Goodreads | Atlas Shrugged

topics	replies	views	last activity
Can't judge a book by its cover.	9	110	19 days ago, 06:21AM

April rated it:

(review of isbn 0452011876)

07/26/08

Read in July, 2008

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

I wanted to quote Dorothy Parker and say, “This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force.” But if I tried to throw this heavy tome of over 1100 pages of 10pt type, I’d pull a muscle or damage my wall. So, no defenestration of literature for now.

The book in a nutshell is arrogant, naive, outdated, and so inherently flawed that I don’t know how to begin. That Ayn Rand is for big business and small government becomes fairly obvious from the start, ...more

Like this review? yes (5 people liked it)

add a comment

Emily rated it:

(review of isbn 0452011876)

05/06/08

Read in May, 2008

recommended to Emily by: Shobi Dahl

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

Atlas Shrugged is about a society where the productive minds (mainly business industrialists) go on strike against the "looters and moochers" who control government and impose their corrupt, illogical moral rules on the nation. According to society leaders, intelligence, self-reliance, individual achievement, rationality and happiness are selfish and deserving of scorn.
Instead, society leaders promote an "altruism" referring to August Comte's ethical doctrine that there is...more Atlas Shrugged is about a society where the productive minds (mainly business industrialists) go on strike against the "looters and moochers" who control government and impose their corrupt, illogical moral rules on the nation. According to society leaders, intelligence, self-reliance, individual achievement, rationality and happiness are selfish and deserving of scorn.
Instead, society leaders promote an "altruism" referring to August Comte's ethical doctrine that there is "a moral and political obligation of the individual to sacrifice his own interests for the sake of a greater social good." What frustrated me for most of the novel was the hypocrisy of society leaders claiming "altruistic" goals and forcing the "heroic" characters of the book to submit to their doctrine, yet the same leaders' actions were in direct opposition to their claim. They applied their social rules to others but did not follow it themselves. Instead they used language like "altruism" "charity" "social welfare" "good of the people/society" to selfishly increase their wealth and influence.
This was incredibly frustrating to me not only because of the unchallenged hypocrisy, but also because I defined altruism as simple benevolence or charity, and it wasn't until John Galt's speech that I realized exactly how they were defining certain terms and that, indeed, charity and benevolence can still exist in John Galt's world. At one point in the valley, he spoke scornfully of the word "give" (and I got angry again), but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he was referring to the type of "giving" that is solicited and expected by the receiver by means of guilt. I had trouble with that passage, because I enjoy and find value out of giving of my own free will, time, and resources because I want to help another person. I felt at that point that the whole concept of giving in any sense, according to John Galt was deserving of scorn, and made me feel like throwing the book away. Thankfully, he seemed express acceptance of my type of giving in the speech. Unfortunately, I had to read through 800 FREAKING PAGES before I got to the speech! I got to read dogmatic speech after speech about part of John Galt's theory, but not the whole thing. Also I had to suffer through those excruciating 800 pages before society leaders got called on their actions. Before the speech (okay, a little bit with Hank Reardon's trial), they just kept being able to do whatever they wanted "in the name of the public good" and both the public and the rational productive heroes just let them get away with it. ARRRRRRRGGGGH!
Meanwhile, the rational, efficient, productive members of society either left on strike WITHOUT SAYING WHY or just excused themselves from politics by saying they "didn't understand Washington" and continued to accept the hypocrisy and corruption WITHOUT SAYING ANYTHING OR DOING ANYTHING TO CALL THE LEADERS OUT ON THEIR CORRUPTION. They didn't seem to understand that politics is just another tool, and that if you choose not to get involved and use that tool or fight for your interests, others will take that tool and use it for themselves. Which, if they were indeed rational, self-interested people, you'd think that they would realize the value of SPEAKING OUT AND SAYING WHAT THEY BELIEVE AND FIGHTING FOR PUBLIC OPINION AND THE WORLD THEY WANT TO SEE AND MOBILIZING THE PUBLIC BEHIND THEIR VIEWS SO THEY COULD CREATE THE WORLD THEY WANTED TO SEE SOONER RATHER THAN LATER AND WITHOUT HAVING TO DESTROY THE ENTIRE EXISTING SOCIETY, EQUIPMENT,AND OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES TO DO IT! Instead, they go off to their idyllic little mountain valley with all the other super rich industrialists and let all the things they worked for in the world crumble and disintegrate just to prove a point that the rest of the world doesn't realize the producers are fighting for.
