Atlas Shrugged

Šita knyga garsėja tuo, kad ją perskaitę žmonės tampa savimi patenkintais niekšeliais, taigi negalėjau nepabandyti.

Tai yra bloga knyga dviem pagrindiniais aspektais, bet būtent tais aspektais ji yra ir įdomi knyga.

1. Pati knygos prielaida yra, kaip čia pasakius, evil. Žinote tą tradicinį Holivudo filmų siužetą, kur blogieji kapitalistai nori sunaikinti kokį nors vertingą dalyką ar mielų nevykėlių bendruomenę, o galiausiai nevykėliai laimi ir įrodo, kad draugystė svarbiau negu pinigai? Tai čia viskas atvirkščiai. Baisiai turtingi kapitalistai yra rodomi teigiamoje šviesoje (tokioje teigiamoje, kad vietomis truputį net užsupa), o kiti yra siurbėlės ir fre-rider’iai, kurie nori, kad būtų įteisintos tokios blogybės kaip progresiniai mokesčiai ar pensijos, nes paprasčiausiai yra žiauriai nekompetentingi ir pavydi šauniesiems kapitalistams jų šaunumo.
Būtent dėl tos priežasties tai yra įdomi knyga – nes ji yra visiškai atvirai ir nesislapstant evil, kituose (beveik visuose, gal išskyrus kokius senovinius pasakojimus apie valdovus, kurie daug nukariavo, nes pernelyg nesiparino dėl žmonių, pvz Sima Qian „Istorija“) naratyvuose vertinamus bruožus pristatanti kaip blogus ir atvirkščiai. Žižekas, mačiau, irgi vertina Ayn Rand už tai, kad jinai visiškai atvirai parodo radikaliai kapitalistinės sistemos blogį, nors ir pristatydama jį kaip gėrį.

2. Tai nėra gerai parašyta knyga. Baisiai ilga, personažai beveik niekuo nepanašūs į realius žmones*, kartais pradeda kalbėti nežmoniškai ilgus monologus apie pasaulio prigimtį (žr. aukščiau) etc. Bet ir vėl – atrodo, Stephen King savo knygoje apie rašymą pastebėjo, kad jei turi labai aiškią idėją, tai ta idėja gali ištraukti prastą stilių, rašymą etc – ir paminėjo Ayn Rand kaip pavyzdį.
Ir tame yra dalis tiesos – personažai labai aiškiai arba geri (kapitalistai), arba blogi (siurbėlės), bet susidūrimai tarp jų visai įdomūs, nes dažnai neaišku, kas laimės (nes siurbėlės labai gudrios, ką, sakytum, kapitalistai turėtų savotiškai vertinti, bet ne). Tas suteikia tam tikro trilerio prieskonio, nes kiekvienąkart neaišku, kaip pasibaigs paprastai žodinė „kova“.

Knyga suskirstyta į tris dalis, pirmose dviejose tikrai neblogai kuriama atmosfera: traukiniai, plienas, nežinomas žmogus vardu John Galt, kuris kažkaip su viskuo susijęs. Trečia dalis – kitas reikalas, apie ją parašysiu gale ir užžymėsiu kaip spoilerį, nes: a) tikrai negaliu jos neaptarti; b) tikrai išspoilins visą kvazi-trilerio atmosferą.

Pagrindinė veikėja yra geležinkelio pramonės vadovė, ir, kaip vienas iš goodreads reviewer’ių pastebėjo, „vienintelė protinga moteris pasaulyje“. Aukšta, liekna, kampuotų veido bruožų, visad tiesaus žvilgsnio ir gyvų, protingų akių. Šitas apibūdinimas tinka VISIEMS geriems (t. y. kapitalistams) personažams, kas erzina iki negalėjimo. Žodis „gaunt“ pavartotas tiek kartų, kad man sukūrė kažkokį Pavlovo refleksą. Pamenu, per kažkurį filmą Jeff Goldblum buvo apibūdintas kaip „gaunt“ ir nuo to laiko nebegaliu neutraliai į jį žiūrėti.
Atitinkamai visų blogų personažų veidai yra „slack“, jie vengia žvilgsnio ir turi bent kažkokį kiekį minkštų audinių ant kūno. Palieku šitą be komentarų.

