What effect did this book have on you??

[Andrea]

Thanx for saying it more suscinctly (sp) than I could [the joys of cerebral disability]. Then it takes another revolution to change things yet again

[Sherrie]

Andrea, I actually just heard that quote recently on a documentary about the women's movement on PBS. Would love to take credit tho, haha. I guess the world cycles thru from establishment to revolution back to a different version of establishment. For instance I was always keenly aware that rebellious rock stars often became the wealthy "man" they were protesting :)

[Allan]

Chrissy wrote: "I loved the book. I don't read books based on the authors political views though. I read books for the story. And I understand that Rand's purpose for this book was to make a point and to hopefully..."

One mans or groups utopia is another mans hell. When you're talking large bodies of people there is no pleasing everyone. We are a heck of a lot closer to Rands Atlas Shrugged today that many people realize.

To really "get" Rand I strongly recommend her book We the Living. She claims it is not a chronicle of her life but only someone once on the inside could intimately know about the shift to communism.

[Bill]

It is an effective sleep aid with no side effects other than the potential to cause the development of the fear of multi-page monologues delivered by characters it is hard to like.

[Chrissy]

Allan J. wrote: One mans or groups utopia is another mans hell. When you're talking large bodies of people there is no pleasing everyone. We are a heck of a lot closer to Rands Atlas Shrugged today that many people realize.

To really "get" Rand I strongly recommend her book We the Living. She claims it is not a chronicle of her life but only someone once on the inside could intimately know about the shift to communism.


I don't disagree at all. And I wasn't suggesting a utopia for everyone, that's impossible. But similar to that in the book. There could be many small sects of "utopias" all over the place if you think about it. As long as there wasn't a centralized government.


And I have read all of Ayn's writings, loved every single word I've read of hers, heck, even went to see the documentary they put out last year in select theatres. She had amazing insight.

At times I think perhaps a go at Totalitarianism may be a good idea, just to put things back in order.
Or maybe the Zombie Apocalypse.

[Mel]

Who is John Galt?

I really enjoyed this book. I looked at it more as a personal book than something applied to politics or society. In other words, I applied Objectivism to personal relationships. It's cool. It works.

It's the foundation of Ayn Rand's philosophy. Man must serve his mind first and foremost. Man must live using reason always. Man must establish his own moral code and set it above all else, refusing to be swayed, corrupted, or lessened by false ambitions. The truth and beauty of this line sums it all very well: "I swear on my life and on the love I have for it, that I will not give my life for the sake of another man, as I will never ask another man to give his life for my sake." What does that mean?

It means, I am willing to trade, but trade freely and fairly. I am willing to give, but only if I get something in return.

How selfish, you may think. How brutal and self-serving. Consider this then, have you ever been in a relationship (and here I include siblings, friends, coworkers) in which there was no fair trade? Where you have conversations with this person, spend time with this person and find yourself constantly reassuring, offering advice, consoling, taking the blame, belittling yourself to accommodate this person's fragile ego, uttering sentences that don't at all represent your thoughts just so you can camouflage the fact that you are smarter than this person and fear bruising this person's inflated ego? Have you? Of course, this person never notices all of the battles you wage on your tongue. Never notices who you are. In fact, this person seems to need you for only one reason: your moral sanction. This person needs you to allow the transfusion to happen. This person knows--on many subconscious levels-- that the only way your relationship can continue is if you permit him or her to drain you. Without your sanction, the theft cannot happen. And meanwhile, what do you get from this robbery disguised as an exchange?

I can give you an idea.

You get confusion. Anger. Guilt. The more you give to this person--the destroyer of anything positive--the guiltiest you feel. You begin to doubt your self. To doubt your greatness. To doubt your strength.

This is what the book said to me:

If every man and woman woke tomorrow morning and decided to commit themselves to the biggest, noblest quest of their lives: themselves, and themselves meaning not the Ego, but the Self in all of its spiritual strength...what world would we live in?

Half of you will answer: Heaven.

The other will sneer: Hell!!!

[Andrea]

Mel, have you read the most recent Rand biography? Well worth it

[Mel]

No, what is it?

[Andrea]

Ayn Rand and the World She Made by Anne Heller.