I also wonder about the rational, hardworking, productive people like Eddie Willers who were productive but didn't inherit wealth/businesses like Franciso D'Anconia or be at the right place at the right time like what I would assume Hank Reardon and Ellis Wyatt were to use their productive ingenuity to become an industrial bigshot worthy of John Galt's attention. I wonder about the foreman/engineer/other working person who wasn't around when John Galt came for the bigshot owner. The bigshot "man of the mind" owners needed those lower position productive "men of the mind" just as much as the looter/moocher society did. It takes a lot of people to accomplish the technological feats of an industrialized nation. The novel seemed to imply that most of the "men of the mind" (including these lower position men) were in the valley, but the valley didn't seem to have that many people in it, only the big guys and a few random little guys. It seems to me that there would be so many people in the valley that were "men of the mind" that you wouldn't really need to retreat at all. As long as you had that many people, you could claim in the real world, "look, here we are, we are united and on strike, and we will not work for you unless you let us keep our property and encourage our productivity". Instead, even in the valley these men seem to be overlooked. Are they the ones that keep the valley going the 11 months that that big rich guys are pretending to be non skilled workers outside of the valley? How is it possible for the valley society to exist, extract the resources and then produce it's amazing technology, have enough food for the people to survive on, maintain the technology that keeps the valley running and hidden, when the elite "men of the mind" and vital inventors and producers are living in the real world as lowly day laborers 11 months out of the year? Once again, are the other lower positioned "men of the mind" undervalued in their new society? And other men like Eddie Willers at the end of the novel, are they just sacrificed to the looters and moochers because they didn't get the memo to "come to our idyllic mountain society where we value your work and live based on rational self interest"?
Some other of my frustrations with the novel are the premises that 1) the mass of society would allow the incompetence and ineptitude of such leaders for that long amount of time 2) that people would take on profit-seeking businesses and claim pride when they failed 3) that boards and presidents of profit seeking railroad companies would risk the financial well-being of their company to help a friend and rely on faith over judgment 3a) that such a president of a company could remain in power 4) that someone would still give $ to a moocher who begs for help yet openly curses you at the same time for being able to help them because you have the ability to do so 5) that all those successful industrialists are the ones who produced or earned their $$ 6) that any government assisted businessman is just a corrupt moocher/looter looking for favors and 6a) that any product he produces will be a failure 7) that ANYONE would give out loans to people based simply on need WITHOUT CONSIDERING qualifications or concrete business plans (I wouldn't give a loan to just any needy person, but I would to a poor person who went to college on scholarship and has a sound business idea but just needs a loan to achieve it) 8) that government assistance or ANY type of redistribution of wealth is evil, (I believe the idea to have governmental assistance programs available for needy populations that are statistically at-risk/poor/historically disenfranchised/previously discriminated against/etc. is not just to blindly give away according to need, but seek out those members of that subgroup of population who have a certain ability and motivation to break free from their poor position in society but just need a little help. I believe it's fair for those of us who were BORN with a certain amount of privilege or wealth (be it in the form of money, social connections, educational opportunities, or the strong health and support from our parents and family) to redistribute a reasonable amount of our monetary wealth or time to those members of society who were not BORN with the same privilege as ours. A "reasonable" amount would not be like the book (where companies are forced to operate at a loss to support other companies and "the general public") but where only a percentage of our productive profits (not all the profits, but just a PERCENTAGE of them that still encourages my seeking of profits and ALSO helps out others who have not had the benefit of a life like mine) would get redistributed.
It's not one or the other! It's not just me working only for my benefit or me working only for your benefit. It's working for myself first, and then also for you, so that WE collectively as society support each other as individuals and bring BOTH ourselves and each other up! Sheesh.

So...even though I have problems with the novel, I still thought it was worthy of reading. It's definitely a thought-provoking novel. It can get long winded and pedantic; it creates a society and a slew of characters that are exaggerated to prove a point but often become tiresome due to their hyperbolic nature; however, it is an intriguing read that tackles questions of society and its' nature, which gets you thinking. And that's a good thing. :)...less

Like this review? yes (7 people liked it)

add a comment

Nicholas rated it:

(review of isbn 0452011876)

08/18/08

bookshelves: philosophy

Read in April, 2008

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

An anticommunist review. Eviscerates the criticisms of greed. To what is best for you cause it's best for everyone in general. Don't let people steal what you've made just because they are incapable of doing the same. Don't let people guilt you into doing things or putting up with things you don't agree with. Let no one stop you from becoming the best person you can be.

