Atlas Shrugged

Aug 15, 2007

Richard rated it

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, consid...moreAyn 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 262 likes

· see review

Feb 06, 2009

Bird Brian rated it

Shelves: literature-20th-century

(sigh)... Ayn Rand. Why do all the reviews of this book have to be so emotional? From half the reviewers, you'd think that Moses himself came down the mountain with a copy of Atlas Shugged, fresh off the Divine Creator's press. The other half think Satan wrote it for his seminar on How To Be Evil.

Here's my two cents: Ayn Rand lived her first 20-something years in the Soviet Union, and as you can imagine: it sucked. She came to America, met with some success writing, fell in with the...more(sigh)... Ayn Rand. Why do all the reviews of this book have to be so emotional? From half the reviewers, you'd think that Moses himself came down the mountain with a copy of Atlas Shugged, fresh off the Divine Creator's press. The other half think Satan wrote it for his seminar on How To Be Evil.

Here's my two cents: Ayn Rand lived her first 20-something years in the Soviet Union, and as you can imagine: it sucked. She came to America, met with some success writing, fell in with the glamourous Hollywood crowd, and decided that since she did so well, capitalism must be a meritocracy. She's a starry-eyed idealist, head-over-heals in love with meritocracy, but living under the misguided notion that capitalism is meritocratic. In her novels, "all" you have to do to get rich is invent a mind-bogglingly wonderful product which everybody needs, and which is universally loved for its exceptional value and utility. Do that, and your competition will melt away, you'll make boatloads of money, and most importantly: you'll be able to tell anybody who doesn't see things your way to go pound salt. Rand's utopian industrialists make no bones about the fact that they're just in it for the money...but who WOULDN'T sleep well if they got rich making a wonderful, useful product sold in a fair market? Sadly, Capitalism and Meritocracy are divergent far too often to ignore. Preston Tucker and Nicola Tesla got screwed, while that cheesy guy on the infomercials at 3am makes millions off his pyramid scheme. Some of my detractors will say "That's because the system has been tainted by the jealous connivings of lesser men." Yeah. And it always has been, and it always will be, because Capitalism is a human construction and therefore indivisable from human nature. It's a good system when it isn't too corrupt, but it's nothing to build a religion around. I like Ayn Rand because her idea of a perfect world resembles my idea of a perfect world. I dislike her because she seems to detest us for not being able to make her utopian dreams a reality. I find most of what she says to be dead-on correct and completely irrelevent. Who could her books possibly apply to? If you are a super genius with an Earth-shattering invention, don't get too smug- you're going to need a lot of help from a lot of lesser men to translate that invention into the riches you deserve. If you're just an average guy, Ayn doesn't leave much advice for how you're supposed to make your way in this world. Struggle to excel at SOMETHING, and hope for the best, I suppose. If you are (gasp) below average in some way- well, the book wasn't written for you to begin with. Rand doesn't hate you- she just doesn't see you. The only people Rand hates are average folk trying to subvert the Meritocratic system to get something they don't derserve. Well, we all hate that... but then why do half the readers despise her so? Probably because she's so preachy and outspoken about it.

Two stars. (bangs gavel) Jury dismissed!

____________________________
If you'd like to hear me reading this review, go to
my Big Audio Project!
____________________________

Didn't care for this review? Check out my other Atlas Shrugged review [here].(less)

like 103 likes

· see review

Jul 09, 2007

Jason Pettus rated it

Shelves: late-modernism, character-heavy, classic

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 154 likes

· see review

Jan 10, 2011

Christopher rated it

As Ayn Rand's immortal opus, Atlas Shrugged, stands as a tome to a philosophy that is relevant today as it was in her time. Basically, the major moral theme is that there are two types of people in the world: the Creators and the Leeches.

The Creators are the innovators who use the power of their will and intelligence to better humanity. The first person to create fire is often referenced as the paradigm for these people. In the book, each of the major protagonists also represent Crea...moreAs Ayn Rand's immortal opus, Atlas Shrugged, stands as a tome to a philosophy that is relevant today as it was in her time. Basically, the major moral theme is that there are two types of people in the world: the Creators and the Leeches.

The Creators are the innovators who use the power of their will and intelligence to better humanity. The first person to create fire is often referenced as the paradigm for these people. In the book, each of the major protagonists also represent Creators improving the human condition with their force of will.

