Ayn Rand's characters are almost completely defined by the extent to which they embrace her beliefs. A good guy by definition is someone who agrees with her; a bad guy someone who dares to have a different point of view. For all the lip-service Rand pays to individualism, she brooks no dissent from her heroes; none of her so-called individualists ever expresses a point of view significantly different from hers.

To illustrate the gulf between Rand's characters and human reality, consider this behavior. When Dagny Taggart meets Hank Rearden, she dutifully becomes his property, for no other reason than that he's the most Randian male around. When John Galt arrives, ownership of the prize female transfers from Rearden to Galt, because Galt is the more Randian of the two. Does it ever occur to Hank to be resentful or jealous? Does Taggart experience loyalty or regret? Might Taggart love Rearden despite his lesser Randness? No, those are all things that human beings might feel.

(In a related departure from reality, sex in Randland is more or less indistinguishable from rape. Foreplay? Romance? Capitalists don't have time for that commie nonsense.)

The real focus of Atlas Shrugged is to extoll Rand's philosophy. (Not to debate it, since no one in Randland with any any intelligence or competence could have a different point of view.) About Rand's philosophy I'll just make two points (which I'm not going to bother providing evidence for at the moment).

The first is that, like most social Darwinists, Rand fell short in her understanding of natural selection. Her philosophy was largely based on the false belief that nature invariably favors individual selfishness. In reality, evolution has made homo sapiens a social animal; cooperation and compassion are very human traits. More importantly, even if cold selfishness were man's nature in the wild, it would not necessarily follow that that would be the best way for us to behave in our semi-civilized modern condition.

The second point is that, contrary to Rand's belief, pure laissez-faire capitalism never works; it invariably leads to exploitation of the poor and middle class and to environmental catastrophe. The best economic system that has ever been devised -- so far -- is a mixture of capitalism and socialism.

Based on everything I've heard about Rand, in conversation and online, from her supporters and her detractors, or in interviews with the author or articles by her, I feel there is no reason to believe that this book or any of her others contain anything that is worth reading, not even as 'cautionary example'. Nothing about it sounds the least bit appealing or reasoned.

Watching interviews of Rand, herself, I wonder if she wasn't somewhere on the autism spectrum--her entire Objectivist philosophy seems like the sort of approach autistic people have to develop to deal with a world full of emotions, sympathies, and signals they cannot recognize or comprehend. The fact that this philosophy has since been picked up by Silicon Valley culture, itself notorious for high levels of autism, seems logically to follow.

Likewise, it would have an appeal for certain types of sociopaths, who also do not feel strong sympathy or emotional connection. Objectivism can thus be seen as a kind of justification for the lives they choose to leave: isolating themselves, putting work and financial achievement above social life, using others to get ahead, then blaming them for being emotionally open, and hence susceptible to manipulation.

It's unfortunate that Rand's method focuses on brutalizing, blaming, and denying people who are unlike her, instead of working with them and trying to understand them--recognizing and cherishing those differences, the fact that a society requires many different types of people to run effectively.

But then, looking at her life, and her inner circle--the isolation, disappointment, depression, and awkward love affairs as depicted in something like Adam Curtis' Documentary n  All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Gracen, one sees a Rand who is wounded, alienated, and fragile--a far cry from the philosophy of power and dominance she wrapped around herself like armor--so of course she would lash out at the world and blame it.

There is also a curious parallel between her representation of the world and the moral certitude and will to power of modern fantasy novels. She seems to engage in the same sort of 'worldbuilding', where characters and events are structured to uplift a certain philosophy of life, where the story is abandoned for long passages to explain in minute detail the finer points of the constructed world.

As such, it's not surprising that she attracts a similar fanbase with her doorstop novels: a group of privileged middle class white folks who feel disaffected and are looking for a mythology structured around them and their struggles, which justifies their biases, privilege, and preferred way of life.