The actual writing sucks though. I mean the story is good but the characters are basically one dimensional and the bad guys ...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

Mike rated it:

(review of isbn 0452011876)

06/07/08

Read in March, 2007

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

Mike Reads Rand, Ep. 1
I've always felt that you shouldn't take positions on things you don't know anything about. So while I'd heard plenty of people talk about Ayn Rand's phonebook-sized novel, they were always conversations I'd had to stay out of. Finally my curiosity got the best of me, and I picked up Atlas Shrugged on a trip to Barnes & Noble. When dealing with a book I know nothing about, I open it up to a random page, read it and, if it's enjoyable, I'll give the book a...more

Like this review? yes (4 people liked it)

add a comment

David rated it:

(review of isbn 0452011876)

03/09/08

Read in January, 2001

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

“Check your premises” the major characters are told. Well let’s check the premises of Ms. Rand’s story.

The first (false) premise is that there are only a dozen or so people in the country who are worth a damn. They have well above-average intelligence, have worked hard and have been lucky enough that their work has paid off in oodles of money (which they don’t enjoy or even care about because they are too busy working). But they can’t bear the thought of paying taxes to suppor...more “Check your premises” the major characters are told. Well let’s check the premises of Ms. Rand’s story.

The first (false) premise is that there are only a dozen or so people in the country who are worth a damn. They have well above-average intelligence, have worked hard and have been lucky enough that their work has paid off in oodles of money (which they don’t enjoy or even care about because they are too busy working). But they can’t bear the thought of paying taxes to support the services they receive and depend upon.

The second (false) premise is that every government employee is a lazy no-good who has nothing on his mind but pillaging the bank accounts of the lucky dozen. But beyond that, the government is inherently evil, to the point of passing laws that inflict major economic damage and suffering on virtually everyone in the country with the exception of the privileged government leaders. This evil government is all-powerful and has total control over every newspaper, television and radio station. Fat chance. Obviously the author’s image of government derives from her formative years in the USSR. She has no concept that other governments have not tolerated the oppression that she found there.

The third (false) premise is that the rest of the people of the U.S. are mostly a bunch of lazy morons who blindly accept the statements of the evil government and their patsy press. Further, they have no ability or process to provoke change. They wander around like a bunch of sheep being led to the slaughter. If only they were weren’t so stupid and lazy they would all be as rich as the “lucky dozen elite”. Since they didn’t have the ability (or intensity or luck) to become one of the elite, they all think that the elite should support them so they don’t have to work. The country has a middle class composed of about 24 people who are the trusted, loyal assistants of the elite. They are good enough to do everything their masters ask, but not good enough to join their masters in “Atlantis”. When the elite disappear (on strike), their trusted assistants are left behind to bear the misfortune of the rest of the poor slobs.

This is all set on a stage of poor science fiction, which includes such things as a magic “motor” generating vast amounts of energy out of nothing. The author doesn’t seem to know the difference between a motor and a generator and uses the terms interchangeably. Then there is a magic “ray” that makes large areas of land invisible, powered, of course, by the magic “motor”. These magic things were, of course, invented by the intelligent elite who use them to help wreak havoc and despair on the rest of the 200 million people of the country in order to punish the evil government.

Then there’s the (obligatory) sex. Dagny Taggart, the heroine and only intelligent woman in the universe, has sex with three of the elite. She dumps the only real relationship (with Rearden) in favor of the demi-god John Galt (who she barely knows) along the lines of a teenage girl throwing herself at one of the Beatles. Her favorite encounters are sado-masochistic.

In the end, after they have succeeded in destroying the economy of the world and most everyone’s life, the elite magnanimously plan to sashay back into the real world and rebuild the hundred years of technology that they just destroyed. Isn’t that a brilliant idea? They think the only path to change is to take their football and go home. You have to wonder how brilliant these people really are.

The author spends great quantities of print describing and re-describing thoughts and feelings of the characters ad nauseum. The redundancy is overwhelming.

