating and Ellsworth Toohey as I ever did for Mulder, Scully, Kryceck and the CSM. Similarly, I was as intrigued by the mystery of the disappearing businessmen in "Atlas Shrugged" as I ever was by any X-File case. However, whereas Chris Charter achieved all what he achieved in a TV show meant to be entertaining, Ayn Rand managed to do it in books aspiring to change our view of the world. That is no small feat.
The bad: After the mystery of the disappearing businessmen was solved, Atlas Shrugged dragged along, repeating the same message for hundreds of pages. That could had been averted, making for a much better novel (because of that, I think that "We the Living" and "The Fountainhead" are far superior).
The Warning: This book should come with a label: "Reading of this book without supervision might push you to join the Republican Party". ...
So, new readers, I recommend this book entirely, but don't forget what it is: (1) a work of fiction and (2) the showcase of ONE person's philosophical and political views (although admittedly, a very special person).
Our philosophical and political opinions can be influenced but should never be based in one book, no matter how good or convincing it might seem. Especially if such book is based on a world that is more than half a century old.

Rating:
Summary: A self-parodyingly long winded ode to feudalist sentiments.
Review: In a "scant" 1,074 pages (five or six hundred of which could be excised without sacrificing anything), the almost shocking banality of Ayn Rand's threadbare philosophical cupboard is laid bare, again, and again, and yet again.

After leaving Russia for America, Rand developed a philosophy that countered the excesses of the Bolshevik revolution by going straight backwards: the emotions of the Russian feudalist system. The heroes of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" are gods in all but name: two dimensional, golden haired industrialist icons, heroes to whom the unwashed, illiterate masses are to hold in nothing but the highest regard. The villians, quite typically, are the photo negative, stereotypes in the literal sense. There is not a single inch of middle ground to be found anywhere. This is something Ayn Rand had a problem with as a novelist, and as a pseudo-philosopher: it's either black, or white, good or evil.

What begins as a promising plot device (what if all of the nation's leading capitalists disappeared?) quickly turns into painful, non-stop parade of Rand using these interchangably impersonal characters as mouthpieces to espouse her "objectivist" philosophy. You will quickly discover what provides the bulk of the 1,074 pages, namely: the mindless repetition of the same ideas, over, and over, and over ... Before the reader knows what's happened, the dead horse begins to flog itself. The sheer volume of heavy handed didacticism in "Atlas Shrugged" will wear the reader down, and leave you to wonder if Rand had any respect whatsoever for the intelligence of her readers. Ironically, the sheer repetition of her message, combined with the escalation of her heroes to an absurdly magnificent measure of virtue bring Rand around full circle to the techniques of the Soviet propagandists she ostensibly suggested. That irony alone is more amusing and entertaining than anything to be found in this grim, joyless book.

By the time the book concludes in a credibility stretching 56 page (!) speech from the hero, you've heard Rand the first two dozen times. Speaking strictly personally, I should have loved "Atlas Shrugged"; Rand and I are both conservative, free market capitalists. However, Rand's inability to separate moral attributes from ideological ones is practically enough to put me on a picket line singing Pete Seeger songs. This is something of a bible for pseudo-intellectual, bargain basement college campus conservatives who would be better suited reading Adam Smith's 1776 masterpiece "Wealth of Nations", the first truly capitalist treatise. Smith's capitalist Atlas will certainly be remembered after Ayn Rand's is forgotten.

Rating:
Summary: Is this the 20th Century's most controversial book?
Review: This is one of the most controversial, influential, scorned and celebrated works of the 20th century. Therefore, whether or not you admire it, you probably should read it, if only to see where you fall in the spectrum of debate.

In terms of plot, Atlas Shrugged is a mystery; someone or something is "stopping the motor of the world." Factories are closing, commonplace items become unavailable, the railroad can hardly run without some kind of derailment or incident and businesses are disappearing overnight (and their owners along with them.) Hmm, eerily familiar, -and this was written over 40 years ago, published in 1957. A beautiful and brilliant woman, Dagny Taggart, runs the railroad (second-in-command to her worthless brother) and strives to make sense of the decline around her. Her childhood friend and lover is Francisco D'Anconia, a brilliant heir to a copper fortune. When he attends university, all afire to become D'Anconia Copper's best CEO, he suddenly turns away from her and becomes a flamboyant and worthless playboy. What happened? And how is this related to the general malaise of the world? And who the hell is John Galt, --"Who is John Galt", the catchphrase which means "whatchagonnado? fageddaboutit!"