Vienintelė protinga moteris pasaulyje yra labai protinga ir nenuilstamai kovoja prieš siurbėles grynai vien savo kompetencija. Ją mylėjo – myli – arba dar mylės – keli super protingi, nesveikai kompetentingi ir viešpatie kokie gražūs beigi gaunt vyrai. Meilė jiems yra sąžiningi mainai, etc etc.

Iš esmės šita knyga yra „Twilight“ apie ekonomiką.


Šaunieji kapitalistai tokie teigiami, kad juokingi. O kaipgi „siurbėlės“, kurie nori mokesčių ir pensijų kaip kokie dykaduoniai ir kalba apie jausmus ir artimo meilę? Gal jie kažkiek artimesni tokiam žmogui kaip aš, kuris jau vien dėl ūgio (1,64 m) nepatektų į šaunių ir gražių kapitalistų gretas? Toli gražu – šie dar siaubingesni, nes jie naudoja „jausmus“ ir „artimo meilę“, kad MANIPULIUOTŲ KITAIS ŽMONĖMIS. Jei kapitalistams bet kokie santykiai yra sąžiningi mainai, tai siurbėlėms irgi, tiesiog mainai yra nesąžiningi. Savo meile jie nori padaryti kitus priklausomus nuo savęs, kad prireikus galėtų pažeminti ir t.t. Nesakau, kad žmonės taip kartais nesielgia, bet esmė ta, kad visi šios knygos personažai yra psichopatai. Ir, nors nuolat pabrėžiamas kapitalistų racionalumas, siurbėlės šiaip jau irgi elgiasi racionaliai (pasirenka tinkamas priemones savo tikslams įgyvendinti), tiesiog nemoka daryti verslo.
Keli žmonės man yra sakę, kad jie pvz visai nesivadovauja jausmais, o viską apskaičiuoja racionaliai – tai nežinau, kitam į galvą neįlįsi, bet iš tų žmonių elgesio taip toli gražu neatrodė. Panašu, kad jie „jausmus“ įsivaizduoja kaip Romantizmo poetai, o Ayn Rand „jausmus“ įsivaizduoja kaip gudresnį būdą manipuliuoti – nors aš asmeniškai turiu nuojautą, kad labai dažnai žmonės nedaro nei to, nei to, šiaip daro nesąmones arba elgesio automatizmus, o paskui savo veiksmus racionalizuoja arba išverčia į kurią nors iš jausmų kalbų. Nu bet čia šiaip pasvarstymas, gal man tiesiog trūksta racionalumo, nes mano veido bruožai nepakankamai prakaulūs.

Tai va, bet knygoje pasaulis griūva, nes jį griauna siurbėlės, o gražūs-protingi-gaunt verslininkai kažkur dingsta. Kur jie dingsta? Sužinosime nuviliančioje trečioje knygos dalyje. Bet apskritai visa ta grėsmės ir griūnančio pasaulio atmosfera padaryta gerai ir man nuoširdžiai patiko.

Dar man visai patiko personažas Rearden, nes jis lyg ir labiausiai žmogiškas. Nors ir kompetentingas kapitalistas, turi kažkokių abejonių kaip koks durnius, o erotinė įtampa tarp jo ir vienintelės protingos moters pasaulyje yra visai gerai parašyta ir įtikinama. Sekso scenos atitinka lūkesčius. Aš asmeniškai juos abu labiausiai ir shipinau, bet gal pamenate – dar yra paslaptingas žmogus John Gaunt, oi, Galt, tai dabar apie jį ir pakalbėsime, bet prasideda spoileriai, taigi daugiau nebeskaitykite, kas jų nenorite.

Tiesa, yra piratas!!!