This poor attempt at science fiction with a supposed moral message demonstrates how a 350 page book can be padded to become a 1200 page behemoth. Elitists, libertarians and others paranoid about the government will undoubtedly enjoy this book. Paramilitary groups will love it. Most of the rest of us will ask ourselves “What the hell was she was thinking?”
...less

Like this review? yes (12 people liked it)

8 comments

Casey rated it:

(review of isbn 0452011876)

02/16/08

bookshelves: fiction

Read in October, 2005

... i am reveling in Ayn Rand's words. in woman's "confident, dangerous power." in disregarding anyone who tells me i "take everything too seriously." also in the beautiful, misunderstood simplicity of what some would call amorality. i am intrigued by objectivism, but more so by the interactions and private feelings of the characters in this book. at over a thousand pages of 8-pt. font, i'm not surprised that i've previously been too intimidated to pick it up... but i wish so...more

Like this review? yes (4 people liked it)

2 comments

Rick rated it:

(review of isbn 0452011876)

08/15/07

Read in January, 1987

recommends it for: No one

Ayn Rand's characters are almost completely defined by the extent to which they embrace her beliefs. A good guy by definition is someone who agrees with her; a bad guy someone who dares to have a different point of view. For all the lip-service Rand pays to individualism, she brooks no dissent from her heroes; none of her so-called individualists ever expresses a point of view significantly different from hers.

To illustrate the gulf between Rand's characters and human reality, consider this ...more Ayn Rand's characters are almost completely defined by the extent to which they embrace her beliefs. A good guy by definition is someone who agrees with her; a bad guy someone who dares to have a different point of view. For all the lip-service Rand pays to individualism, she brooks no dissent from her heroes; none of her so-called individualists ever expresses a point of view significantly different from hers.

To illustrate the gulf between Rand's characters and human reality, consider this behavior. When Dagny Taggart meets Hank Rearden, she dutifully becomes his property, for no other reason than that he's the most Randian male around. When John Galt arrives, ownership of the prize female transfers from Rearden to Galt, because Galt is the more Randian of the two. Does it ever occur to Hank to be resentful or jealous? Does Taggart experience loyalty or regret? Might Taggart love Rearden despite his lesser Randness? No, those are all things that human beings might feel.

(In a related departure from reality, sex in Randland is more or less indistinguishable from rape. Foreplay? Romance? Capitalists don't have time for that commie nonsense.)

The real focus of Atlas Shrugged is to extoll Rand's philosophy. (Not to debate it, since no one in Randland with any any intelligence or competence could have a different point of view.) About Rand's philosophy I'll just make two points (which I'm not going to bother providing evidence for at the moment).

The first is that, like most social Darwinists, Rand fell short in her understanding of natural selection. Her philosophy was largely based on the false belief that nature invariably favors individual selfishness. In reality, evolution has made homo sapiens a social animal; cooperation and compassion are very human traits. More importantly, even if cold selfishness were man's nature in the wild, it would not necessarily follow that that would be the best way for us to behave in our semi-civilized modern condition.

The second point is that, contrary to Rand's belief, pure laissez-faire capitalism never works; it invariably leads to exploitation of the poor and middle class and to environmental catastrophe. The best economic system that has ever been devised -- so far -- is a mixture of capitalism and socialism. ...less

Like this review? yes (25 people liked it)

2 comments

Kman rated it:

(review of isbn 0451171926)

07/25/07

Read in January, 2000

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 more intricate lives than those of the characters. However, her use of imagery is strong. The plot is intriguing and fun to follow, until about 2/3 of the way through after which it simply becomes ridicul...more 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 more intricate lives than those of the characters. However, her use of imagery is strong. The plot is intriguing and fun to follow, until about 2/3 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, readers shouldn't be carried away by her flawed philosophical arguments. 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 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." 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
...less

Like this review? yes (6 people liked it)

1 comments

Jason rated it:

(review of isbn 0452011876)

07/09/07

Would you like to hear the only joke I've ever written? Q: "How many Objectivists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?" A: (Pause, then disdainfully) "Uh...one!" And thus it is that so many of us have such a complicated relationship with the work of Ayn Rand; unabashed admirers at the age of 19, unabashedly horrified by 25, after hanging out with some actual Objectivists and witnessing what a--holes they actually are, and also realizing that Rand and her cronies were one of ...more

Like this review? yes (28 people liked it)

6 comments

Fatima rated it:

08/02/07

bookshelves: novels

Read in July, 2007

recommends it for: Everyone who has thought about the discussed topics before

This is a captivated book because it's very different from any other I've read.