So, as nothing about any of her works has ever sounded appealing or interesting to me, and since my goal here is to read as many good books as possible and to do my best to avoid bad ones, it seems best to give Rand a wide berth.

How do I rate this book??? I believe that while Ms.Rand has some huge holes in her reasoning she also had some insights. I think this is a book everyone should take a look at (especially now). I would hope we can differentiate between the valuable and the dross. Read this book (and her other works) with an open and also a critical mind. She has some important insights into human nature and the way humans think and the way the world actually works. She simply carries some of it to a place where (in my humble opinion) it doesn't apply. For example, those who produce will come to a point where they will stop allowing themselves to be stripped of the rewards of their work and thought, it's human nature. On the other hand her view of those who need help and the spiritual side of life are somewhat wanting. She seems to be heavily influenced by Nietzsche though I'm not sure of that.

As to the story itself...I find that I can't really get along with Dagny (Taggart) who is I assume Ms. Rand's "alter ego". Her life in many ways reflected Dagny's I suppose. One thing that stood out for me throughout the book was Dagny's penchant for "trading up" each time she meets a man who's "more deserving of her". Apparently little things like "given word" and so on aren't all that important to her in her personal life.

While I can see Ms. Rand's point of view often I can also see huge flaws in it. In Objectivism (that is in her view if being an Objectivistfor example no difference is (or seems to be seen) seen in willing altruism and forced redistribution wealth. Any aid given is seen as detrimental and a weakness. In the story the movers and shakers of the world (especially one) have had enough and leave the takers the Collectivists to fend for themselves. I think you'll see some real insights here and I think if you think about it you'll also see the logical flaws.

To sum up, I think Ms. Rand has some really valuable insights and I highly recommend you read the book. I simply advise that we all read this and everything else with an open and thoughtful mind.

Rant from ages past

uff..so tiring!! After having plodded through more than 700 pages I couldn't go on reading it any more. Ayn Rand sees everything in black and white. The message of the book seems to be that any character who doesn't completely agree with her point of view doesn't deserve to be alive. Except a handful of Ayn Rand-ish characters, no one is worth a damn. And all she does is preach her extremist philosophy throughout the book. Once a character starts talking he would ramble on for pages and pages making the same point. Can't she spew out her fundae in a subtle manner or does she believe that we readers being normal people(i.e; different from her idea of a perfect individual) are too dumb to understand her message in any other way.

Guest column by The Sexual Intellectual, Quink Magazine

Ayn Rand, that "objectivist" proponent of selfishness...

In the idiotic Ayn Rand's pugnacious and polemical novel Atlas Shrugged, a book "nearly perfect in its immorality", according to Gore Vidal, the verb to give is forbidden. Her work is about self-centeredness, plain and simple, a song to the snatch, the shove, and the grab. In her earlier novel The Fountainhead, her character Dominique Francon would much prefer passively to sit by and watch every last one of architect Howard Roark's buildings explode rather than see their balconies hung with diapers. The "heroic WASP ideal" in Rand's skewed view excluded virtually everything female, in fact...

He says some more pleasant things about Ayn Rand in context of his essay, but let's just stick to her books here.

One day I will put up the full fire-spitting essay that the book deserves (pay no attention to almost-teenage ratings), for now a question:

Rand’s famous "hymn to money" from Atlas Shrugged says:

"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to become the means by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of other men. Blood, whips and guns or dollars. Take your choice-there is no other."

So Rand, your underlying premise is that the only choice is between direct and indirect relations of domination and exploitation? Be content with the choice of indirect exploitation?

"Shagged at Last (The Sequel)"

Written while she was still alive, but published posthumously after her death in 1982, "Shagged At Last" is the posthumous sequel to Ayn Rand's greatest achievement and last work of fiction, "Atlas Shrugged" (not counting "Shagged At Last").

