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.

A Modest Proposal

I'd give this book 10 stars, but it only gets five, because really, Ayn didn't have the courage of her convictions. She wussed out at the end and gave in to EVIL Liberal Blackmail. The problem with Atlas Shrugged is that it doesn't go far enough. And so, to correct that, here's an addendum, a modest proposal to supplement Ayn's book.

We're taxing the wrong people. Why are we taxing rich people more than poor people? Rich people don't need government services. If they want a highway, they'll build it themselves. If they need electricity, they'll build a god damn dam. It's poor people that need the government to build these things for them. So, the tax structure should work this way:
-- Everyone in the bottom half of income earners pays 50% tax.
-- Those in the top sixth decile pay 40%.
-- Those in the top seventh decile pay 30%.
-- Those in the top eighth decile pay 20%.
-- Those in the top ninth decile pay 10%.
-- And those in the top tenth decile pay nothing.

This will encourage those lazy bums at the bottom to slave for rich people. After all, it's by slaving away and working hard for them that they can eventually become rich too. It's coddling them otherwise.

Why this tax structure? It's logical isn't it? It's RICH PEOPLE that create jobs. Ergo, the more money they have, the more jobs they will create. They are the Job Creators! We DEPEND on them for the jobs. Instead of taxing them we should be eternally thankful to them for even Existing.

But even this, EVEN THIS, fails to FULLY recognise how brilliant and innovative and hard working Rich People are. Without them, we'd all be living in mud huts and eating each other to stay alive. Clearly, it's NOT enough to NOT tax them. No, if they are in the top 5% of income earners, we should PAY THEM to stay in our country. Why, just their very presence in a country will mean that its inhabitants will get rich. It's that Well-Documented, Scientifically Proven Trickle-Down Effect.

How much should we pay? Obviously, the answer is to let the Market decide: governments should bid against each other in an open auction. Highest bidder wins. And clearly this has to be done as often as the Rich People want to change their country of residence. After all, you can't expect them to just stay in one country all their life. That would be a Fetter on Market Forces! (--booooooo!--)

Countries should COMPETE to attract rich people to their shores. Cypress giving them grief? Why the UK will PAY them GBP1 million to come over. Hell, don't go to the UK! We'll pay GBP1 trillion AND sweeten it with a line of grateful poor people lying down at the landing strip for them to walk over so that they don't soil their gold Gucci shoes on our unworthy soil.

And for those at the top 1%? Well, nothing's too good for them. No point offering them money since they make more than what any country can offer anyway. No, for them, we'll offer money AND a line of poor people AND control of the government. See a law they don't like? Governments will change it for them. See laws that need to be put in place? Governments had damn well vote them in if they know what's good for them.

Oh, and that nonsense about power corrupting doesn't apply to Rich Job Creators. THEY are subject to the Discipline of the Market. That Invisible Hand will come down and smack them upside down if they try anything funny. We don't need governments. Governments are for those rotten horrible poor people. The Invisible Hand keeps Rich Job Creators honest, hardworking, and competitive. They wouldn't dream of selling fraudulent financial instruments, or food that poisons you, or buildings that collapse, or lie about the value of their companies. Nobody would buy their products if they did that you see. It's only when Big Brother Governments intervene that such things happen. It's only when Big Brother Governments that think they know better and force them to obey laws (--booooooo!--) that faulty, dangerous bridges or aircraft get built, or carcinogens get dumped into rivers.

All hail Rich People! Without Them, life would be just shit. Civilisation Would Not Exist! Amen!

Update (20 Jan 2014)

You think this review is just kidding around? Fact is, we already live in an Atlas Shrugged world: In a world of 7 billion and more, 85 people (0.000001% of the world's population) own more than 50% of the rest. Think about it, if YOU became that rich and that powerful, once you got there, why WOULDN'T you do everything you could to make sure the rest would stay there and not pose a threat to your wealth? Why WOULD you let the system that allowed you to get to the top allow someone else to dethrone you? Ayn Rand would be SO proud.