It's astonishing how Ayn Rand was able to maintain suspense through more than 1000 pages although her main theme is the workings of society and economy. Sometimes the plot gets terribly tiring though. There are some awfully long monologues that summarise the same ideas that have been expressed ten times before.

Rand describes ideal men and how they create an ideal society and economy. They are being stopped by ...more This is a captivated book because it's very different from any other I've read.

It's astonishing how Ayn Rand was able to maintain suspense through more than 1000 pages although her main theme is the workings of society and economy. Sometimes the plot gets terribly tiring though. There are some awfully long monologues that summarise the same ideas that have been expressed ten times before.

Rand describes ideal men and how they create an ideal society and economy. They are being stopped by all the other "non-perfect" people who are irrational, emotionally steered and without aim.

Rand's descriptions made me think a lot about my views on personal attitudes and the view on society at large. She reawakened the importance of a positive and active attitude in life. Too often successful people in industry and elsewhere are depicted as negative simply because they have everything possible and don't seem to need what everyone does (money, an clear aim in life, ability to differentiate good and bad...). However, these people contribute so much to our societies and economies which is often taken for granted. On the other hand I don't think that "succesful" people in real life are that clear about their views on the world. Neither do they contribute only good things, while others may contribute just as much.

I agree with Ayn Rand that rationality is crucial for taking decisions in life. In the end everybody has choices. Walking along a preset path blindly isn't going to make anyone happy. Especially as at some point everyone has to face the results of his/her actions. Also, Ayn Rand conveys the necessity not only to think but also to act.

However, there is a lot I disagree with. Put simply, the world isn't black and white. Most of it comes in shades of grey for me. Are people not allowed to have any weaknesses? Is it realistic to believe that man's mind can conquer everything else including cultural learnings, religious notions and biological settings? I don't think an uneducated girl from a slum who starts having kids from the age of 16 can be blamed for not rationally questioning the philosophy behind the traditions she grew up with and the workings of the social system she lives in. In fact, I think, most people - whether disadvantaged or not - perceive the world as immensely complicated: they can't answer the problems to be tackled as simplisticly as Rand's characters do.

The starting point of my criticism of Rand's work was her view on the economy - simply because that's something I've thought about before. In my view the balance between government and market activity is always difficult to find and is different in every situation. Discouraging an industrialist from innovation by creating red tape everywhere is fatal for an economy. However, nobody can seriously believe that there should be no taxation and redistribution, not even to finance basic schooling and healthcare. How can anyone become the rational self-confident person Rand dreams of if he/she isn't given a chance to be physically strong and develop his mental possibilities by studying?

In summary, I don't think Rand's thoughts can be called a philosophy. They are more like a bitter and over-confident person's ideology. This impression is underlined by the one-dimensional characters and the white-and-black view of the world. There are a few points that I liked about Rand's thoughts: especially the active energy transmitted. The more significant reason why this book is so important to me is because I completey disagree with most of the social views while still enjoying to read the novel. This combination made me develop arguments in my mind against her opinions while I proceeded reading....less

Like this review? yes (4 people liked it)

4 comments

and no birds sing rated it:

(review of isbn 0452011876)

06/26/07

bookshelves: theclassics

Read in October, 2003

recommends it for: those who like their books to double as paperweights

I read this book while a teaching assistant in Japan (a semester-long program). I read another of Rand's books, The Fountainhead, as a wee lass (just after graduating from high school, I believe), and I remember being entranced and enraged simultaneously by that book. (I'm sure I'll review it at some point.)

For those of you who do not have the ... pleasure ... of knowing Rand, she believed that all novels should have a sort of philosophical or belief-centered backing, and hers certainly do...more I read this book while a teaching assistant in Japan (a semester-long program). I read another of Rand's books, The Fountainhead, as a wee lass (just after graduating from high school, I believe), and I remember being entranced and enraged simultaneously by that book. (I'm sure I'll review it at some point.)

For those of you who do not have the ... pleasure ... of knowing Rand, she believed that all novels should have a sort of philosophical or belief-centered backing, and hers certainly do, based as they are on her philosophy of Objectivism. (Some will say her belief system isn't fit for the term philosophy, but I digress.) I really don't feel like giving an in-depth look at Objectivism here, but I'll say at this point that two of the centrat tenets of Rand's objectivism are that humans should pursue their own happiness and that selfishness is a virtue. (If the idea of that second one angers you, let me tell you that this book will be fun in that sort of burning-with-righteous-indignation way.)