In this novel, she dramatizes the shortcomings of her unique Objectivist philosophy through an intellectual mystery story and magical mystery tour that intertwines sex, ethics, sex, metaphysics, sex, epistemology, sex, politics, sex, economics, sex, whatever and sex.

Reconsidering her worldview, she concludes that, in order to be truly beneficial to society individuals, sex must not be just the fun bit between the serious parts, it requires serious love action between the private parts.

In this sequel (which is the equal of the prequel to the sequel), Ayn Rand abandons Objectivism and embraces Sex Activism, without endorsing either Active Sexism or Subjectivism.

Likewise, she urges us to abandon the Protestant Work Ethic and embrace the Catholic Sex Ethic.

Her motto: No Safety Net, No Protection.


n  n


Where Have All the Objectivists Gone?

Set in the near-future [30 years after the time of writing in 1982] in a U.S.A. whose economy has collapsed as a result of the mysterious disappearance of leading innovators, industrialists, bankers, auditors, entrepreneurs, Republicans, bond-holders, futurists, financial advisers, chartered accountants and middle management after the re-election of a Democratic President, this novel presents an astounding panorama of human life:

...from the playboy genius who becomes a worthless and unproductive executive in charge of a global television network...

...to the great steel industrialist who does not know that he is working for his own destruction as well as that of all those around him in rural China...

...to the intellectual property pirate and paedophile who becomes a neo-conservative philosopher and born-again, forgive-again tele-evangelist...

...to the woman who runs a transcontinental railroad into the ground and under the river via the world's longest, most expensive architecturally-designed and least utilised tunnel...

...to the lowest paid track worker in her train tunnels who can't afford to come to work by private or public transport, and must walk 20 miles and swim across the river for the privilege of a fair day's work and an unfair day's pay so that his wife can be treated for inoperable cancer and herpes, and each of their children can afford an iPad and unlimited cable access so they can watch the film of the book online on the website of a global television network managed by a worthless and unproductive executive...

...all because they have fallen victim to the political philosophy of Objectivism and have not discovered the pleasures of unprotected tantric sex.

Spoiler

If you want to know who the female protagonist has deep and meaningless sex with, read the book or open the following spoiler at your own peril (to avoid disappointment, don't view the spoiler. Now.):

Shouldn't it be "If you want to know with whom the female protagonist has deep and meaningless sex"? Anyway, read the book.


Get Your Copy Free or Pay for It and Get a 200% Tax Deduction

Peopled by larger-than-life heroes and villains, charged with larger than life accoutrements, struggling with towering questions of good and evil, and an adolescent's curiosity and enthusiasm for sex, "Shagged At Last" is a philosophical revolution told in the form of a soft-focus, hard-core action thriller with conveniently positioned tax-deductible PowerPoint slides explaining Objectivism from an historical point of view and revealing the correct use of all body parts from an hysterical point of view.

Disclaimer:

The televisualisation of the hysterical perspective is currently subject to the formalisation of contractual relations with Manny and Jessica Rabbit.



Ayn Rand Plays Lady Macbeth

You won't find in me
The milk of human kindness,
Just dire cruelty.



Only Her Self to Blame

Rand's philosophy
Fucked a whole generation
With its selfishness.



Turn Me On and Turn Me Off

Your fans are turned on
By Sex Objectivism
But it turns me off.

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

Socialists are scary. Socialists are frightening creatures who lurk in corners, waiting to pounce on you. They are unpredictable, they have curvature of the spine, and they often foam at the mouth.

This is a socialist:
n

Capitalists, on the other hand, are calm and rational beings who never lose their tempers. You can always trust a capitalist. And they are super easy to spot, too—just look for the hummingbirds who sew their clothes for them.