The Leeches (my word) are the people who create nothing, but thrive off feeding on the Creators. In Rand's view, they are the bureaucrats, politicos, regulators, etc. Throughout human history she tells us, these people have benefited through no ingenuity of their own, but merely from piggybacking on - and often fettering - the success of the Creators.

Where the conflict in this book arises is when the Creators decide they have had enough and revolt. I won't spoil the book by describing specifics, but let's just say it causes quite the societal drama. For Leeches can't feed where there's no blood.

All that is fairly significant and involved and worth the read to begin with, but where this book really stimulates me is in the fact that it is still relevant. Today we have Creators and we have Leeches. Some titans of industry and technology move our culture forward and others hold it back to their own benefit. I work in Silicon Valley and I see this all the time. That's why in many ways I consider this voluminous novel to be as important to a business education as Art of War.

To cite other readers' posts, you don't have to agree with what Rand is extolling, but I think you'd be foolish to try and deny the existence of this struggle since it is ingrained in humanity. Yes, Ayn does get long winded and arrogant in parts as she draws the battle lines, but I don't think an author could have crafted such a powerful conflict without copious quantities of ego to accentuate the differences.(less)

like 96 likes

· see review

Apr 17, 2007

deanna rated it

Recommends it for: the unsubtle

The best way to understand Rand's message in this book is to simply close it, and beat yourself over the head with it as hard as possible. This is essentially what Rand does throughout it's ridiculous length. I see no reason that a book with a strong lesson can't also have decent character development, natural dialog, and a believable plot. Of course, I also think that you can establish a theme with subtlety, and trust that your reader will figure it out. Ayn Rand writes as if the elements o...more

like 132 likes

· see review

Feb 06, 2008

Jennifer rated it

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 ...moreThis 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 180 likes

· see review

Nov 28, 2011

Bird Brian rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: literature-20th-century

I already posted an Atlas Shrugged review, but I just saw the Atlas Shrugged movie, and decided that my first review didn’t cover everything I wanted to say. This is not a DBR, since I’m not drunk, but I will admit this is my second glass of wine, so there is that. In case you missed it in theaters, here’s the trailer for the new movie. I saw it yesterday (at home, on DVD). Did I like it? As with the book, the answer to that is complicated. Before I go further, I should clarify that the movie...more

like 38 likes

· see review

Jun 05, 2007

Seth rated it

· review of another edition

This book, as much as I detest it, is actually rather useful. Those who have read it tend to be those whom I most especially desire to avoid. Because those who have read it are invariably proud of the fact--ostentatiously so--it is even easier for me to keep my life free and clear of delusional egomaniacs. Thank you Ayn Rand.

like 78 likes

· see review

Apr 10, 2011

Stephen rated it

Shelves: classics, audiobook, 1954-1969, science-fiction, literature, classics-americas, polly-sighs-and-pubic-policy, philosophy, world-in-the-shitter, epic

COMING….NEXT…. SUMMER….EXCLUSIVELY TO GOODREADS……

A review so ambitious, so controversial, so staggeringly ~~over-hyped~~ unique that it has to be seen in order to be read. A review many minutes in the writing (and several hours in the photo finding). A review so important that one Dr. Hyperbole had this to say upon seeing it....

This is the review most people didn’t even know they wanted to read. A review of one of the most talked about and polarizing classics of...more

like 45 likes

· see review

Mar 09, 2008

David rated it

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 support th...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 59 likes

· see review

Apr 13, 2007

Monica MizMiz rated it

Recommends it for: Any reader interested in philosophy or just a good story

Shelves: favoritesforpleasurereading

The Concept: Rand follows the lives of society's movers and shakers (first-handers, in her words, and business men, scientists, inventors, and artists in her novel) as they resist the societal pull to become second-handers and to remain true to themselves and their live's work. Meanwhile, something is happening that is shaking the very foundation of society.

After reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand in 2005-2006, my life has been changed for the better. Applying ...more

like 48 likes

· see review

Jul 26, 2008

April rated it

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 37 likes

· see review

Jun 07, 2007

Christopher Stephen rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: favoritesofalltime

When my mother gave me this book and said, "I think you will like this; I read it over a vacation in a week when I was your age," I took one look at the massive text and couldn't believe it. She also said that I reminded her of the characters....a statement to this day I take pride in....
And that is exactly what I learned from this book: that pride is most beautiful thing, and to live on this earth means that one must understand its reality, and learn to use one's mind to make i...more

like 51 likes

· see review

Mar 28, 2007

Tara rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: favorite-reads

Favorite Quotes

He walked, groping for a sentence that hung in his mind as an empty shape. He could neither fill it or dismiss it.

She sat listening to the music. It was a symphony of triumph. The notes flowed up, they spoke of rising and they were the rising itself, they were the essence and the form of upward motion, they seemed to embody every human act and thought that had ascent as its motive. It was a sunburst of sound, breaking out of hiding and spreading open. It ha...more

like 26 likes

· see review

Oct 30, 2009

Choupette rated it

Recommends it for: Anyone with a lot of time on their hands and an interest in crazy political theories

Recommended to Choupette by: 100

Shelves: own-or-access, philosophy-ethics-religion

Ayn, my dear, dear friend. If only I knew how to pronounce your first name. Anyway. I have read only one of Rand's books, Atlas Shrugged. Since this seems to be generally accepted as her opus magnum, there didn't seem much point to me reading her other books, especially as finding the literary relevance in them is something of a struggle. This is what I wrote in my diary the first time I read Atlas Shrugged:

"...I am also reading 'Atlas Shrugged' by Ayn Rand. I was somewhat doubt...moreAyn, my dear, dear friend. If only I knew how to pronounce your first name. Anyway. I have read only one of Rand's books, Atlas Shrugged. Since this seems to be generally accepted as her opus magnum, there didn't seem much point to me reading her other books, especially as finding the literary relevance in them is something of a struggle. This is what I wrote in my diary the first time I read Atlas Shrugged:

"...I am also reading 'Atlas Shrugged' by Ayn Rand. I was somewhat doubtful as to whether or not I should buy this book, but I had $5 left on a book voucher and nothing else to spend it on, so I took the plunge. Let me tell you, that was quite possibly the best spent $16 in my life. Whenever I stop reading it, I feel as if have just surfaced from a whirlpool, gasping for breath and exhausted. I feel like my emotions have been put through a wringer. I feel like everything I have seen or heard in my life is worthless and I should simply commit suicide because there is no point living any more. I feel like I have suddenly succumbed to manic depression. So anyway, 'the Bronze Horseman' is getting deservedly pushed to one side and 'Atlas Shrugged' will soon take pride of place on my shelf of favourite books."

I've read that book once since, and these sentiments are still true, in a way. I know she's an unpopular old bitch, but she has her merits. Also her faults, but there is simply no doubt that she is far, far superior to Paullina Simons (author of the aforementioned The Bronze Horseman), or however the hell she spells her corrupted name. Here's the thing. Ayn Rand's prose is power. Pure, unadulterated power. It's brute force, but there's no subtlety, no beauty, nothing aesthetically pleasing. When you stop reading it, you do feel as if you're clawing your way out of a whirlpool. It's powerful all right, but somehow bruising.

She got me at an impressionable age - it was when I was just starting to read the odd bit of what I think of as 'proper literature', or 'literary fiction'. I hadn't much experience with beautiful prose, and anything that moved me seemed good. Now, I like to think I'm older and wiser, and the second time I read it (which was about a month or so ago), I was less impressed. Even though I only vaguely remembered the plot, it was much less moving. This time I noticed the clunky prose, the one-dimensional characters and above all, the clichés. Her obsession with the naked shoulder, tension in the posture - after the first fifty or so times she uses those phrases, it starts to get pretty tiresome. Actually, to be completely honest I've never seen anything so blatantly repetitive. It takes the cliché to a whole new level.

I must for a moment turn to her characters. Oh lordy! Cardboard cutouts have more personality and less predictability. THE GOOD PEOPLE HAVE NO FAULTS. THE BAD PEOPLE HAVE NO MERITS. In fact, from the NYT Book Review (the whole article is very good):

"The characters Rand created, on the other hand — like Galt or Howard Roark, the architect hero of “The Fountainhead” — are abstract principles set to moving and talking."

