(Updates appended to the bottom, including a pointer to the best review ever of this book.)

OK, I’ve got to explain this four-star rating, because I don’t want anyone to think I’d actually recommend this book...

It has been many years since I’ve read either of Ayn Rand’s two doorstop books, and I can’t really recall the details of either. I’m pretty sure this is the one with John Galt had the absurdly long speech near the end, and all the cool kids smoked special cigarettes, and was mostly about railroads. This is that one, right? The other one has the architect?

Anyway, I think folks should need permission to read this. Frankly, I think teenage experimentation with pot is trivial in terms of risk to a kid’s soul compared to experimentation with Ayn Rand. Her books can much more easily destroy a life.

Let me explain. Rand’s philosophy, as near as I can tell, is that great people shouldn’t be encumbered by the not-so-great. Taxes, regulations, all that stuff: just the shackles the large number of mediocre folks force onto their betters: pure parasitism. Morality comes down to letting the best do what they want, and letting the rest starve. These books are her ideas about how that should work out, and as such are suffused with incredibly juvenile wish-fulfillment. The powerful are tormented by the weak, but through force of will rise above it all.

I might not be remembering all this quite right — after all, it has been a long time. The above description is what my initial impression has distilled down to; your mileage may vary.

So where’s the danger, and why the relatively high rating? Well, many teenagers look out at their world and feel victimized by the completely lame and restrictive world that adults impose upon them. It is clear to them that they are as smart and able as these authorities, yet those adults are so... clueless. Obviously, adult life somehow has turned them into a lesser breed of humanity, with all the vitality sucked out. Add Ayn Rand to this and you suddenly have the ingredients for a self-perpetuating sense of victimhood and entitlement.

I think it is possible that too much Ayn Rand is to blame for the Tea Party movement. The circular logic that these poor folks are victims of the evil American system, while simultaneously the vanguard and representative of the noble American system.

Most people have overcome their teenage angst and fantasies by, say, twenty-eight or so. At that point, Rand will have lost her magic and her books should be freely available. But between twelve and twenty-seven, a committee of wise elders should decide whether that kid is mature enough not to get sucked into it.

Sounds unlikely? Yeah, well so does Rand’s puerile philosophy, but somehow we have self-righteous imbeciles getting elected left and right. Well, not so much “left” — mostly “right”.

But then, why the good rating? Because Rand provided a window into the strange logic of the extremist libertarian. We might have seen Hitler’s deeds and learned of Nietzsche’s diktats, but we never saw the fantasies that drove them. I think most folks that believe along Rand’s lines are either too dumb to put pen to paper, or too smart to let the world see what sociopaths they really are.

So: four stars for the opportunity to watch the slow-motion train wreck of Rand’s political philosophy in action, warning us of where we’re heading.

n  n

      •       •       •       •       •       •

Update, August 2012— Romney's selection of Ryan as his running mate has got folks chatting about Ryan's on-and-off obsession with Ayn Rand. Not having made a study of Rand's life, I was pleased to learn that while her extremely anti-collectivist views are still antithetical to civilization (which is definitionally a collectivist enterprise) she was actually quite the social liberal. Not sure that makes her any more pleasant — ideologues of any stripe are quite annoying, even those that suddenly appear more complex and harder to pigeon-hole — but nice to know. A few more details? Check out the NY Times op-ed piece, n   Atlas Spurnedn.

Another Update, still August 2012— Everyone's talking about Ayn Rand, still. But one pointed to something especially juicy: the original 1957 review in the then-newish National Review by one of the world's most notorious flip-floppers, Whittaker Chambers himself! Scathing:

Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal.

Of course, although it wasn't what he ended up being famous for, he was a tremendously talented writer and editor. Click over and read it: n  Big Sister Is Watching Youn.
­

Fantastically disgusting book. I have never felt so much exhausted after reading a book. This book plays tricks on your mind. Now I can suspect I owe some justification to call Atlas Shrugged 'fantastically disgusting.

To the point of disgusting, imagine a book that advocates condemning social responsibility towards others, calling charity opposite to justice, forcing state to disown mentally handicapped citizen, loving someone for his success not for character. Anyone can explain these are the reasons for inescapable poverty in developing countries where individuals are exploiting the economy for individual gain. It is the most pathetic philosophy one can imagine.

On the collusion course of fantastic, imagine a book that advocates intellectual freedom, liberty,pursuit of happiness, independence of minds, critical thinking, innovation and will to overcome difficulty. A book that has been an explicit defence for individualism by using imaginative mentality and creative style; exploring the individual philosophy like never before.

In the end no matter how serious was the intention of Ayn Rand to produce a work of parallel philosophy; it was still a work of pure fiction and I admire the right of a writer to offend, criticize and challenge lazy assumptions in work of fiction without being judged on political correctness.

I must confess this book was slow in pace and that I had to force myself to read in between that's why I consumed this book by using cliff-notes after first few chapters. I would like to end my review by her own words, "this book only got good reviews from people who did not understand it at all"

2023-01-23? Finished reading this Kindle edition. Excellent. Hard to recommend more strongly, it is such a powerful, insightful, important, and potentially life-changing book. I updated my review of another edition already, I believe, so I don't want to repeat too much here. I will note however that I have highlighted many parts of the book and commented on many too and posted them on Goodreads, so feel free to check them out if interested.

This book stands up VERY well over time. Truly a classic that is loved by many millions and hated by many others, who feel incredibly threatened by the truth Rand speaks about the lies they live by.