[Mel]

Very interesting, thank you. I'll keep it in mind.

[Mel]

Very interesting, thank you. I'll keep it in mind.

[Benjamin]

I used it to kill some looter ants while they were en route to the cupcake I had purchased with the money I'd earned from my freely-chosen work.

[Utsav]

I shrugged and snoozed.

[Don]

Many readers skip or skim the John Galt speech. I had no such luxury since I was listening to the book while putting shingles on a steep roof. For those of you who know life is too short and skipped the speech, good move. However, you may have missed a key point in this section where Rand reveals she is equally contemptible of American's religious traditions as she is of socialism.

Rand is blind to the fact that her selfish heroes and the selfish government looters are two sides of the same coin. Rand's heroes will ever be flawed because they have no desire to help others of their own choice, which is the great teaching of American religious traditions.

To show people where Rand's position is the wrong way to go, I wrote the book, "Atlas Shrugged and Jesus Wept." It's Atlas Shrugged meets It's a Wonderful Life and Dickens' A Christmas Carol.

[Allan]

Don wrote: "Many readers skip or skim the John Galt speech. I had no such luxury since I was listening to the book while putting shingles on a steep roof. For those of you who know life is too short and skipp..."

I do not believe Rand hid the point that Objectivism (her philosophy) leaves no room for God. As an Objectivist she believed in the absolute authority of Man (all people) to dictate the actions in his life and to weigh his success in any way he personally determined. Her philosophy, some would argue (I certainly would) epitomized the individuals right to " Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. " As an American I can find no fault in that view even if I do not subscribe fully to the Objectivist philosophy related to God.

[Don]

Allan J. wrote: "Don wrote: "Many readers skip or skim the John Galt speech. I had no such luxury since I was listening to the book while putting shingles on a steep roof. For those of you who know life is too sho..."

Rand's philosophy is more Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Selfishness.

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness gets the best results when society is based on Judeo Christian values.

I am reminded of a well known quote from John Adams - “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” George Washington said, “Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society."

Society can tolerate a few Objectivists, but as a model for society in general, it is a step in the wrong direction.

http://fiddlingant.blogspot.com/

[Janice]

Allan J., I agree. That is the flaw with Ayn Rand. Man is too fallible to create and administrate values as he's always moving the line. Our cultural decline defines this expertly. Freedom will never survive the rebuke of Judeo-Christian values.

[Allan]

Don wrote: "Allan J. wrote: "Don wrote: "Many readers skip or skim the John Galt speech. I had no such luxury since I was listening to the book while putting shingles on a steep roof. For those of you who kno..."

Liberty is the freedom of the individual to determine their own course in life. God Himself gave man Liberty (to his determent or benefit), no? Nothing is more sacred or holy than the sanctity of the human choice. It is in this choice that MAN decides his fate as willed by God.

Selfishness is nothing more than self-interest. Self-interest is 100% pure and good for in its in the decision to be charitable, helpful, loving, giving, and kind that we choose to reflect God. Now that doesn't deny that there is such a thing as greed and that greed can be destructive to the self and everyone else. But even greed is something we are FREE to indulge in in God's system of things. Ultimately in religion the decisions of man to choose is paramount to his salvation. Who has the right to determine how much of something that you or I need? We do. And we certainly DO KNOW if we have more than we need. I think Rand's philosophy of SELF, in many ways, lines up nicely with Christianity - even if she couldn't see that herself.

[Allan]

Janice wrote: "Allan J., I agree. That is the flaw with Ayn Rand. Man is too fallible to create and administrate values as he's always moving the line. Our cultural decline defines this expertly. Freedom will nev..."

Freedom will survive. Man may not. Temperance must come from within each person to prevent empowering dictators (aka our governing "elite") from dictating every action we make with laws. But I have to wonder if there really is such a thing as freedom if mankind did not exist(or ceased to)?

[One]

Jjab wrote: "Didn't like it. What I've noticed in life is everyone is replaceable, the world will go on. If all the top scientists, c.e.o's, engineers all quit, there will be other people to take up those roles..."

Simply not true, look at most communist countries that regularly went through purges of intellectuals and anyone that could be considered a threat. For years countries like Russia had only power loving bastards in control and the results weren't good.