SPOILERIAI
Ayn Rand pirmuose skyriuose sukūrė šiaip jau visai neblogą distopiją, derančią su jos pasaulėvaizdžiu. O kaipgi tada atrodytų utopija? Pasirodo, utopija yra absoliučiai juokinga ir nyki vienu metu.
Paslaptingasis John Galt yra pats genijausias, gauntest of them all, o jo žvilgsnis toks tiesus, kad pagal jį mokslininkai matuoja minimalius dėl gravitacijos vykstančius erdvėlaikio išsikraipymus (ok, šitą aš sugalvojau). Jis visus šaunius kapitalistus po vieną įtikina streikuoti – ir pasislėpti kažkokiame slėnyje tarp kalnų, kur John Galt sukūrė utopiją (nuo pašalinių ją slepia kažkoks sci-fi skydas? Kurį John Galt sukūrė panaudojęs savo išrastą motorą?? Nesvarbu). Ten kapitalistai gyvena kaip hobitai in the Shire, išradinėja nuostabius dalykus ir parduoda viską vieni kitiems besimainydami auksu. Nepatikėsite, bet Ayn Rand ir SAVE ĮDĖJO Į TĄ UTOPIJĄ, tikrai, pažiūrėkite, yra vos akimirką pasirodantis personažas – rašytoja, kuri atbėga pasisveikinti su John Galt.
Kai į utopiją atvyksta vienintelė protinga moteris pasaulyje, aišku, jie su John Galt ima mylėti vienas kitą. Reardenas, su kuriuo ji buvo prieš tai, dėl to visiškai nesiparina, nes akivaizdu, kad Galt yra pats protingiausias ir komtetentingiausias, ir jis jį be galo gerbia – ir akivaizdu, kad protingiausias vyras pasaulyje ir vienintelė protinga moteris pasaulyje turi būti pora, o kas daryt. Jos ir Galt santykiai tokie tobuli ir tokie absoliučiai anemiški, kad negaliu prisiminti jokios detalės. Ar buvo sekso scena? Ar jie jos metu miegojo? Garbės žodis, nežinau, ir tingiu tikrinti.
Paskui draugai gelbėja draugus, bet ne iš draugystės, bet dėl to, kad jiems naudinga, bet būtent tai ir yra tikroji draugystė? Ai, žodžiu. Jei skaitysite knygą, neskaitykite trečios dalies, geriau pažiūrėkite kokį Pixar filmą ir vietoj pagrindinių veikėjų įsivaizduokite geruosius kapitalistus.

Nežinau, kiek žvaigždučių duoti šiai knygai. Kaip tikriausiai aišku iš mano review, tai nėra gera knyga, bet būtent dėl to buvo gana malonu ją skaityti. Kas irgi nori patirti kažką panašaus, tikrai rekomenduoju, o kas nori atrasti žmogiškų personažų ar įtikinamą "gyvenimo filosofiją" - ne.

* Nors pvz Musilio "Žmogus be savybių" personažai irgi nepanašūs į realius žmones, bet vis dėlto tai visai kito lygio knyga. Puiki knyga, tbh.

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 Rand's ideas to my own life has made my mind clearer and has helped me to acchieve goals I thought were unreachable. Rand's ideas have been a big part of "growing up" and getting through the "quarter life crisis" for me.

While I read Rand's books for her ideas and to better understand the application of her philosophy, they can also be read on many different levels. Through reading them, not only did I read an amazing story, carefully crafted and well rendered, but I also learned so much. However, one does not have to delve deep into Rand's philosophical background to enjoy The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged -- they are also great stories about human endurance, individualism, freedom, relationships, and integrity.

If you are reading this book to gain an understanding of Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, then I would recommend reading this book AFTER reading Ayn Rand's other famous fiction, The Fountainhead. The Fountainhead is a more straight forward place to start that study.

I highly recommend this book, and I have a copy to loan if you're interested. When you're reading, we can go out for coffee to talk about the book -- there is much to think about in this one.

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 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.

I've read this a few times & it never fails to move me. Rand paints a very monochromatic view of the world - you either adhere to her ideal of integrity &, though the road is hard, find paradise or you're hopelessly lost in the general sea of humanity. I enjoy reading her philosophy books, although I need to keep a dictionary at hand - it's work. This is probably her best effort at putting her philosophy into a story that is both readable & speculatively fictional. It isn't a particularly pleasant story, but she does point out a lot of flaws in our current society.