Ms. Rand proposes an underlying cause for the world running down like an unwound watch. This is her manifesto about what drives achievement and what prevents achievement from reaching full flower. She puts this manifesto forth in form of the mystery plus digressions into philosophical essay. In the last third of the book lie the Speech; pages and pages of a radio address that is the vehicle to transmit the fundamentals of Objectivism, the philosophy founded by Rand. This "expository lump" is pretty hard to swallow even when lubricated by the surrounding action, so my advice is to skim it and read it as a stand-alone work later on. (The same advice applies to reading Goldstein's Book in Orwell's 1984. There is some fascinating stuff there, but it's better taken on an empty stomach, so to speak.)

Not everyone admires this novel. The literary style is sometimes jerky and unnatural. Ms. Rand even violates some of her own fiction-writing principles and allows for subjects and words that date the work. This is a problem as the book is nominally futuristic. However, Rand, a former screenwriter, has command of group scenes and action that play like films; no one can write a better cocktail party scene and the action scenes are vivid. The character names are so apt that they mirror typical names of politician today--she had a fine ear.

As to the Objectivist Philosophy, here it is simply put: there are those who Do and those who Don't. Those who don't should stay out of the way of those who do. The doing is justification in itself. If for you, Nietzsche is peachy, you will resonate to this value system. Now, supposedly, Rand had a Nietzchean period, then moved beyond "Man and Superman" to develop a new philosophy of rational individualism. However, since she is atheist (God being unable to be proven by rational or physical means), one has to ask; what is then the ultimate authority and arbiter of man's rights? Rand would say, Life itself, the life force born inside each of us, contains the seeds of rational individualism and ultimately Right and Good prevail, as it is most logical. Rational individualism may be logical, however Might can beat Right on any given day, and given a stout stick, usually does.

As to no God or divine Authority; need I point out that being unable to physically prove something hardly prevents it from being real? It may be outside the scope of our five senses or the instruments we build to enhance those senses. In which case, you can argue if it is logical or not to believe in a Creator or a divine Authority and that is far different than stating categorically that there can be no God.

This is my quarrel with Objectivism; while I fervently believe in individual rights, I believe they were, as our founders stated, endowed by our Creator, the ultimate authority. Man as Authority results in man abridging other's rights for expedient purposes. And finally, your rights stop when they impinge on my doorstep, and vice-versa. This is not well worked out in Objectivism, nor the method of enforcing that individual rights don't conflict based on superior strength. If rights are based on the superiority of ability or strength, eventually someone loses their rights to a stronger body or to a gang. Is weakness a reason to lose one's rights to another? This is, to me, unacceptable.

Meanwhile, read Atlas Shrugged. You should read it. It is the quintessential American book and can stimulate you to get your own beliefs into focus. Argue, debate, criticize it, reject it, but read it to sharpen your own thoughts.

Rating:
Summary: Tough as nails and twice as smart
Review: This is how Mickey Spillane might have written if he'd been a man.

Rating:
Summary: Outstanding! A must read!
Review: This book always ranks high amongst the literary favorites for good reason. I wish i read this book in college. I suggest reading Fountainhead prior to Atlas Shrugged.

Prophetic.

Rand is marvelous.

Not a week passes that I don't think about Atlas Shrugged!

Rating:
Summary: Once is Enough
Review: I become immediately suspicious of a book that has printed on its jacket, "You will want to read Atlas Shrugged over and over." Thank you, but I am capable of making up my own mind.

That said, Atlas Shrugged should be read once, but if you have never read any Rand I suggest you start with "We The Living". Even though Rand is an excellent dramatist and Atlas Shrugged contains some memorable passages, it is a flawed work. It is very dated and extremely didactic. And no, unless you are an Objectivist you won't want to read it over and over.

Rating:
Summary: ayn rand is relly boring, but she is dumb, and she is not g
Review: dis book was relly dumb, an i hated it cause eet was so boring, and too long, and I deedent liek da way ayn started eet, ...I deeden't get to da part where he is in the book, because I skeeped 100 pages here an there. So I wouldndt reccsnbiamend this to eny one, And I didn't even read the whole thing, cause it was so boriiiing. So you shouldn't read ittt, So pick up Harry Potter, ...

Rating:
Summary: Beating a dead horse.
Review: This novel drags as a work of fiction, and as a work of philosophy it can be paraphrased and condensed into a pamphlet. Mz. Rand chooses the "beat you over the head with a lead pipe" style of imparting her philosophical views. there is speech by Mr. Galt towards the end of the book. if you hadn't caught her drift by this point, Galt's 50 page speech does the job of bludgeoning.

bon apetit.

Rating:
Summary: Atlas Shrugged
Review: At the ripe age of 51 I listened to an audio book rendition of Atlas Shrugged. I curse the educational institutions that let me graduate without reading this marvelous book.