Atlas Shrugged helped reverse a lot of the farcical left wing theories that most teens believe in (myself included).

[Nick]

Shock and disappointment.

Shock because people in my professional circle continue to recommend this awful book. I'm a competent engineer by Rands definition. This book strokes my ego so hard that I should like it, right?

The book is too long, the message is shallow and repetitive, and, worst of all, the cast is completely devoid of human characters. The characters that are in the book are one dimensional and predicable.

The most tragic part is that people take this story literally and view society and others through the lens of Rand's "philosophy." If real people were as bland as her characters, I'd kill myself.

One more thing, to be a good engineer, you must have the empathy to connect with other people. So, any engineer that puts himself on a pedestal as a "creator" next to all those "destroyers," has some emotional growing up to do.

The red scare is over, can we just see this book for what it is now?

[Allan]

Nick wrote: "Shock and disappointment.

Shock because people in my professional circle continue to recommend this awful book. I'm a competent engineer by Rands definition. This book strokes my ego so hard that..."

Not to be condescending but that was amusing. The "red scare" is over? Hardly, it stems from the White House, lingers in our public schools and society and connects to the East. Personal/individual joy/satisfaction is the utmost of Rand's philosophy. I'm not sure what offends people about that.

[Nick]

Allan J. wrote: Not to be condescending but that was amusing. The "red scare" is over? Hardly,

"Hardly" - I concede to that. That doesn't really tell us anything about the book.

What I meant by that is this: the book is a product of its time, a product of fear. I have vendetta against irrational fear. This story it not a valid commentary on our society, nor is it a basis for a philosophy fit for our time.

Personal/individual joy/satisfaction is the utmost of Rand's philosophy

We must have read different books. The book is a celebration of misery, fear, and bitterness. Philosophy? At best, it is a commentary.

[Allan]

Nick wrote: "Allan J. wrote: Not to be condescending but that was amusing. The "red scare" is over? Hardly,

"Hardly" - I concede to that. That doesn't really tell us anything about the book.

What I meant by t..."

Rand came from a collectivist country...read "We the living." What she saw then and expounded on, however poorly (and it was long winded), is extraordinarily relevant to today. We are living dangerously close to her nightmarish vision today. Whatever her writing was lacking (I agree that it was) she made up for in her insight and message. Alarmist? I commend her for being so SINCE what she saw of future American society was nearly entirely true. As for it being relevant today, its a compass leading back to who and what we should be at our core (give or take a bit) as a free people. Consider Rand's work a parable, it may help.

[Siddharth]

Exaggerated, unduly stretched, wantonly voluble, and short sighted. Fountainhead was a much better book.

[Janice]

I haven't read Fountainhead; therefore can't make the comparison. I agree that it was, in many sections verbose to say the least. The message would have been just as clear with a paring down of superfluous argument but don't agree with exaggeration as the impact is appropriate. Can you explain short sighted?

[William]

I think I've said this before, but I'll say it again. This is one book that I had looked forward to the plot to stop (purple prose) and just get to the point. I may be in the minority but I loved the John Galt speech.

[David]

This book seduced me into the idea of ubermensch, that those who work hard (men or women), and have skill and talent, will rule the world. It taught me that how much money you make is a way to measure your worth in the world. For years, I believed it.
What a crock of shit.
I've since been to some of world's poorest places, seen hard workers, skilled workers treated like slaves because of their class and lot in life. These are people who've made the most of their opportunities but are still dirt in the eyes of the Economist. Numbers.
This book stunted my intellectual progress for years to come, and is part of the problem, not the solution.
The rich do not deserve their great wealth, no matter their talent. It is what it is, but this book makes you think it's as it should be.

[Janice]

David, that's really deep. Do you value freedom? Do you value property rights? Do you value truth? Do you think it is right that people have the right to the fruits of their labor? If not, this book wasn't for you. This is about the freedom to be what you aspire to be and not necessarily wealthy. Sounds like you should be reading The Communist Manifesto or Mein Kampf.