I must say, though, I loved the names. Dagny Taggart, Hank Rearden, Francisco D'Anconia. They have an element of onomatopoeia, yet they are totally believable (the names, not the characters). I suspect, though, that it's relatively easy to name characters who have no subtlety.

And the philosophy! Oh, the philosophy! It is a philosophy of extremes, which is not totally unsurprising given she grew up in communist Russia. The most fervent admirer of her that I have ever met grew up in Communist Romania. Bastard (this is beside the point). Extremes breed extremes, and neither side is any good. Her far-right obsession with capitalism had me reeling a bit. I couldn't quite work out if she was actually serious. Trying to prove a political theory by basing a novel on it in a world so one-dimensional and lacking in shades of grey that it actually. could. not. exist? And yet she actually expects us to be convinced? How could any theory based on such fraudulent premises ever carry any weight whatsoever? I find it impossible to evaluate her ideas because what she's talking about is so blatantly contradictory that it could never occur outside of fiction (and badly-written, badly-conceived fiction at that). It's so ridiculous that I feel like I've missed something big and obvious.

If anyone asked me (they probably won't), I think I'd say, don't read this book. According to Wikipedia it comes in, at about 645 000 words and 1056 bible-thin pages of minuscule print, just above A Suitable Boy by Vikram Seth. Set aside several months (assuming you want to continue your normal life at the same time) for A Suitable Boy instead, because it is far superior. Actually quite brilliant. Rand has written shorter books, such as The Fountainhead. If you're so inclined, read one of them instead, because she's certainly memorable. Although I haven't read any of her other books, it's likely they'll be full of the same violent power, unrealistic characters and distinct lack of writing skill. (less)

like 26 likes

· see review

Jul 12, 2007

Ian rated it

Recommends it for: socialists

I only gave this book 3 stars because it was so tedious and repetitive. I actually have some things to say in defense of the usual criticisms, but more on that in a minute. Whether or not you agree with her philosophy, Ayn Rand does make some good points in favor of her argument. I can forgive it for it's exaggerated depiction of socialism as a system which rewards the weak and lazy and parasitizes the intelligent and productive. Honestly, if you install any system which allows people to th...more I only gave this book 3 stars because it was so tedious and repetitive. I actually have some things to say in defense of the usual criticisms, but more on that in a minute. Whether or not you agree with her philosophy, Ayn Rand does make some good points in favor of her argument. I can forgive it for it's exaggerated depiction of socialism as a system which rewards the weak and lazy and parasitizes the intelligent and productive. Honestly, if you install any system which allows people to thrive as parasites, plenty of people will take advantage of it. It's just human nature.
Unfortunately, this book only seems to be aware of human nature where it guarantees the failure of the system it's trying to shoot down. It never takes into account the inevitable abuses of capitalism by fallible human beings. Special interest groups, politicians making laws which favor corporations they hold stock in, sweat shops, the whole military industrial complex, etc. While the author's point of view is understandable given the communism she came to america to escape, and the fact that the issues I listed above probably weren't in the news as much back then as they are now, I still don't think her long long long argument holds up.
The brilliant, attractive, articulate, morally perfect industrialist heroes of Atlas Shrugged are not real people. Ayn Rand herself said, in defense against her critics, they are not man as he is, rather man as he should be. Which would be great in another book, I have no objection to admittedly portraying non-existant ideals if it makes a good point. If such people really existed capitalism could work. Ayn Rand seems perfectly aware of the shortcomings of human nature when they manifest themselves under communism, but then offers as an alternative another system which could only actually work for the non-existant ideal men she made up.
So as a piece of propaganda, It doesn't fully convince me. I suppose if I were completely on the nurture side of the nature vs. nurture debate on human behavior, I could have simply bought the idea that installing an economic system based on moral principles could create a better culture and thus better people. Though if there's anything history shows us over and over again it's that no new belief or set of rules has ever succeeded on that front. As a novel, well, it's full of excessively long-winded monologues and drags on. But, it did keep me interested enough to see it through to the end, and forced me to think so I have to give it some credit. (less)

like 22 likes

· see review

May 21, 2008

Deb Seksay rated it

Recommends it for: more cerebral readers

Recommended to Deb by: Ruff

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. I personally have a deep attachment to this book, and am less confused about why people call me Dagny...I am oft accused of having little emotion or being 'stand offish' because I am direct when making a point. I must admit, in modern society, it is quite a disadvantage to know philosophy, math, physics, and literature, but not purses and shoes, while being a woman.