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 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.

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, and if it were only about that, I’d be writing a kinder review ... because some of her ideas make sense.

For instance, that competent people could get fed up with incompetent people making unreasonable demands on them that they’d just drop everything and leave? I get that. I’ve been one of those fed-up people, and in companies bought out by incompetents, smart people either leave in disgust or get fired for stupid reasons, resulting in a brain drain, which could be bad for a company. This happens on a small scale, however, and to a limited degree, contained within the company and affecting only a fraction of the staff.

Yet Ayn Rand takes this small universal phenomenon and applies it to the entire world, and not just to a limited degree but taken further so that the U.S. is practically demolished--all travel, communication, order, and power grids destroyed, supposedly by incompetence--before the competent folk come back to rebuild, which is ridiculous because it ignores so much involved in the lifeblood of a country, its culture, its economy, and its legal processes. And it ignores human psychology. Even if we all subscribed to the Randian philosophy, I somehow doubt that we’d all let the world go to hell--people starving, rioting, disappearing, dying, and structures collapsing into rubble--just to make a point with those who oppose us. It seems unreasonably cruel.

So why is it that Rand’s characters would run to save a blast furnace but not millions of starving people?

I understand how the author feels about charity--in some respects, I feel the same way; I much prefer giving to those who are as deserving as they are needy, would rather avoid enabling those who by indulging in bad behavior might abuse other people’s generosity, and find it a touch distasteful when people outright solicit me in the name of charity--but I fail to understand how her characters can wholly ignore the needs of society and not only completely withdraw their contribution to the economy but also actively and deliberately set out to kill the economy through piracy and destruction. It stinks of vigilantism, where people outraged with the lawbreakers set out to break the laws themselves, all in the name of justice, like stooping to the level of murderers and looters by killing and stealing from those who kill and steal. Only comic book heroes get to do that, so like Rand’s heroes seem. I know that was her intention, but I don't have to like it. The book vies to be heavier than the yellow pages, and yet she has heroes I would have preferred to meet within the very slim and colorful volume of a comic book. It doesn’t seem right.

What bothers me most is that her heroes are flawless by her standards, her villains wholly lacking in any virtues. She makes a lousy devil’s advocate because she fails in presenting the other side of any argument in a convincing way. When one of her heroes gets into a debate with anyone, the hero is always articulate, deliberate, reasonable, rational, and completely unflappable, however much like religious fervor his needlessly long speeches might sound--whereas the opposition always stutters, blusters, whines, complains, and gets utterly confused or bemused by the hero’s arguments. None of the opposition’s arguments make any sense or are any good, and not only do the motivations behind their actions seem forced, but the stupidity of their motivations also seem forced, as if in order to make her protagonists the epitome of rational thought, Rand must remove all traces of rational thought from her antagonists.

In war, a good general thinks like the enemy, anticipates his moves, and wins by besting the enemy’s thoughtful strategy with his own. In Atlas Shrugged, however, Rand does away with the whole Know Thine Enemy concept and instead says, “Let’s just assume the enemy is abysmally stupid,” and then goes from there ... the implication being that anyone who disagrees with her philosophy must be lacking in common sense, so it takes her no effort to defend her views. Her dissenters might actually have valid points to make, but who is she to entertain that fact? She has so much conviction in her own beliefs, why bother with anyone else’s? It’s like being a medieval general in the Children’s Crusade. We have the might because we have the right. Never mind the reality.

Which is? The kind of laissez-faire capitalism that the author so obviously espouses is not the best way. Russian-born Rand barely escaped communism, so I presume that because she saw one political extreme work badly, she went for the other extreme. Her hero John Galt preaches that it’s evil to compromise, so I can only assume that Rand would see any moderate view between the two as a BAD thing. Never mind the proof that history has provided that the middle ground works better than the extremes.