[image error]

It was probably the summer before my Sophomore year in college. I took a Greyhound bus from Columbia, MO to central Wisconsin to visit my grandparents in an attempt to gather family history for what I knew would turn into my Senior Project/Thesis. This trip became an annual tradition, and often I traveled by Greyhound bus. It was cheap, it was local (instead of driving two hours to the nearest airport in St. Louis), it was fun. You want me to sit in a moving vehicle with nothing else to do besides sleep and read for something like 12 hours? Where do I sign up? I was a busy kid in those days, working a few different jobs, going to school, trying to maintain a relationship. I was tired, and the idea of having to just sit there and do whatever I wanted sounded like pure awesomeness.

The book that I took with me on that trip was The Fountainhead. It was probably the best book I could take on a lengthy bus trip. And after all my different trips to Wisconsin, that one occasion sticks in my mind more than many of the others just because of that book. (We won't go into what my grandparents said when they saw what I was reading, but most of their comments involved something about the possibility of losing my eyesight by reading such small print.) It didn't matter what people thought or what they said. Sure, there was a lot of extraneous words in The Fountainhead. But it made an impression on me. One could argue that since I was in college everything would make an impression on me, but I like to think I was a little more discerning than all that. I didn't like Beloved which was being shoved down our throats in just about every class I took.

The Fountainhead is the book that people really love to hate because of everything Ayn Rand believed in. At least, that's the case until they come across Atlas Shrugged. Then people get their panties in a much larger twist. They realize that what she proposed in The Fountainhead wasn't quite as scary as they originally thought. After all The Fountainhead focused more on individualism; Atlas Shrugged went for the jugular with all that talk of Objectivism.

The thing about Ayn Rand is very few people actually have read her. Everyone feels they have an opinion about her mostly because of things they've heard from other people. She had a reputation during her life, and she certainly maintained that reputation after she died. She's infamous for being a cold-hearted, evil, money-hungry bitch - Capitalism is grand, it's good to be selfish, etc. etc. And from there, her fiction is immediately pooh-poohed. There are accusations that her characters are "cardboard", "one-dimensional", that they're either blatantly bad if they don't support Objectivism and blatantly good if they do.

I'm not convinced it's all that simple.

It's not an easy book to review because where do you really start? Do you focus on the story, the style, the author, her beliefs? Do you talk about your own beliefs? Does it matter? Who is John Galt? One thing I decided I wouldn't do is lambaste the book because I immediately disagreed with certain aspects of her philosophy; on the other hand I also wouldn't just applaud the book because I agreed with other aspects. I'm not trying to prove a point here and tell all the people who dislike this that they're right or wrong, and the people who love it that they're right or wrong.

The complaint that Rand used her fiction as a vehicle for her beliefs doesn't hold water with me. Seriously, how many writers do that? Upton Sinclair did it. I maintain that most writers, in some capacity, use their fiction to propose their beliefs. But, as usual, it's especially "scary" when it's a woman who does it. Good gravy.

I will say I am not offended by what Rand believed. There are worse beliefs in the world and much more dangerous ones. I can even get behind some of what Rand proposed. It doesn't mean this is the best book I've ever read or that I wholeheartedly agree with everything she wrote. It could have been pared down a few hundred pages - I noticed the editor even got a little tired and lazy towards the end of the book. Did it make me think? Absolutely. That's what makes a book good.

I appreciated The Fountainhead more. Maybe it's because of the time and when that I read it, and that's something that can't be repeated this many years later. I might not even like The Fountainhead that much if I read it now. But there's something to be said about individualism that I can get behind, and if that's the only thing I agree with when it comes to Rand, so be it.