It isn't for everybody. Some people get more reward from a community atmosphere, and as the girl kicked out of the sma...moreI personally have a deep attachment to this book, and am less confused about why people call me Dagny...I am oft accused of having little emotion or being 'stand offish' because I am direct when making a point. I must admit, in modern society, it is quite a disadvantage to know philosophy, math, physics, and literature, but not purses and shoes, while being a woman.

It isn't for everybody. Some people get more reward from a community atmosphere, and as the girl kicked out of the smart people classes for refusing to work in groups, it is little wonder I enjoyed this piece.

Is it philosophically over loaded? Yes, I will grant you that. I worry that people see this behemoth, and dive into it before reading her more direct works like The Virtue of Selfishness, which is short and to the point. Don't let a behemoth of a book that changes the lives of others bring you away from the heart of appreciating another philosophical opinion. You cannot argue for or against a thing you don't understand. To be honest, I think I'm rather appalled at people that admit they think they were lobotomized by the book. As an advocate of self-censorship, I must ask: Why did you do it? When you figured out it wasn't right for you, why did you keep going? Are you one of those people that calls the radio stations about topics you find offensive because you simply refused to change the channel?

For me, though philosophical, this book makes sense when taken that way. Women have always hated me, and in recent years, I discovered that a large portion of their frustration comes from the fact that I don't get hints or passive-aggressive biting remarks, I cannot be moved by misleading speech because I see through it, and I'm smart enough to hold conversations with their men about things they just smile and nod about without ever understanding at all. I can relate to Dagny, and her confusion about interacting with 'Washington' people, and her distaste for the poor because of my life experiences. And her debut...I understand that disappointment all too well. Having been to enough parties to understand that no one there was celebrating, but hiding from lives that they hated but continued to plod through day in and day out with no effort made to change.

Wordy? Yes. Preachy? Yes. Still enjoyable for me because of my unique set of experiences? Absolutely. Not enjoyable for everyone because some people aren't over keen of capitalism because of how it has been distorted and bastardized in this country? Damn skippy.

Good food for Deb's brain? Yes. Would I recommend it around? Sure would. Would I tell people it is a must read? No, silly. I'm a libertarian. I don't believe that a country full of individuals should like the same things. Arguing is so important! We should always have a reason to...its how minds get sharper.(less)

like 23 likes

· see review

Dec 17, 2008

Ken rated it

This book was the most overrated piece of crap of the twentieth century. It spars only with Dianetics and in its absolute absurdity.

The characters are absolutely idealized 'heroes of capitalism' action figures. I wonder if Rand imagined some of these great barons of industry coming to her rescue when she immigrated away from the vile pit of communism that she left behind. You know, during the time where she forged her citizenship papers and depended on the generocity and kindness ...more

like 30 likes

· see review

May 06, 2007

Eleanor rated it

Recommends it for: everybody who likes to think

It took me damn near forever to get through it (just to arrive at an unsatisfying ending) but I enjoyed the bulk of Rand's writing in Atlas Shrugged. This was Ayn Rand's magnum opus designed to demonstrate her philosophy "objectivism." Long story short this book is about mid-20th-century American industrialists in a world dying of moral decay. Her heros are the honest and ambitious businessfolk, industralists, artists, creators; her villains are those that leech from them, stealing ...moreIt took me damn near forever to get through it (just to arrive at an unsatisfying ending) but I enjoyed the bulk of Rand's writing in Atlas Shrugged. This was Ayn Rand's magnum opus designed to demonstrate her philosophy "objectivism." Long story short this book is about mid-20th-century American industrialists in a world dying of moral decay. Her heros are the honest and ambitious businessfolk, industralists, artists, creators; her villains are those that leech from them, stealing ideas, time, property, money, usually via the notion that able men should be forced to sacrifice themselves for the unable, unwilling, and/or undeserving. The book is a good piece of romantic fiction by itself except for its unnecessary length, and sometimes two dimensional characters. In essence a reaction against communism, her philosophy holds that [the following quoted from Rand:] Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; reason is man's only means of perceiving reality which exists as an objective absolute.

