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

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

----

See also:
• http://www.accreditedonlinecolleges.c...
• http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/a...

I did not like this at all. In fact, it was painful to read. It's a story about the downward spiral of politics, economics, and industry. In between all this there's personality conflicts, interpersonal problems, romance (if you want to call it that), and other tedious things to read through.

I felt the author was trying to convey a philosophical standpoint through a boring plot. I also thought the story was preachy as trying to serve as a warning about the negative effects of government takeover of business. The book is not necessarily anti-government but it comes close.

The plot was way too long and the book could have been reduced by several hundred pages, even cut in half.

I didn't like this. If you like a long, drawn-out, and even boring story. Overall it was dry and monotonous. Thanks!

Muy buena obra...grande; genial! Siempre he sido un gran seguidor del objetivismo de Ayn Rand, pero con esta obra, tal y como he leído en otras reseñas, soy de la opinión de que ese súper hombre en específico, al que ella hace alusión aquí, tal y como lo describe no es realmente así. No existe! Es una novela capitalista hasta la médula. Resalta la virtud de los ricos y la élite mundial vs. la incapacidad de los pobres por lograr nada. Ojo! Ayn trata y plasma aquí las verdades, maneras y desquicies de la actuación del hombre empresario más allá del pleno deseo de ganar dinero, sino más y más poder.De poseer y dominar es de lo que se trata. Me quedo corto con esta reseña y os dejo con el resto de las que hay por aquí bastante más completas.Es una obra demasiado larga para nuestro tiempo. Los tiempos de hoy día y la sociedad te exigen escribir menos, pero al mismo tiempo contarlo todo! Y sí... sí se puede. Muy buena obra: fría y calculadora. De todas formas ese capitalismo duro pero en el que se debe anteponer la honorabilidad de las personas y la equidad en el reparto del mercado está muerto! El capitalismo de hoy es esclavista hasta la médula y el poder se reparte más que nunca entre unos pocos clanes ( multinacionales). Qué diría la gran Ayn si de entre los muertos resucitase?! En mi opinión, una Biblia para aquellos a los que no les importan ni los pobres, ni los que carecen de talento para trascender en la sociedad. Un clásico de 4,5 puntos!

Would you like to hear the only joke I've ever written? Q: "How many Objectivists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?" A: (Pause, then disdainfully) "Uh...one!" And thus it is that so many of us have such a complicated relationship with the work of Ayn Rand; unabashed admirers at the age of 19, unabashedly horrified by 25, after hanging out with some actual Objectivists and witnessing what a--holes they actually are, and also realizing that Rand and her cronies were one of the guiltiest parties when it came to the 1950s "Red Scare" here in America. Here in Rand's second massive manifesto-slash-novel, we follow the stories of a number of Titans of the Industrial Age -- the big, powerful white males who built the railroad industry, the big, powerful white males who built the electrical utility companies -- as well as a thinly-veiled Roosevelt New Deal administration whose every attempt to regulate these Titans, according to Rand, is tantamount evil-wise to killing and eating babies, even when it's child labor laws they are ironically passing. Ultimately it's easy to see in novels like this one why Rand is so perfect for late teenagers, but why she elicits eye rolls by one's mid-twenties; because Objectivism is all about BEING RIGHT, and DROPPING OUT IF OTHERS CAN'T UNDERSTAND THAT, and LET 'EM ALL GO TO HELL AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, without ever taking into account the unending amount of compromise and cooperation and sometimes sheer altruism that actually makes the world work. Recommended, but with a caveat; that you read it before you're old enough to know better.

In early 1945, Ayn Rand embarked on the work which would eventually be considered her literary masterpiece. With a working title of The Strike, she diligently filled numerous notebooks, detailing her characters, plot, and theme, amongst others. Not for an audience, "but strictly for herself--that is, for the clarity of her own understanding," writes her literary executor, Leonard Peikoff.
"These journals are also a fascinating record of the step-by-step birth of an immortal work of art."


The opening sentence is one of sheer brilliance. The question, "Who is John Galt?," reels the reader in instantaneously, and is very reluctant to let up. The question really resonates. Partly due to its simplicity, Rand's detail orientated, incredibly vivid prose kept me reading, completely in awe of her skillful way with with words. More importantly, the classic inquiry is voiced time and again, which serves to further elevate the overall mystery and suspense, without becoming tedious.


The novel is populated with several diverse, well-developed characters. One such individual, Dagny Taggart, is a personal favorite. Superficiality aside, I love her for her unwavering convictions and determination, despite the fact that her somewhat shady actions oftentimes prove detrimental to her reputation (not that she cares.) I truly admire her, not solely for her bravery, but also for her flaws.