This is a capitalist:
n

Ayn Rand’s characters come in only two flavors, and which kind you get depends solely on the extent to which they embody her philosophical ideals. The capitalists (the “good guys”) are the moral heroes of the story, the ones who fight back against economic regulation. This regulation is seen as unwanted intervention, the government essentially trespassing on one’s property rights by means of unfair (unfair to the capitalists, I might point out) legislation. The “bad guys” are, of course, represented by the socialists—the ones passing the legislation, although Rand does a good job of throwing anyone else into this category who, while not active participants in passing these laws, may not be totally opposed to them, either.

The problem with all of this is the fact that her characters are not at all believable. They are robots who mechanically spew forth her inane drivel or, if they are of the other flavor, behave in a manner so utterly ridiculous as to demonstrate the rationality of the capitalist over the vicious, gun-toting socialist who’s come to rob your house, rape your Ma, and shoot your Pa. Rand is so egregious in the maltreatment of her antithetic characters that it’s almost laughable. Beyond that, the narrative itself is monotonous and repetitive. This is not exactly a beach read.

But even if I were to put all of that aside, I still wouldn’t be able to get over the fact that Rand’s argument here is to put an end to social collectivism of every form. That means: no social security, no unemployment insurance, no federally funded health care, no public roads, no public housing, no public education, no income taxes, no property taxes—does this not sound insane?! I get the whole “ooh” and “aah” aspect of libertarian freedoms, but I’m betting there wouldn’t be a lot of volunteers willing to relinquish their adequately funded public services on the basis of a free market economy. And ultimately, this is the fundamental principle on which Rand and I disagree. Although I do believe, and strongly, that the government should have no authority to interfere in the private lives of its citizens, do I think the government should also abstain from interfering in the regulation of the economy? Hellz, no! I want those corporate mother fuckers taxed and if that means Ima start foaming at the mouth, then so be it.

Ultimately, this novel is more absurdist fiction than dystopian fiction. Rand takes an all-in-or-all-out approach to problem solving; there can be no moral ambiguity—either you’re with her or you’re not, and I’m not. But what does she care? Rand is an unabashed admirer of the wealthy industrialist and it is for him that she bats her eyes and licks her lips, not for me.

With the recent bankruptcy of Sears which - under Edward Lampert - was managed on principles inspired by his love of Ayn Rand and Objectivism, where better place than a review of 'Atlas Shrugged' to celebrate the 'successes' of this widely loved libertarian philosophy.

Doesn't it fill you with confidence to know that Paul Ryan in the US and Sajid Javid, UK Home Secretary, are both great Ayn Rand fans?

Bankruptcy of Sears:

Salon: Ayn Rand Killed Sears
A great description of where Mr Lampert's Ayn Rand inspired business principles lead:

n  It got crazy. Executives started undermining other units because they knew their bonuses were tied to individual unit performance. They began to focus solely on the economic performance of their unit at the expense of the overall Sears brand. One unit, Kenmore, started selling the products of other companies and placed them more prominently that Sears’ own products. Units competed for ad space in Sears’ circulars, and since the unit with the most money got the most ad space, one Mother’s Day circular ended up being released featuring a mini bike for boys on its cover. Units were no longer incentivized to make sacrifices, like offering discounts, to get shoppers into the store.

Sears became a miserable place to work, rife with infighting and screaming matches. Employees focused solely on making money in their own unit ceased to have any loyalty the company or stake in its survival. Eddie Lampert taunted employees by posting under a fake name on the company’s internal social network.n

Bloomberg (subscription only): At Sears, Eddie Lampert's Warring Divisions Model Adds to the Troubles

n  To revive the retailer, Chairman and CEO Eddie Lampert introduced an unorthodox strategy: Every executive must fight to win. So far, the biggest loser is Searsn

Galt's Gulch, Chile - a Randian paradise

One view is that this is a Randian success, as one group of sociopathic conmen successfully defrauded another, larger group of people. Perhaps those more expert than me on Ayn Rand can comment on this view?