I gather a lot of wisdom and strength from this in terms of indivduality, freedom and endurance in the face of peer/societal pressure, however I have my differences with it (in addition to the cynicism, elitism, and general contempt it tends to elicit from its ardent followers):

-I don't believe in abolishing all taxes
-I do believe in abstract art
-I don't believe the world is overrun by moral cannibals and even if it were the solution isn't to 'run away to a secret village in the mountains'
-I think she could have had a few characters with more realistic life situations, i.e. heros with children or a close group of friends who could demonstrate that one's self-interest extends to those which s/he loves.

But I am all about rational, non-victimizing self-interest, and capitalism, baby. A lot of people like to bash her work as the bible of selfish assholes and I'm sure many people do misinterpret it as such, but when taken with a grain of salt, her works are inspiring to anyone who creates, values intellectual property, and aspires to greatness of utmost integrity. If you're interested in Rand's philosophy I recommend starting with The Fountainhead. That book changed my life. Atlas was my 30,000 mile checkup. (less)

like 20 likes

· see review

Feb 02, 2008

Simon rated it

Absolutely terrible.
Imagine an analogous situation:
A white supremacist writes a book in which all the white characters are great and all the black characters are awful. If you were to read that book and as a result buy into white supremacy; that would make you an utter utter fool.

And yet, Rand writes a book where anyone who is a raging capitalist is a veritable super-hero and anyone who pauses for half a second to consider that maybe such a system is sub-optimal is a sniv...more

like 46 likes

· see review

Nov 19, 2008

Brett rated it

Recommends it for: All adults

Atlas Shrugged is a ferocious defense of the concept of capitalism. Although Rand depicts capitalism from her objectivist perspective and makes monumental over-exaggerations, she succeeds in demonstrating the importance of such basic social necessities as self sufficiency, personal responsibility, accountability, punctuality, and hard work. She equally condemns such economic poisons as socialized industry, redistribution of wealth, laziness, entitlement, and incompetence. Rand shows how these...moreAtlas Shrugged is a ferocious defense of the concept of capitalism. Although Rand depicts capitalism from her objectivist perspective and makes monumental over-exaggerations, she succeeds in demonstrating the importance of such basic social necessities as self sufficiency, personal responsibility, accountability, punctuality, and hard work. She equally condemns such economic poisons as socialized industry, redistribution of wealth, laziness, entitlement, and incompetence. Rand shows how these economic poisons also have the power to poison the human soul, embodied in the character of James Taggart. The ideas discussed in Atlas Shrugged are of monumental importance and Rand successfully unveils the consequences of a large-scale destruction of capitalism and how and why such destruction could become reality.

Aside from the political implications inherent in Atlas Shrugged, the book is also an excellent work from the fictional literature perspective. Critics condemn Rand’s bipolar use of almost godly heroes and devilish villains, claiming this as a failure to create human characters. This misconception is obviously false, based on the fact that Rand includes a Greek god’s name in the title. Creating god-like characters to emulate is not failure, it is an effective tool Rand used to establish a moral framework in a mythological industrial era. The only real criticism I can offer of this masterpiece is the use of repetitive, far too lengthy orations on objectivism, which culminates in John Galt’s two-hour speech over radio waves near the end of the book. This book could have, and probably should have, been shorter than it is. That said, I couldn’t put the book down for the first two-thirds of the story. The last couple of hundred pages were arduous, but the ending was worth the effort.

I recommend this book to adult readers of all ages, creeds, and political interests. The story is gripping, and the concepts it teaches are of great value. The enjoyment and enlightenment found in the over one thousand pages of this book are well worth the time and effort it takes to get through it.
(less)

like 21 likes

· see review

Aug 20, 2007

Jodi Lu rated it

Recommends it for: people i don't care to understand

no, REALLY?!?! people LOVE this...but i just... i realize that, in disliking cucumbers, i am siding with a very scant and unpopular team, but i have my reasons: i chewed on them while i was teething, so it's an association thing. i realize they have merit and i love all other veggies, it's just they're not for me. but it seems more people like this book than even cucumbers, which we know is saying a lot. and this book's got NOTHING going for it. except it's heavy. i mean, is that it? b/c...more

like 23 likes

· see review

Jul 22, 2008

Amy rated it

After working on this book for several months, I finally finished it and loved it. I've learned that I rate a book highly when it forces me to think and broadens my perspective. Rand definitely accomplishes this in Atlas Shrugged and earns five stars. I am amazed at the depth of her philosophy, her intelligence, and her ability to write and communicate her ideas through strong, entertaining fictional characters.