Another bothersome bit about this book was that the heroes had all the incentive and energy to destroy everything that they had worked so hard to build and then to rebuild elsewhere as much of what they had just destroyed. They also had the patience and certainty to wait out the long years of all this activity, until the culmination of all their hopes and goals. All that, and YET, they couldn’t be bothered to work towards having the kind of government they wanted WITHOUT all that destructive behavior. They are, after all, prime movers--wealthy, intelligent, capable, and powerful--but they can’t team up to lobby against income taxes and for deregulation? They can’t form a political party, win offices, propose and pass laws that would be beneficial to them? Come on. Really?

They spout this work-to-make-life-easier philosophy, but their actions contradict their creed. Galt differentiates between the looters who want to destroy and die and the producers who want to produce and live, and yet here are these heroic producers, actively destroying every productive endeavor in the country, most especially their own. What twisted logic. What hypocrisy. Like the child who cries, “If you won’t play my way, I’ll take my ball and leave.”

Then there’s the unrealistic way that the heroes respond. Three men are in love with Dagny Taggart, and she sleeps with each of them in turn--yet not one of the three are jealous of the others; in fact, they all become close friends, each admiring the others. And not one of the prime movers is angry with the others who left everyone in the outside world high and dry. Only briefly is Rearden angry with d’Anconia over the copper ore, but then he comes around and forgives him for it, then goes further and thanks him for it. Not one of the businessmen blames or resents the others for leaving the country to crumble and for making their own struggle difficult. If they had all stayed put and campaigned for power, they all might have won without destroying the country first. But not one of them asks, “Is all this necessary?” Instead, they blame the “looters” for the country’s dystopian state, never for a moment considering what their own actions might have contributed to it.

Another puzzle? The suicide of Mrs. James Taggart. Mrs. Taggart is of the same mind as Dagny ... and yet she fears her own shadow. If people who subscribe to Rand’s views have so much self-esteem and a will to live, why does Mrs. Taggart bow to her husband, doubt her own opinions and judgment, and then go off and kill herself? It makes as much sense as the prime movers having so much self-esteem that instead of fighting for what they want in the outside world, they go and hide in the mountains.

Yet another puzzle? The villains’ reaction to Galt. Taggart hates him instantly, though he’d never met him before. Rand justifies it, but such a hatred can only be personal, and Galt is a stranger to Taggart. Up until they capture him, he’s been nothing but a name in a rhetorical question. So where do they get the idea that Galt is anyone great? By his radio speech alone? Galt had left the world before he made his bones, so he hadn’t actually proven himself to them. He might have invented a wonderful motor, but it was never patented, sold, and used in the outside world. So all they had was Galt’s word, and from that alone they want him to save the economy. Does that make sense?

For villains with no self-esteem, they sure had the gall to think they could run the country well. For people who preached self-sacrifice, they sure held on to the reins of power with an obstinacy that screamed, “Mine! Mine! Mine!” In my experience, people with no self-esteem, who speak against selfishness, tend to defer such power to others, but perhaps I misunderstand. 30 long chapters full of circuitous and repetitive explanations tend to muddle things. Oh, the inanity of “Existence exists.”

Particularly cringe-worthy was the rescue operation, where the heroes’ social engineering stunts to save Galt consisted of lame arguments that actually stymied the guards. That had as much authenticity as a James Bond villain taking the time to tie Bond up in some elaborate death trap while revealing all his evil, deadly plans.

I did enjoy Rand’s literary style and narrative descriptions. It’s wordy and over the top, but the book was visually rich. I could easily see the world that she built. I just couldn’t understand it. A challenging book, if somewhat tedious.

Finished reading July 25, 2008.

I’m not going to write a big review for a big book. The thought of it is daunting and the return minimal. What I will say is there are parts of this book I loved and parts that made me cringe but the enjoyment outweighed the discomfort.