Vice News: Atlas Mugged: How a Libertarian Paradise in Chile Fell Apart

n  Two years after Galt's Gulch Chile was founded, the utopian project is mired in personal and legal conflicts and investors now claim that the guy in charge is a sociopath and a con man.n

Salon: Ayn Rand’s capitalist paradise lost: The inside story of a libertarian scam

n  Is it any wonder that a venture inspired by this book eventually defrauded its customers? And yet, despite the allegations against them, Gawker’s Adam Weinstein tells us that, “GGC developers will still sell you a 1,200-acre "Master Estate" for a mere $500,000. As long as you're also willing to extend GGC developers a $2 million ‘Founders Club’ loan along with that $500,000, which they'll totally pay back, they swear.” Weinstein snarks, “That silence you hear? That's the sound of Atlas shrugging.”n

There are many more Randian success stories - not least being Alan Greenspan's Ayn Rand inspired policies at the FED, which lead to the global financial crisis enriching a small group of psycopathic bankers. When I come across more I will be sure to add them.

Atlas shrugged and so did I. Sorry Hipsters, Alan Greenspan, I hated it.*

First of all I like trains. That may be the most retarded thing ever to start a review of this book, but I really do in a very serious way have a great love of railroads that I think ought to be taken in consideration when reviewing this book. I knew absolutely nothing about this book when I started reading it. Other than that a great deal of my friends either fervently loved it or were completely bored and disgusted by it, I knew relatively little about the premise or the details and was pleasantly surprised and excited to see a book centered around railroads! What fun!

This all leads to more serious matters to consider. First of all as a former business owner myself, and as someone who has had intricate dealings with issues concerning health and so forth I have some points to make.

Point 1: Ayn has created a stark and perhaps unrealistic overemphasis on "types" of characters, settings, and events in this book to help her make her point strong and well understood. I don't think this naturally leads to well rounded characters or a completely realistic plot as this is not typical of how real humans are or interact, but you can see that it was done with purpose and intent and I think it helps her get her message across, so lets leave the multi dimensionality that everyone has an issue with out of the equation when reviewing the work.

Point 2: Taking point one into consideration I asked myself if what she is proposing as the true "evils of society" are in fact concerns. The answer is unmistakably Yes Yes Yes! One need only to look at the past few years and see the bailouts in America to see that the government loves to wrap its sticky fingers around issues that it deems are for the "good of society" or the "good of the economy" or the "good of the nation" for that matter that is a further perpetuation of bad enterprise and bad business. I admit Obama had a hard situation to come into. He had two choices and neither of them were going to be pretty. Either let the companies seal their own doom as it were, spiraling the country into a huge economic crash because of the loss of such ventures and business or bail them out to stabilize the economy (always a good option when you want to get votes since your term is only so many years long) thus rewarding bad business and allowing poor businessmen to continue along a poorly constructed route, but allowing many to keep their jobs and their bank accounts.
Was Obama's choice a good one? I think in some ways it was. For the common people it was an excellent choice in the short term, whether they realize it or not. Though I have serious doubts as to whether this will not lead to more serious issues in the long run. The problem was the set up. The loans that were given were astronomical in relation to what many people should have been qualified for. The business were not strong enough to do well in the economy. If they had fallen it would have been terrible on the economy as a whole to be sure but it would have provided the way for new businesses, or better businesses to come in and take over thus rewarding good business and paving the way for stronger business in the future which would mean a stronger overall economy in the long run. What is the best call? It is always hard to say, but to say that Ayns ideas are of no consequence or not useful in the society in which we live is simply not the case.

Point 3: When you own your own business you are always bombarded by the legalities of not only the state and nation in which you live, but also the private interests of others around you. Everyone is looking to make money in the easiest way possible. The number of people willing to truthfully "work" towards this enterprise is astoundingly low. If the characters in this book make your skin crawl, meet business men and women in real life. Blackmail, extortion, and outright treachery abound. Even individuals with a good product, that is personally produced by them must struggle against the government and other interests (like in the book, many times against their own family). I have seen this first hand in my own life, but as a comparison read Dava Sobels "Longitude" and this sentiment can be felt with a great deal of vigor. What happened to earning something fair and outright? What in these cases is to be said about enterprise or the great undertakings of the mind? How much power and money allows you to bypass the government?