According to Rand's notes, "..the prime movers going on strike" is "the actual heart and center of the novel." (Per her husband's suggestion in 1956, she changed the title to Atlas Shrugged.) With that in mind, I wholeheartedly agree with her estimation. Its basic premise revolves around the industrialists, or 'prime movers,' and their stand against the nation's greedy politicians.


Throughout my reading of Atlas Shrugged, I was consistently amazed by its relevance, even today, 56 years after publication. For instance, there's an almost overwhelming darkness to Rand's world. Much of that bleakness stems from a declining economic state. There are no middle-class; employment is scarce; only the elite can afford new automobiles (I don't even think that new vehicles are in production.) All in all, a general sense of hopelessness. Despair. Fear.



With the discovery of a motor, dubbed "the motor of the world," the story takes a drastic change in Part II, an essential change for the better, IMO.
Additional characters are introduced, older ones are further developed, and more intrigue abounds. Virtually every aspect seems to be in a perpetual downward spiral.


Then, in Part III, things grow increasingly worse, while coming full-circle all at once.


As captivating as that all sounds, Rand blatantly ignores the most basic rule of good writing: "Show, Don't Tell." She breaks the cardinal rule, on countless occasions. For the most part, this is done to inform the reader of the deteriorating state of her world. If she had "shown" every significant event happening throughout the U.S., the novel would have become bogged down, and as a result, drag on an additional 200 pages.
I am, however, a firm believer in summarization. She could have, perhaps should have, refrained from "telling" through dialogue. As interesting as said dialogue is, much of it should have been omitted.
A significantly less verbose prose would have resulted in an easier, smoother-flowing story, thus strengthened the novel drastically. I really wish she would have been less wordy, and by doing, incorporate additional, more telling scenes.


Particularly in Parts II and III, Rand is very didactic. This is also a big literary no-no. She uses multiple characters to express the author's personal beliefs, commonly known as Objectivism. Essentially, she believed in selfishness as virtue.

Incredibly, her characters don't read as caricatures to me. They are clearly voicing the author's beliefs (as mentioned above,) but at the same time, they felt completely real. I cared about them, grieved alongside them, rooted for them. In essence, I joined their epic journey. I don't know if I've ever gotten to know such characters, in quite the same way.

Here's a helpful link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectiv...


For further insight into Rand's mind-set and philosophy, check out the complete Mike Wallace interview, conducted in 1959, two years after the publication of Atlas Shrugged. Thank you, again, to my good friend, Jessa Caliver.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ooKsv...



Now, prior to arriving at the denouement, I admittedly had my reservations in regards to a satisfying ending. This epic tome is wholly unpredictable, and so it really could have ended in a variety of ways. Fortunately, the final three chapters (90 pages) literally catapults everything into full disarray. There were even a few jaw-dropping moments. I wasn't a bit disappointed.




I found the final section to be utterly breathtaking. Beautiful. It's a very suiting ending, one I wouldn't change for the life of me.

Just take a look at the first paragraph, and judge for yourself.


"The music of Richard Halley's Fifth Concerto streamed from his keyboard, past the glass of the window, and spread through the air, over the lights of the valley. It was a symphony of triumph. The notes flowed up, they spoke of rising and they were the rising itself, they were the essence and the form of upward motion, they seemed to embody every human act and thought that has ascent as its motive. It was a sunburst of sound, breaking out of hiding and spreading open. It had the freedom of release and the tension of purpose. It swept space clean and left nothing but the joy of an unobstructed effort. Only a faint echo within the sounds spoke of that from which the music had escaped, but spoke in laughing astonishment at the discovery that there was no ugliness or pain, and there never had to be. It was the song of an immense deliverance."


Beautiful, isn't it?






I'm kind of going through withdrawals, in a way that hasn't saddened me in quite the same way before.... I miss the characters so very much..
It's like severing a lifelong friendship...

When I first put this book on my "to-read" list, I really had no idea what it was. Now that I do know, I recken it would be a collosal waste of my time, and just make my head explode from seething anger.......

But again, if I suffered through it, I could write an amazing vitriolic review that would gain many of votes.


What to do, what to do.

Dirty underpants.

When I was nineteen, Atlas Shrugged really spoke to me. Which is to say that when I was nineteen, I was a fucking idiot.

Ayn Rand presents some ideas that can appear unique and fresh, going as they do against much of traditional cultural thinking. These ideas are especially compelling to young people who hold a supremely inflated opinion of themselves and who have no idea about how the world operates. She places her cardboard characters into situations so distorted, and makes them act in ways so divorced from reality, that it becomes possible for the naive and gullible reader to be deluded into considering the ideas plausible. However Rand's philosophy of Objectivism is so myopic, narrow and poorly thought out, that even the tiniest leap of intelligent critical thinking will send the thing tumbling into a heap.

Two stars only because actually taking the time to read this garbage is an inoculation against the ideas of extreme libertarians who believe that the invisible hand of the free market would deliver the greatest outcomes for society, if only it weren't hampered by all that pesky regulation.