Honestly this book isn’t even worth talking about. It’s a genre of its own called Dumb Dystopia. Here’s my old review I guess:

Recently someone told me this was their favorite novel. I believe they referred to it as 'the greatest book ever written.' I find a lot wrong with that statement. Because who cares about Ulysses, right? No, that won't do, I'm going to have to drink and rant for a moment. I refrained from commenting to the customer, because I'm sure it is typically for political reasons that people like this book and, whatever, some people swing left, some people swing right, some people suckle the golden calf of capitalism and some love thy socialist ways and who am I to judge. I'm not a politician and you should all thank me for that. I'd like to push politics aside but, frankly, I think it is solely for political reasons and edgelord posturing that this book managed to stay relevant and in print. However, I suppose you are all here to hear about the politics of this book and I would be boring you with talks of wooden character and language and overall juvenile writing abilities, so I'll save those for after. I don't want to argue politics, especially not while drinking, so lets take a moment to look at the plot (and oh what a plot it is) and see how the politics hold up within. Besides, there isn't much to analyze in this one as the writing barely goes beneath the surface. It’s basically people got sad they couldn’t profit in the specific way they decided they should so they turned the world into a dumb dystopia because their vocation only mattered to them if they could lord it over people. The people the novel praises are those who simply sit back and let the workers make money for them and then call themselves the doers. It’s weird and kind of gross.

Once upon a time there were some factory owners. These factory owners loved to preach about the pride in working for their company, and hey, maybe conditions are piss-poor and maybe you are barely scraping by to feed your growing family, but at least you can take pride in working for a great company and that should satisfy you and give you meaning (some cool existentialist thought could have been added into the book for that, but Rand misunderstood Kant so I doubt she'd be able to add anything beyond surface detail and pop-philosophy). Then one day the great evil government (the government is such a caricature and it's almost a surprise she didn't have them all wearing black hooded cloaks. And really, who voted for those guys?) passed some outlandish laws that people couldn't have a monopoly and maybe we should pay our workers. Suddenly, having pride in what they did seemed terrible. Instead of taking pride in their company and working hard to sustain the nation they so loved, like they preached to their employees, they bitched about it a bunch and then stopped working. Nice guys, right? They set up a utopia (Ayn Rand of all people should know utopia is a word for 'fake') society where competing is so cool and they say stuff like 'man, I hope someone competes with me and nearly puts me out of business', which isn't all that different from what was going on in the society they fucked off into the woods from in the most comically shameful manner possible. Meanwhile Rand says cheating on your wife is way cool and general chaos ensues.

So it goes for awhile, but then, THEN, after a overlong speech that takes all the points any reader with half a mind already put together for themselves and regurgitates it out without the metaphors and into a boring speech that repeats itself many times about the points already mentioned in the novel and then makes sure you know the stuff already mentioned in the novel through a long speech, all hell breaks loose and the main characters bust into town like the goddamn A-Team. Guns blaze, Dagny murders a few dudes and the one character who was actually worth reading about blows up the super-weapon (because that guy was awesome. Screw the rest of the characters, I want to read more about that guy. He was 'about it', like people who are apparently 'about it' say right before ending up a viral youtube injury video.) All integrity of the novel was lost with the hysterically overblown rescue scene. I mean, they even got out on 'choppers' at the end. It was the worst action movie I've ever seen, and I'm not even going to go into the scene where apparently it is okay to shoot your employees in the head for going on strike. And that, my friends, is Atlas Shrugged. People seem to really like the politics, which are “if things aren't going your way just fuck off into the woods shouting ‘and fuck america too.'” Also she’s really into talking about shooting soldiers in the face.

Finally. What I really want to talk about is the book as a piece of literature, so don't get all steamed up about politics on me here, pal! Granted, there are a few pretty lines here, particularly the line about cigarettes and how all great thinkers should have that glowing ember at their fingertips while the lightbulb of thought is burning, but other than that Rand is a forgettable sci-fi novelist that has poorly aged with time. Not a line of dialogue rings true to actual speech, not a cough or a scoff can go without her graciously informing the reader that the scoff or cough shows their disapproval or discomfort and whatnot. Furthermore, she certainly can't let a metaphor slip out without explaining it; reading Ayn Rand feels like being a grown adult and sitting in a elementary reading class and having the teacher explain how books work. It's as if she has no faith in her reader as a literate, thinking human being. Worse, the characters are the sort that can only exist on the page and have such narrow-minded two-dimensional aspects that one can't possibly imagine them walking around in the real world. Of course the government is terrible in this novel, its such a caricature that nobody in their right mind would bother being submissive to it. Granted, this book is satire, but come on Rand, put some effort into your creativity.