Point 4: I understand that competition is important and even necessary, that capitalism in and of itself leads to high productivity. On the other hand as someone who suffers from an illness that far outreaches my ability to pay for this illness for the term of my short life, I often get left out of this equation and can see in some ways the benefits of a more socialist outlook. This is why I made the choice to move to Australia. I want to work hard. I want to earn what I make. I want to be able to be a woman of enterprise, and accomplishment. I want to climb in the world. I have these aspirations, but the medical system in America is broken and there is no reasonable way for me to do so in the states. In the states I had to work three jobs to pay just for my medical and never amass anything for myself. Or I could have taken the easy route and worked zero jobs and collected a government check and had my bills paid for. I find this abhorrent and sick. I have no desire to live my life on the back of a corrupt system. I want to work for my own. I want to earn and succeed and I feel that the system is set up for you to lay down and let others do for you in these cases it is too much of a "need" based system as Ayn puts it. Hence I move to a country where medical is a non issue. Now I can work and amass what I will, and no one can take that from me. Now I have a chance at an actual life in which it is of my own making. This is one of the things that I think Ayn Rand is railing against in this book. Let us EARN our keep! We want to! I want to live in a world where hard work and industry matter, and not just in words and homage but in the reality of execution. I want this reality~!

This books makes you care and makes you think, whether or not all of the points are valid etc. is not really this issue here. At the end of the day making you see the darker parts of the world are just as important as our views of the light.

On other points about the book, Hank is a hunk as handsome as his metal and I want him! Yes to Hank! The descriptions were luminous though of course given the pages she used to accomplish this task one can hardly laud her for this. The ending was trite and stupid. I pity Ayn her ending, especially as I consider this a very enjoyable work.

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

This is the review most people didn’t even know they wanted to read. A review of one of the most talked about and polarizing classics of the 20th century…ATLAS SHRUGGED by Ayn Rand.

This review will pull no punches as it discusses all aspects of the novel and includes opinions that run the gamut from 5 stars of love to seething cauldron's of 1 star rage...and everything in between. Here is just a sampling of some of the views you can expect to find in the review experts are already calling “longer and more repetitive than the novel itself”:
 
5 STARS:

“This is a book that proudly celebrates both the individual and the potential for greatness inside all of us. It is a book of new and radical ideas being passionately expressed by someone who believes deeply in them. Whether you agree or disagree whole-heartedly or belong somewhere in the middle, it's right and proper to respect the passion and conviction that Ms. Rand feels for her subject.”
---Grand Moff Wilhuff Tarkin, FMR Governor,
Imperial Outlands Region in a Galaxy Far, Far Away
n  n

“Regardless of how you feel personally about the ideas expressed in this book, it seems clear and not subject to serious debate that the philosophy of objectivism created by Rand added an entirely new voice to the landscape of philosophical, economic and political debate. Call it controversial, call it inflammatory, even call it wrong, but it is impossible to call it irrelevant. There is little question that as a book of ideas, Atlas Shrugged is a monumental book and deserves its place as one of the most important books of the 20th Century...Ain't I right there Normie.”
tttttt ---Cliff Calvin, Postman, Boston, MA
n  n

1 STAR:

At the far other end of the spectrum are those that thought Atlas Shrugged was 1200 pages of mind-numbing, bowel churning, elitist tripe. Among these detractors was one P. Griffin from Quohog, RI, who had this to say:
n  n

Unfortunately, when pressed for specifics or examples to support his opinion, Mr Griffin screamed and ran away to hide
n  n

Also not a fan was one Jules Winnfield, an independent contractor from, according to him, “The Valley of Death” who had real problems with Rand’s prose which he found clunky and very unpolished. He summed up his opinion about Rand's writing ability as follows: n  n
 
4 STARS:

Back on the positive side, you will hear from more people who found Rand’s magnus opus to be powerful and something definitely worth reading......