I actually enjoyed this book. I honestly did. I enjoyed the characters, even though the villians were more cariactures than characters and the good guys were akin to Nietzsche's Super Man (tm). I enjoyed the plot, even when Rand's belief system pushed it into the realm of the unbelievable. I even gained a smattering of respect for the idea that selfishness can be a virtue--I know, I know, who'd believe that of me?

However, the novel is far from perfect. Because of Rand's strict adherence to "realism" we are treated to a speech in the book that takes two hours to speak out loud. (Galt's infamous speech is said to be that long in the book, so OF COURSE she actually had to have enough words to fill those two real-time hours.) This wouldn't have been bad except that it was overly pedantic.

I guess that brings me to my next complaint--the imagery that Rand used really annoyed me. Sure, Ayn, we get it--you have a thing for trains and industry. Fine. But does every single piece of imagery have to be cast of that mold? This verges on the pedantic again. (I'm afraid that comment probably only makes sense after reading the book.) I know why she used imagery the way she did, but it made the book too simple for me--which was probably the point, but I don't care. I have my preferences.

Also, there is the flagrant Orientalism. If you are offended by it, you will have a few sections to roll your eyes at. (But be mindful that Rand was writing before Said's Orientalism came out--a long while before.) I will say that it was a hoot to read this book while in Japan. Ah, the intellectual interplay that happened!

Overall, I did enjoy the book. Many people are going to be disgusted because of the message, but that's why I found it intriguing. I honestly enjoy digging into minds that differ greatly from my own. I found her views to be better expressed here than in The Fountainhead, to be honest, and the book to be better written. That shouldn't be much of a surprise since this apparently the more well-known of the two novels.

I guess my final statement is that all Rand-bashers should actually read this book--at least--before the throttling starts. Enjoy it for what it is....less

Like this review? yes (3 people liked it)

add a comment

Jennifer rated it:

(review of isbn 0452011876)

02/06/08

Read in September, 2005

recommended to Jennifer by: Lou Lendi

This book really makes you take a good hard look at yourself and your behavior, which is why I think a lot of people don't like this book. It's a lecture and most people don't like to get lectured. I loved it. It gave me a good swift kick in the ass. While I've never been a "looter," I have made several irrational decisions in my life, which this 1000+ page lecture has helped me to stop doing. It teaches you to think with your mind, rather than your heart. It doesn't make you an ...more This book really makes you take a good hard look at yourself and your behavior, which is why I think a lot of people don't like this book. It's a lecture and most people don't like to get lectured. I loved it. It gave me a good swift kick in the ass. While I've never been a "looter," I have made several irrational decisions in my life, which this 1000+ page lecture has helped me to stop doing. It teaches you to think with your mind, rather than your heart. It doesn't make you an uncaring person. You still feel with your heart, but you think with your mind. Use your mind instead of expecting to get the rewards of others who do all the thinking. If everyone did this, the world would be perfect - that is the idea behind Ayn's story. Of course, this will never happen. Ayn knew that. She just wrote a story about her ideal world. A lot of authors do that. No need to get pissed off at her because of it.

Yes, the book is wordy, but her words are genius in my opinion. I loved the long radio speech. Skip it if you are hating the book or better yet, stop reading it. Go out and smell the flowers instead. Is the story black and white? Definitely. Authors have different styles - people complain. If every author wrote in the same style, people would complain.

I can't tell you how many co-workers I've met who complain about how the CEO is making so much money and they should get some of that money. Well, go to college, get a business degree and work you're way up the corporate ladder if you want the CEO's salary. Don't sit around and expect those kinds of rewards because you work in accounts payable. You know what it takes, so do it and shut up. If it wasn't for the person who created this company, you wouldn't even have a job. I'm an administrative assistant making less money than the people complaing about wanting more money. It just makes me sick. But the people in Ayn's story didn't work for money. They loved their jobs. And she wasn't saying you had to be a rich, corporate big shot to hold the world up. There were teachers and stay at home moms in her little world in the mountains.

Ayn has extremely valuable points and if you are someone who is constantly looking for something to criticize in every book, then don't read it. If you can't handle looking at your imperfections, don't read it. If you have an open mind and are willing to learn something from every book and experience you have and grow as a person, then you will benefit from reading this book....less

Like this review? yes (8 people liked it)

add a comment

Atlas Shrugged

discuss this book

groups with this book

friend reviews (0)

lists with this book

other reviews (showing 1-20 of 18029)