' James, you ought to discover some day that words have an exact meaning.' This idea pops up constantly in Atlas Shrugged, that words have a specific and definite meaning, and the character always wields this like a weapon straight to the heart (James does suck as a person and character so I don't feel bad for him for his inability to easily retort. However, Rand seems fully unable to build three-dimensional characters so is it that James is garbage or Rand’s novel itself?). This idea is possibly my least favorite aspect of the book because it is comically incorrect. Though maybe my English degree is as useless as it is as finding me a job (totally useless), but from what I've gathered reading books (and Derrida) is that language is anything but exact. Language is pliable, words are an attempt at harnessing the abstract into sound, caging thought into something more tangible. If words have an exact meaning then all the poets have been doing is creating gibberish. And how can Rand go on writing her weak metaphors if she actually believes that statement.

Briefly, Ayn Rand separates people into two catagories: those that make, and the 'looters'. Interestingly “those who make” spend the whole book only making things hard for the working class who actually make the things they make money off of.

Somehow, people still rave about this book. I will say, however, that the chapter where they kill everyone by putting a steam engine through a tunnel was incredibly well done. She could have cut the rest of the novel and simply published that chapter because all the major points are present and for a brief moment the book felt worth reading. I also loved the bits about the pirate and the scene where the government takes over the mines to find them desolated. There are some great 'fight the man' moments but they are buried under a god-awful plot that puts the plot and politics before the writing and told through characters that are so two-dimensional that I can't even believe the scenes that have them walking down a street. There's some politics here I guess some people could get down with if your goal is to be a freshman year edgelord in a poly sci class, and I do understand that this is a response to the horrors of Communist Russia, but she did this so much better in Anthem (though even in that she contradicts herself often. Right after a large discussion on freedom and not letting others think for you, the man names the woman character. He just tells her, this is now your name. Which seems suspiciously not like the freedom the man was fighting for) and others have tackled the issue in a much more agreeable and artistic manner. All sarcasm and jokes aside, I simply do not think this book is well written. I could honestly not care less about the political aspects, its the literary aspects that cause the low rating. I came, I read, I shrugged.
1/5

Disclaimer: I read this while working in a factory that had no heat or AC and paid minimum wage as the salary cap. However, the office had AC, heat and tons of paid vacation. Perhaps I'm just bitter about the time I was sent home for listening to a DFW interview on Bookworm because it was 'spreading liberal propaganda in the workplace.'
Disclaimer #2: 1 star is probably too harsh, but I really wanted to try writing an angry rant review for once. Sorry, I'm most likely the asshole in this situation.

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers

Atlas Shrugged is a flawed epic, strident with a swaggering ambition, yet almost fable-like in its overly simplistic social and economic criticisms.

This is more of a philosophical, social commentary than a literary monument. The characterization is where it fails; Rand draws stick figures for antagonists: caricatures, strawmen to act as foil to her politico-economic-social vehicle. This is the book that made everyone mad in the late fifties: progressive liberals were spurned due to its vitriolic anti-government stance and conservatives stayed away in droves due to Rand’s over the top atheism.

As provocative and controversial as it is, I wondered at the society that had produced Rand and marveled at the influence she had on our culture since its publication. I have read many controversial books, and have wondered how many critics have actually read the work; Atlas Shrugged makes me wonder how many fans have actually read it.

Rand would no doubt be critical of big business today with its corporate dollar laden cushions and aristocratically removed “leadership”. Rand’s libertarianism shares with Sinclair’s socialism in that it looks good in print.

The length? Yep, it’s a 1300 plus page monster. Rand forces her readers to be submerged, to live in the dystopian wasteland for two or three months to fully comprehend her vision.

Finally I am left with a feeling, an assurance, that I do not like Ms. Rand and don't care for her arrogance and her casual dismissal of much of what is good in society.

*** 2021 - thought about this and have decided that even if I don't care for Rand, disagree with much of her ideas, I did like parts of this book

Hey, if everybody acts like a total dick to everybody else, then everybody will be happy. Good call, Ayn.