“Ayn Rand was born in Russia and grew up witnessing first hand the failings of collectivism as well as many of its more brutal aspects enforced in the former U.S.S.R. Therefore, her passionate embrace of the “free market” and capitalism and the idea of rewarding the individual for excellence is certainly understandable in light of her origins. It is also true that Rand’s depiction of a dystopian future in which individual achievement and have been replaced by collectivism and distribution according to need has more than just passing relevance today. Whether or not you believe her vision is skewed or biased, there is still much that her book can add to the debate on the proper role of government in the life of the individual.”
tttttt---Gabe Kotter, School teacher, James Buchanan High School, Brooklyn, NY

“In my opinion, the MOST IMPORTANT lesson that can be taken from Atlas Shrugged is the concept that Rich, successful people are not evil simply because they are wealthy and are certainly not the enemy of the poor or the disadvantaged. There are GOOD and BAD in every economic layer in society and this bias just seems extremely destructive.***I know that wealthy people are an easy target for humor but when people actually believe that being wealthy makes someone “less moral” or “less good” it starts to sound eerily similar to when people used to say about other groups “There just not like us, there different.” Sorry, I can’t buy into that. People are people and everyone is entitled to being judged for who they are.”
ttttt---Mr. Hankey (aka The Christmas Poo) n  n

“Every person that ever gave me a job, an opportunity or the means to feed myself and provide for my family was WEALTHY by most peoples standards. Walk around your house and pick up the products that you use every day and that make your life easier and ask yourself how many of them were made by people who made a lot of money off them (my guess is most of them). The world we be a lot worse off without the inventors, the builders and the risk takers and they deserve our thanks and not our animosity....Nanu Nanu”
tttttt ---Mork, Ambassador from the Planet of Ork
n  n
  
2 STARS:
 
Of course, the negative reviews don't stop with the 1 star commentators. There were additional negative reactions raised about Atlas Shrugged and this review promises to tackle them in depth. One very controversial subject deals with attacks on Ayn Rands views on sexuality which are certainly on display in the novel. Comments about the sexual relationships described in the story being “odd” or “freaky” are not uncommon and some go so far as to accuse Rand of having a “rape fantasy fetish.” A. Powers from Great Britain, who was unable to divulge his exact occupation actually attacked Rand personally with this very blunt reaction to Atlas Shrugged’s sexual content.
n  n

A second, less controversial view but one that is probably far more relevant to a true analysis of this work is Rand’s consistent use of blatant and obvious “straw men” to support her argument. Many people have argued that for someone so passionate about her beliefs who is absolutely convinced of the rightness of her convictions, she sure felt the need to stock the book with a lot of easily dispatched "straw man” characters.

As I Amin from Uganda put it: “This was probably my biggest problem with the book. If [Rand] is so sure that her arguments are valid and correct, then why doesn’t she have the Rand characters (i.e., those espousing her opinions) debate against the best arguments that the ‘other side’ has to offer. Instead she has peopled her expository novel with ‘over the top’ caricatures of the socialist system so that they can easily tear them down. This does nothing but preach to the converted and has all the persuasive power of a political attack ad.”