If you must read Ayn Rand, start with Anthem. It's awful, but it's wicked short and it'll give you an idea about what Rand's like. (She is awful.) Move on (if you still must) to The Fountainhead, which is her least bad book, and just look this up on Wikipedia. It's way too long. There's a famous 70-page speech by John Galt near the end that's famous because literally no one has ever read it. You know who writes 70-page political screeds? The Unabomber and Ayn Rand and that's it.

Rand's political views are one thing, and that one thing is inane, but she's also a mostly dreadful writer - boring at best, wincingly amateur at worst - and her characters, particularly the women, are sock puppets. Rand has very little going for her as an author of books.

Here's the problem with Rand's philosophy. Let's take John Galt's utopia, a group of high achievers taking care of themselves. Sounds fun! What happens when two of us have a kid who turns out not so bright, or lazy? That seems inevitable, and what do we do? Kick him out? That won't happen; it's not how parents work. We will have to take care of that good-for-nothing kid. And over time, we'll have them at a regular clip, because that's how humans work, and eventually we'll end up with a society just like ours, where there are some high achievers and some low achievers and we must make decisions about how the fortunate among us take care of the less fortunate.

What I'm getting at here is that any decent philosophy must envelop all humans, the awesome ones and the not-so-awesome ones. Libertarianism doesn't deal with that, which is why it's naive and stupid.

And of course we haven't even touched on racism - there are only white people in Rand's books - or other social injustice. Real societies must also deal with the fact that many humans - even high-functioning ones! - have bad judgment.

When you take these things into account, I don't know about you but I end up with a messy, imperfect society where few people are perfectly happy: we have to take more than is comfortable from the fortunate, and we have to give less than is comfortable to the less fortunate, and it's all kindof a pain in the ass. But that's how humans work, and to imagine less is a failure of imagination.

I bought this book during my college days. Our lady professor in World Literature class was obviously an Ayn Rand fan. We were required to choose and read one of her books. So, to impress her, I bought 4 of her novels: The Fountainhead (3 stars), We the Living (3 stars) and Anthem (2 stars) and Atlas Shrugged (2 stars). I finished reading the first three during that trimester but I did not even get past page 10 of this book. That was more than two decades ago. My copy of this book languished in my bookshelves since then and I only picked this up in April this year when a friend suggested that we read this together as buddies. To finally put a cap on my Ayn Rand readings, I agreed. However, he lost interest so I stopped reading this again only to decide a month after that I wanted to finally complete my readings of Ayn Rand fiction works, so I better continue and finish this book. So I did.

Unlike when I read The Fountainhead in my twenties, I now found Ayn Rand's Objectivism or the philosophy of ego, too elementary. The way she presented the opposing forces in the society, their effects on economy, is too simplistic as if there is a clear demarcation between good and evil. The way she developed her characters was akin to reading populist novels like those of John Grisham and James Patterson. The characters seem to be artificial and you would feel nothing for them: not even sympathy, not even anger. There's nothing wrong with that if it this is a New York Times Bestseller, but I always thought that, even during my college years, Ayn Rand is an important classic literature writer and she is literary rather than commercial. Maybe because she was my World Lit professor's favorite.

Individualism vs objectivism? I think we are not supposed to choose one over the other. This is a propaganda material, at least in Ayn Rand's mind, as she expressed her objections against Communism during the Cold War. It's been two decades since the fall of the Berlin Wall, so the question is whether this philosophy of her still applies. In fairness to her, yes it still does. However, I think we are not as helpless as during the Cold War when everything seemed to be anchored between what US and USSR were doing. You know the feeling that all of us could be blown up when the nukes go off the air and it would be goodbye world for everyone. I think that, because of the age of computers, our voice can be heard and be able to make some difference. In other words, there are some good things about capitalism, there are some good things about socialist government. All we have to do is to have the right mix and that the government should issue relevant and applicable fiscal policies to control or pump up the economy. I know that this is easier said than done but you don't need Ayn Rand to realize this. All you have to do is to read some basic books on Economics. You don't need to spend a couple of months of your dear life to finish this 1,074-page overpraised book.

Still I am happy I finally finished this book. I can now give it away to my enemy and let him suffer in agony staring at the book and figuring out when he'll have the time to start and finish all those gruesome pages.

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

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

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

If only she had us all her irritating, long winded, repetative tales of woe for the monied class of brilliantly handsome, powerful super geniuses.

She bases all of this on her objectivist claptrap, claiming rationality as her own private high ground. But this is a general critique of her works. Specifically this book is completely overwritten and serves as flak cover for all the wrong people. The Jack Welch's and Phil Knights that imagine themselves to be the heroes of this book.

This book has done more to create a generation of self interested greedy mindless zombies than any other book I can think of.