[David]

Janice wrote: "David, that's really deep. Do you value freedom? Do you value property rights? Do you value truth? Do you think it is right that people have the right to the fruits of their labor? If not, this boo..."
Mein Kampf? Wow. Now that's deep. Have you even read that book? Do you even know what it's about? I don't, enlighten me. All I know is it's anti-Semitic, blames the world's ills on Jews, etc. Don't really share that world view, so not really sure how you made that brilliant deduction. But hey, way to show your true colors.
My point, which I apparently need to spell out for you, is that there are hard workers of all stripes, but becoming rich and powerful is very often inherited, and is almost always a matter of good circumstance and luck.
Additionally, there are plenty of hard workers out there not trying to get rich, but trying to help others, and they are not valued as much because they aren't rich, can't lobby.
Greed, as much as this book might want to make you think differently, is darkness, not light.
If your idea of freedom is to have people so rich that they can walk over anybody they like, deprive them of proper medical care, destroy their environment, then yeah, I don't believe in that kind of freedom.
That's freedom for the 1%.
I believe in freedom for the 100.

[Gilles]

Jjab wrote: "Didn't like it. What I've noticed in life is everyone is replaceable, the world will go on. If all the top scientists, c.e.o's, engineers all quit, there will be other people to take up those roles..."

I agree with you. In the video (link below) the girl argues that if the CEOs of the top 1000 companies would quit, society would colapse. This is just laughable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkYOBn...

[Gilles]

Jim wrote: "I am not surprised that the greedy and the self-serving would embrace its message like a living Bible. The pity is that its Kool Aid has been consumed and used by those who puppet for the power eli..."

The greedy embrace Rand's message because it relieves them of any empathy-driven guilt they may have felt towards the less fortunate. There are also those who claim that Rand's rethoric provides a moral foundation for greed. So self-serving for the rich.

[Gilles]

Marc wrote: Where is the book that takes the opposite position of Atlas Shrugged? A world where humans toil away with no regard for compensation or achievement.

That world was the dream of the pure communists who believed human nature could be changed, that humans would willingly toil selflessly in humility for the common good with no desire for personal gains, except maybe gratitude from fellow humans. The closest examples of such a society is found in monastic life.

On another level, I have heard that the anti-thesis of Atlas Shrugged is The Lord of the Flies. It's much shorter too which is really a plus ;-) )

[VJ]

Showed me that Ayn was verbose and her notions were fit only for fantasy land.

[Gilles]

Gary wrote: "Quite frankly it pissed me off. The more I read of this book the more I despise the conservative approach to life. I did, however, make it from the first page through the last. Thus I shall cons..."

Ditto

[Gilles]

William wrote: "It is pretty much the same as Vonnegut's short story "Harrison Bergeron" only Vonnegut gets to the point a lot faster."

I'll have to look it up. Thanks.

[Gilles]

One aspect of Rand's view that is flawed is that capitalists should be allowed to roam free. She implies they have an unfailable moral compass and will not abuse their power to exploit others. Does anyone believe that?

[Allan]

David wrote: "This book seduced me into the idea of ubermensch, that those who work hard (men or women), and have skill and talent, will rule the world. It taught me that how much money you make is a way to meas..."

The trouble with this argument is that it has no basis in reality. The most generous countries on Earth are those Capitalist societies where people FREELY give of their own to others. You blame everyone but the people who deserve blame. I have no doubt that there are hard working decent people in every country across the globe. I also have no doubt that those countries you base your view on are those same countries who receive foreign aide and medicines and use it to feed their army instead of their people. So the party accountable (and responsible) for the perpetual poverty of these people you base your view on is who exactly? The society someone is born into is the key factor in determining whether a motivated individual can reach their potential, no? The only societal structure, albeit not perfect, that allows people to seek their own level of satisfaction (monetarily or otherwise) is a Capitalistic society where the individual mostly dictates his/her own course in life.

[Lara]

William wrote: "Have any of you read the comic book version of Atlas Shrugged, starring Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe and Madonna? I've got it around somewhere. They have all withdrawn to an islan..."

I'm wondering if the folks that thought it was too long are the same ones who don't get Michener.

[William]

Lara wrote: "William wrote: "Have any of you read the comic book version of Atlas Shrugged, starring Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe and Madonna? I've got it around somewhere. They have all withd..."