Or, put another way, “I think there is a compelling debate in there somewhere. Unfortunately, Rand, Dum Dum that she is, decided to load the other side’s quiver with nothing but wet noodles and so comes off looking scared of a true debate.”
--Gazoo, Intergalactic Talking Head
 
Another cause of very negative reactions stems from the incredible amount of repetition and redundancy used by Rand in the stating of her opinions. State your opinion once and that is laudable. If it is overly complex, maybe you repeat it a second, even a third time. However, in a 1200 page novel when you have to listen to the EXACT SAME POINT made 10, 20 or even 30 times, you can cause your audience to become very irate and disenchanted. One disgruntled reader stopped reading the novel halfway through and said simply........
n  n

3 STARS

Finally, you will here from those who found both positive and negative qualities in Rand’s novel. Many found the prose less than noteworthy but were very taken by the plot. Others liked the characters but had issues with the world-building (or lack thereof) in Rand’s tale. Still others liked the passion of Rand's convictions but found her message lost in a myriad of meandering speeches.
.
.
.
All of these issues and much more will be tackled in this comprehensive, detailed review of Rand’s controversial classic. While not to be released until mid-summer 2012, early buzz is already calling this review “A review of Atlas Shrugged.” We only hope we can live up to those expectations. Until then.........

“Check your premises” the major characters are told. Well let’s check the premises of Ms. Rand’s story.

The first (false) premise is that there are only a dozen or so people in the country who are worth a damn. They have well above-average intelligence, have worked hard and have been lucky enough that their work has paid off in oodles of money (which they don’t enjoy or even care about because they are too busy working). But they can’t bear the thought of paying taxes to support the services they receive and depend upon.

The second (false) premise is that every government employee is a lazy no-good who has nothing on his mind but pillaging the bank accounts of the lucky dozen. But beyond that, the government is inherently evil, to the point of passing laws that inflict major economic damage and suffering on virtually everyone in the country with the exception of the privileged government leaders. This evil government is all-powerful and has total control over every newspaper, television and radio station. Fat chance. Obviously the author’s image of government derives from her formative years in the USSR. She has no concept that other governments have not tolerated the oppression that she found there.

The third (false) premise is that the rest of the people of the U.S. are mostly a bunch of lazy morons who blindly accept the statements of the evil government and their patsy press. Further, they have no ability or process to provoke change. They wander around like a bunch of sheep being led to the slaughter. If only they were weren’t so stupid and lazy they would all be as rich as the “lucky dozen elite”. Since they didn’t have the ability (or intensity or luck) to become one of the elite, they all think that the elite should support them so they don’t have to work. The country has a middle class composed of about 24 people who are the trusted, loyal assistants of the elite. They are good enough to do everything their masters ask, but not good enough to join their masters in “Atlantis”. When the elite disappear (on strike), their trusted assistants are left behind to bear the misfortune of the rest of the poor slobs.

This is all set on a stage of poor science fiction, which includes such things as a magic “motor” generating vast amounts of energy out of nothing. The author doesn’t seem to know the difference between a motor and a generator and uses the terms interchangeably. Then there is a magic “ray” that makes large areas of land invisible, powered, of course, by the magic “motor”. These magic things were, of course, invented by the intelligent elite who use them to help wreak havoc and despair on the rest of the 200 million people of the country in order to punish the evil government.

Then there’s the (obligatory) sex. Dagny Taggart, the heroine and only intelligent woman in the universe, has sex with three of the elite. She dumps the only real relationship (with Rearden) in favor of the demi-god John Galt (who she barely knows) along the lines of a teenage girl throwing herself at one of the Beatles. Her favorite encounters are sado-masochistic.

In the end, after they have succeeded in destroying the economy of the world and most everyone’s life, the elite magnanimously plan to sashay back into the real world and rebuild the hundred years of technology that they just destroyed. Isn’t that a brilliant idea? They think the only path to change is to take their football and go home. You have to wonder how brilliant these people really are.

The author spends great quantities of print describing and re-describing thoughts and feelings of the characters ad nauseum. The redundancy is overwhelming.

This poor attempt at science fiction with a supposed moral message demonstrates how a 350 page book can be padded to become a 1200 page behemoth. Elitists, libertarians and others paranoid about the government will undoubtedly enjoy this book. Paramilitary groups will love it. Most of the rest of us will ask ourselves “What the hell was she was thinking?”