In Atlas Shrugged, she shares her philosophy which she calls Objectiv...moreAfter working on this book for several months, I finally finished it and loved it. I've learned that I rate a book highly when it forces me to think and broadens my perspective. Rand definitely accomplishes this in Atlas Shrugged and earns five stars. I am amazed at the depth of her philosophy, her intelligence, and her ability to write and communicate her ideas through strong, entertaining fictional characters.

In Atlas Shrugged, she shares her philosophy which she calls Objectivism, which in a word is a system of justice. Before reading this book, I always viewed justice as cold, distant, and inferior to mercy, but Rand helps me view the essentiality and virtues of justice. In a few other words, Rand is an advocate of reason, logic, accountability, production, capitalism, agency, human ability, and she believes that working for one's happiness is essential and each person's personal responsilibity. She is against pity, mediocrity, taxation, seizing wealth and production from those who produce to redistribute to those who are unwilling to work hard. In the story, she illustrates what would happen to the world if incentive to produce is removed from the intelligent and able - the motor of the world would stop.

I love how Rand's character Dagny Taggart is such an example of intelligence and ability. She will move heaven and earth to accomplish her purposes and she approaches life with such passion. She runs the leading transcontinental railroad in the country, and Rand created this character in the 1950's!

Despite my love of the book, there were a few drawbacks for me. Rand believes that one's professional work, what he is able to produce, is THE purpose of life, definitely a "live to work" approach. Also, I didn't find any thread of mercy in her philosophy, which makes me wonder her view on caring for those who cannot care for themselves. Rand also has a sexual theme that emerges several times in the book which I didn't know I was in for when I began the book. Be forewarned that it's there, and she has a strong theory on sexuality that you'll be exposed to in reading the book.

Reading Atlas Shrugged reminded and empowered me to work hard for what I want in life, to stop making excuses, and to hold myself accountable and responsible for what I do or don't acoomplish.(less)

like 26 likes

· see review

Apr 24, 2008

Robb rated it

I guess I can't hate this book. After reading The Fountainhead, I found myself crushing on Objectivism and Rand's brand of rugged self-reliance. Intrigued, I picked up Atlas. 1000 pages later I closed the book, opened my window and threw it into the street. This book cured me forever of this flat, willingly shortsighted b*llshit religion.

I've had my run-ins with the devout and the dogmatic fans of Rand and the big O and their reluctance to even nod towards the notion that saying ...more

like 33 likes

· see review

view all 13 comments

Benjamin Virnston When one looks past all of the Randian, big-O dogma, there are a few basic messages that Rand is attempting to purvey.

The first of these is...moreWhen one looks past all of the Randian, big-O dogma, there are a few basic messages that Rand is attempting to purvey.

The first of these is that to ask or demand individuals to sacrifice themselves for the collective (an inherently flawed concept as society or collectives are abstractions and do not exist independently of the individuals comprising them) is immoral and does not result in greater wellbeing for anyone other than those living as parasites off of the production of others (i.e. The political class and their corporate bedfellows).

The second is the libertarian non-aggression axiom, which simply states that the initiation, or threat thereof, of physical violence against another individual is unacceptable, regardless of the intended end or supposed justification. The only moral and just use of force is in cases of self-defense.

Thirdly, "Atlas Shrugged" was a treatise in defense of property rights, which are essential to humanity's ability to settle disputes, allocate scare resources, maintain social stability, and ensure economic plenty and technological progress.

All of these messages are merely applications and extensions of the philosophy of natural rights. This philosophy holds that man's inherent nature requires that each human being be individually sovereign, or self-owning. Therefore, men must be free to act as they wish--assuming they respect the equal rights of others to that same liberty--in order to survive and prosper.

Ayn Rand was by no means perfect, and certainly not an infallible prophet of truth as some see her, but she had a lot of important things to say, which are especially relevant in this age of corporatism and state tyranny. She experienced first hand the misery and utter desolation caused by collectivism (see: "We the Living"), and was inspired to create a philosophy which was a huge step in the right direction, and for that she has my undying respect and gratitude.