Funny, I used to know James Michener. He and my dad were buddies growing up, both orphans. My second grade teacher was his housekeeper. Fires of Spring was one of the first books I read when I got to Vietnam. But I did think Atlas Shrugged was a bit too long, although I did like John Galt's speech.

[Lara]

First, let me thank you for your service. Please envision me shaking your hand. Secondly, that is SO cool that you knew Michener. I had no idea he was an orphan; you come from strong stock! My goodness the world is strange. Funny that most folks who feel A.S. was too long really hated the speech or skipped it altogether. Admittedly, the speech should probably be its own book. Did you read Anthem?

[Anthony]

helped convert me from a conservative Republican to a Socialist leaning Democrat!

This is the only one of her books i actually enjoyed. At least it was a decent read, In the Fountainhead, her characters' whining, especially Roarke was nauseating. I kept hoping for a mob to storm his office and kill him!!!! that would have made a lovely ending!

[William]

Thank you, Lara. It's been a long time but it still means a lot. Actually, Michener came to our high school in Bucks County, PA two or three times in the early '60s. Dad and he never saw eye to eye politically, Michener was a Democrat, Dad was a staunch Republican, but they still remained friends. Maybe that is why I am somewhat sympathetic to Rand's message in Atlas Shrugged, but her heroes are not the wealthy of today's world which seems to believe "Greed is good." Now where have I heard that before? Ha! ;-)

[Dana]

Jim wrote: "I am not surprised that the greedy and the self-serving would embrace its message like a living Bible. The pity is that its Kool Aid has been consumed and used by those who puppet for the power eli..."

The philosophy is lost on this attitude. You seem to echo the sentiment of the antagonists in the novel. Is it greedy to want to succeed and therefore, through your success, make it possible for others to gain employment? Without what you call greed and self-serving, we would still be living in mud huts. But it appears you would rather have the "greedy, self-serving" people work very hard and then share the profits of their labor, without question, with those who would complain that they cannot achieve the same (even without trying). You may have also taken pre-conceived ideas into this book or, worse yet, you did not really read it.

[Janice]

Dana, bravo. Time for the parasitical ideology to examine its fatally flawed nucleus. Jealous of those with intellect to create for themselves as well as others? How is it greedy, in the poorest sense of the word, to provide employment to those who wish to ride the coattails of the ingenious rather than be themselves the creators? Those who can't get past the failings of socialism, which history has proven time and again, is an unsustainable social system that increases poverty to economic collapse.

[Susan]

Sprained my wrist when I threw it against the wall.

[Alan]

Lara wrote: "15 years old. That is how old I was when I read Atlas Shrugged (I'm 41). As an impressionable teenager, this booked changed me over the course of a summer.

The book gave me strength to...stay the..."

Now someone has finally made a good review. It IS fiction, based on fact and imagination.

[Anthony]

Oh Lordy, I remember when all the pseudo intellectuals hanging out at the artsy cocktail parties that I was invited to because I was a poet. They ranted about the CP. what a load of crap! Reminds of the folks who later were so wrapped up in the 7 people and the shack! Seems like every time some fruitcake says something trite but hateful, there is a certain segment if the population, be they readers, teachers, writers, painters, preachers or businessmen, that think it is so deep and maybe even prophetic.....

[Claire]

I'm glad this book has come back to the forefront. When I read it in 1964, it did for me what many have already mentioned -- improved my vocabulary, opened my eyes to what capitalism could become in the extreme, moved me out of the conservative, Barry Goldwater party into the Democratic party, made me -aware of the need for social justice. Like many other Boomers, I then marched on Washington and protested Vietnam and supported MLK, much to the chagrin of my parents. Those values are still important to me today. I truly hope that more people re-read this book and realize how prophetic it was, how much has come true despite the efforts during the 60s to turn the other way. Remember the criticism that Americans are too materialistic, too me-oriented? The philosophy of take care of me and my own first is what's at the heart of Atlas Shrugged; this book was a warning that has come true.

[Joanne]

Claire wrote: "I'm glad this book has come back to the forefront. When I read it in 1964, it did for me what many have already mentioned -- improved my vocabulary, opened my eyes to what capitalism could become i..."
Nice thoughtful post, Claire.