Impresionante ! Mi primera lectura del año y le ha dado un vuelco a mi percepción de los sistemas sociales y las metas individuales.

Dicen algunos que es una especie de biblia para los capitalistas, lo entiendo, pero es mucho más, es un libro vasto en tamaño y contenido, es un reto, te reta personalmente a esforzarte por ti y para ti.

Lo recomiendo mucho, es pesado, pensé en dejarlo varias veces en las primeras 300 páginas, pero vale la pena seguir, vale la pena el esfuerzo.

Si tienen la oportunidad de hacerse de el, no lo piensen.

Recently a Very Dear GR Friend (VDF for short) asked me the following question:

VDF: By the way, I'm very very curious. What I know of your views would not have made me think that you would have rated Atlas Shrugged so highly. What was it about the book that made you feel so highly about it?

This is an excerpt from my response. You'll need to understand my system of Ratings/Review as well. Which I'm now violating by writing this:

GNF: I read Ayn Rand about a decade or more ago and I remember going around in a daze for weeks afterward - it just appeals to the anarchist in me, you see, at the visceral level: DOWN WITH THE EBEL STATE! - as well as feeling totally dicked off with the love story garbage, because for me it got in the way of the REAL STUFF: ANARCHY!!!!

Ahem. I was more impressionable in those days. If you made me read her again, would I have exactly the same reaction? I love hard work. Independence. I'm the right reader for what I interpreted as being her political message, although I know that her politial message isn't necessarily what I interpreted.

......

Oh, and I just thought of Rand again. Because Atlas Shrugged is supposed to be a dystopia, right? When I read it, I never even thought about that. I just thought about the freedom to work and produce without institutional strangling. I didn't even get the dystopic stuff (ie America as the last bastion of a global economy crashing down (if that is even what it is!) - cue cultural blind spot - in fact, she pissed me off for bagging out Europe the whole time, since I think the EU is probably more compassionate at the community level than the US), because the Valley just sounded great - wow, I want to go there and work!!! And by working hard and being compassionate to others and giving people the opportunity to be productive in a way personally satisfying the Valley society will be like that. No deadwood government smothering the individual's drive to create. That's predominantly all I took away from it. Which is of course completely loopy if you take Ayn Rand's personal circumstances into account. In the interim, I've read briefly about her and I think she suffers a bit of intellectual/emotional dishonesty too. But I didn't know anything about Rand when I read her book, hence the emotional 'starred' response.

******

So there you have it. No analysis of the prose. Not even understanding of Rand's message - in fact, as you've guessed, most of it flew right over my head. I'd have to go back and read it to know whether what I took out of it reflects the prevailing view as to what her philosophy and politics were. And I would have to read the prevailing view. First.

Dedicated to my VDF.

Dirty underpants.

Ayn Rand’s classic novel first published in 1957 should be a wake-up call to today’s millennial's, who have been taught to believe socialism will bring forth an even better American lifestyle, including zero school debt, free healthcare, along with sunny days relaxing with a good book sipping fine wine and eating an appetizer at an outside café. If only it were true. Socialism and communism are not so grand when freedom, independence and personal liberty are lost to societal leaders monitoring government control under “the principle of public good”.

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.

[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.

Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand

Atlas Shrugged includes elements of science fiction, mystery, and romance, and it contains Rand's most extensive statement of Objectivism in any of her works of fiction.

The theme of Atlas Shrugged, as Rand described it, is "the role of man's mind in existence".

The book explores a number of philosophical themes from which Rand would subsequently develop Objectivism.

In doing so, it expresses the advocacy of reason, individualism, and capitalism, and depicts what Rand saw to be the failures of governmental coercion.

Dagny Taggart, the operating vice-president of Taggart Transcontinental railroad, keeps the company going amid a sustained economic depression. ..

تاریخ نخستین خوانش

عنوان: ‏‫رهایی از بار گران (اطلس شانه انداخت)؛ نویسنده: آین رند‮‬؛ ‏‫مترجم: مينا شريفی‌ثابت؛ تهران، فرهنگ جاوید؛ 1399؛ در 1787ص؛ شابک9786227004175؛ موضوع داستانهای نویسندگان روس تبار ایالات متحده آمریکا - سده 20م‮‬

داستان «اطلس شانه بالا انداخت (شانه باز زد یا اطلس شورید)»، رمانی اثر «آین رند (آلیسا زینوفیِونا روزنبام) روس تبار آمریکایی» است، که نخستین بار در سال 1957میلادی در «ایالات متحده آمریکا» منتشر شد، این کتاب چهارمین و آخرین رمان «آین رند»، و بلندترین اثر ایشان نیز هست، که در حوزه ی ادبیات داستانی، شاهکار ایشان دانسته شده؛ «اطلس شراگد» دارای عناصر علمی تخیلی، رازآمیز، و رمانتیک است، و مفصل‌ترین بیانیه ی هدفمند «آین رند» در بین همگی آثار داستانی ایشانست؛ در این داستان بسیاری از شهروندان، از پرداخت مالیات‌ها، و هزینه‌های مالی و فرهنگی روزافزون حکومت، سرباز می‌زنند، و مقررات سنگین دولتی را رد کرده، و از آن شانه خالی می‌کنند، و با دریغ کردن مهارت، استعدادها، و خلاقیت خویش، صنایع حیاتی کشور را نابود، و تعطیل می‌کنند؛ نویسنده در این نوشتار به ذهن خوانشگر می‌رساند که «اطلس اسطوره‌ ای» اگر از حمل، و بالا نگاه داشتن آسمان، سر باز می‌زد، چه رخ می‌داد؛ گویا «جان گالت (فیلسوف و مخترع خیالی کتاب)» است که آنان را رهبری می‌کند؛ «گالت» این محو شدن‌ها، و خود کنار کشیدنها را، «متوقف کردن موتور دنیا»، موتور پوینده و حیاتی دنیا، به وسیله ی خود حذفی، و عقب نشستن مردمانی توصیف می‌کند، که باید جامعه ی خویش را بارور کنند و به پیش برانند

تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 19/06/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی

I read the first third of this massive book—1200 pages—and finished the rest as an audiobook on a road trip. Without the trip, I would not have bothered finishing it. The story lacks depth, with negligible character development. The protagonists, 'the producers,' are inherently good, while the antagonists, 'the looters,' are inherently bad. This deliberate literary device emphasises Rand's "Objectivist" philosophy but makes for a predictable and tedious reading experience. Readers interested in Rand's philosophy should focus on Part III Chapter VII, or Rand's non-fiction work, 'The Virtue of Selfishness,' which is a more succinct 170 pages.

If you don't agree with Ayn Rand's opinions then you'll probably dislike Atlas Shrugged. I guess this is why this masterpiece has a meagre 3.69 rating. Her philosophy just makes sense to me and even more so in the Covid world. Covid has highlighted how entitled people think they are. I switch on the news and people are just demanding all manner of outrageous things. Nobody has a right to demand anything. I'm sure this will become more apparent now there's a vaccine. The public will be outraged that they'll have to wait for something they didn't create. The genius behind this vaccine will become our very own Hank Reardon. Well fuck people.

Philosophy aside this is also a great story, superbly written with immense depth. It's huge and took 3 weeks but it was worth it. I'm now tempted to tell my lazy fat ass boss to go fuck himself on Monday morning.

A novel that promises much yet delivers little, with Rand’s bitter and contemptuous view of humanity shining throughout its 1200-odd pages. Compulsively readable but curiously hollow, this really is the ultimate dystopian novel.

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.

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.