I would finally like to point out that the political/economic system present in the United States of America today is a far cry from capitalism (in the true sense of the word), and certainly contains nothing approaching free markets. A few more appropriate terms for this system would be state capitalism, corporatism, or economic fascism. This system is characterized by a close relationship between large oligopolistic, or monopolistic, firms (i.e. corporations) and a large, oppressive state apparatus, which confers special privileges to these favored few. These privileges severely restrict or completely destroy competition from unfavored firms, resulting in a complete lack of incentive to be efficient, innovative, or moral. Thus we arrive in today's world of stagnation, limited choice, barely rising (if not falling) standards of living, and omnipresent corporate and government malfeasance, instead of the world of freedom, general prosperity, and rapid progress that a free market would allow us.

If these ideas ring true to anyone, I would recommend Murray Rothbard's "For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto," for further reading, and a more eloquent and extensive presentation of these same concepts.(less)
Aug 06, 2011 03:07pm

Jane Baldwin I am struggling through this broken record of a book. The characters were somewhat interesting at first, but by the time Fransico spoke for several pa...more
Sep 28, 2011 11:03pm

May 06, 2008

Emily rated it

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 ther...moreAtlas 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 10 likes

· see review

Jul 25, 2007

Kenghis Khan rated it

· review of another edition

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...moreIn 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 11 likes

· see review

Dec 15, 2007

Greg rated it

· review of another edition

Recommends it for: all

Excellent comparison using extreme socialism and extreme individualism/capitalism. The socialist side didn't want competition, preferred an even playing field which results in total breakdown of the economic and educational systems. Illustrates the error of a feel-good educational system that yields incompetence.

The extreme capitalist is not only profit driven but pushes self and business to excel at all cost. Doesn't appear to be concerned with responsibilities toward providing for...more

like 11 likes

· see review

Jun 26, 2007

Samara rated it

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

Shelves: theclassics

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 cert...moreI 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 11 likes

· see review

Aug 28, 2007

Rob rated it

· review of another edition

Recommends it for: playa haters

If you're into sprawling, barely coherent I-are-mighty anti-Communist rants then this is for you. I suppose in our moments of weakness, we can look to Ayn Rand's philosophy to bring out our inner-super-humans. Except that really it's just a polarized response to Marx and Lenin (whom I have found equally unpalatable).

What's that? You want me to separate the aesthetic elements from the philosophy? Sure thing. This book reads like an instruction manual for drawing right angles.

like 29 likes

· see review

Aug 19, 2011

Jason Morais rated it

Ayn Rand makes my eyes hurt. She does this, not by the length of her six hundred thousand word diatribe, but rather by the frequency with which she causes me to roll them: my eyes, that is. Do you want to know what I’ve learned after spending nearly two months reading Ayn Rand’s crap? Here’s a brief rundown, Breakfast of Champions style:

Socialists are scary. Socialists are frightening creatures who lurk in corners, waiting to pounce on you. They are unpredictable, they have curvature o...more

like 8 likes

· see review

topics	posts	views	last activity
Atlas Shrugged Fa...: What is your favorite part of the book and why?	2	6	Jan 24, 2012 05:26am
Greece. A modern Ayn Rand dystopia	3	32	Jan 13, 2012 07:02am
Small Government ...: Atlas Shrugged	23	21	Dec 10, 2011 06:24am
New Movie Coming Out...SOON!	29	266	Nov 28, 2011 06:43am
Psycho Sluts Read: Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand	10	3	Oct 17, 2011 06:52pm
Loved The Book But Have Issues?	32	181	Jun 19, 2011 05:41pm

title link	preview: Atlas Shrugged
avg rating	preview: Atlas Shrugged Goodreads rating: 3.76 (72359 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/662.Atlas_Shrugged?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1157143422m/662.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/662.Atlas_Shrugged?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand[/url]

Atlas Shrugged

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (78)

Genres

Readers Also Enjoyed

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

About Ayn Rand

Books by Ayn Rand

Trivia About Atlas Shrugged

Quotes from Atlas Shrugged

Groups That Shelved Atlas Shrugged