The book/author are far from perfect. I have very real and well-grounded objections and questions about some of the ideas, characterizations, ideals, etc. portrayed in the book. But they pale compared to the important things described in the book about the dangers of altruism, socialism/communism, cronyism, as well as the positive things stated about money, capitalism, entrepreneurship, creators/producers vs. moochers, etc.

2022-12-07 Started rereading (the Kindle edition of) this book in earnest about a month ago, after about 45 years or so since I first read it. Am about 20% into it now and LOVING it. Simply amazing book. That does not mean that I don't see some strange stuff that I can't explain or that I don't disagree with in the book - I certainly do.

I have been using the "share" function on my Kindle to highlight for folks a few choice short parts on Goodreads. Not getting any feedback on those, but a few simple "likes" along the way.

What a book for the times. Sure wish more folks took this it seriously, since the issues Rand discusses are so timeless and her perspective is so clear and enlightening on most of them.

2022-05-29 I found out about this book in college. Several student friends of mine who I respected greatly, highly recommended it, one via his review in the student newspaper. I had read Rand's "Anthem" novella freshman year, since a girlfriend recommended it and it was very short. But unfortunately, I was not sufficiently impressed, since it dealt with such fundamental ideas as individuality, I vs. we, totalitarian dystopia, etc. and not the burning issues of the day (in my mind) that would motivate me to be willing to take the big leap to a ~1200 page novel. I am a very slow reader, and the prospect of committing ~60+ hours to such a project was just way too much then.

But after:
- I graduated,
- I read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
- I read some key works by Ludwig Mises who was the absolute best and most important economist of the century
- I read The Fountainhead,
- I found more new friends who I really respected who had read, loved and highly recommended Atlas

I then did devote the time and was RICHLY rewarded.

This is probably the best, most important philosophical novel of the 20th century.
One can read it on many levels, or for many purposes:
- A passionate love story
- A Science Fiction thriller
- A powerful philosophical system very much in touch with reality
- A future-history with lots of economics, sociology, psychology and philosophy
- A Cassandra tale of warning
- An ideological screed
- A stilted attack on leftist/statist ideas, personalities, outcomes, etc.
- A clarion call for people of principle to stand up and fight for themselves and what is right
Yup - it has all of that and more...
Pick the thing(s) you are looking for and check it out.
Ignore it at your own, and society's cost.

And as my wife keeps telling me, and my head nods, "we are living in Atlas Shrugged..."

PS - After carefully reading, hearing, watching critiques of Ayn Rand and particularly of this book, over a 40+ year period, it is abundantly clear to me that most of the people who have problems with it - who typically excoriate her for one reason or the other are using made-up reasons. I strongly encourage you to look at the evidence they present about what they say Ayn Rand said in this book or her other books, speeches, etc. Typically, they are NOT accurately portraying what she actually wrote or said, but rather caricaturing it to look bad.

That said, Ayn Rand was not perfect. She is not a god (except to some). She was human. She made mistakes, had lapses, overstated her case, etc. etc. But gosh, NOTHING like what most critics have said about her.

tI only gave this book 3 stars because it was so tedious and repetitive. I actually have some things to say in defense of the usual criticisms, but more on that in a minute. Whether or not you agree with her philosophy, Ayn Rand does make some good points in favor of her argument. I can forgive it for it's exaggerated depiction of socialism as a system which rewards the weak and lazy and parasitizes the intelligent and productive. Honestly, if you install any system which allows people to thrive as parasites, plenty of people will take advantage of it. It's just human nature.
tUnfortunately, this book only seems to be aware of human nature where it guarantees the failure of the system it's trying to shoot down. It never takes into account the inevitable abuses of capitalism by fallible human beings. Special interest groups, politicians making laws which favor corporations they hold stock in, sweat shops, the whole military industrial complex, etc. While the author's point of view is understandable given the communism she came to america to escape, and the fact that the issues I listed above probably weren't in the news as much back then as they are now, I still don't think her long long long argument holds up.
tThe brilliant, attractive, articulate, morally perfect industrialist heroes of Atlas Shrugged are not real people. Ayn Rand herself said, in defense against her critics, they are not man as he is, rather man as he should be. Which would be great in another book, I have no objection to admittedly portraying non-existant ideals if it makes a good point. If such people really existed capitalism could work. Ayn Rand seems perfectly aware of the shortcomings of human nature when they manifest themselves under communism, but then offers as an alternative another system which could only actually work for the non-existant ideal men she made up.
tSo as a piece of propaganda, It doesn't fully convince me. I suppose if I were completely on the nurture side of the nature vs. nurture debate on human behavior, I could have simply bought the idea that installing an economic system based on moral principles could create a better culture and thus better people. Though if there's anything history shows us over and over again it's that no new belief or set of rules has ever succeeded on that front. As a novel, well, it's full of excessively long-winded monologues and drags on. But, it did keep me interested enough to see it through to the end, and forced me to think so I have to give it some credit.

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.

This is a very massive tome, full of economics and philosophy, memorable characters, and descriptive prose. While reading other reviews, I noticed that it seems to be a love it or hate it sort of book. Those that agree with the point Ayn Rand is making, will likely enjoy it and be moved by the story, but those who disagree are not likely to enjoy the story, let alone the message. Rand's points of the merits of capitalism and objectivity are not concealed in allegory, but are a major, if not the major part of the book. I will not elaborate too much on the story, for it is so multi-faceted it would be difficult to condense successfully. However, it has industrial intrigue, romance, and even a bit of science fiction of the futuristic Earth kind. It's epic, beautifully written, and unforgettable, and its imparted desire to change the world will remain after the book itself ends.

I'd say, this is a one controversial book. Some say it was written under the influence of amphetamines and I sort of tend to think that there seems to be a very good chance of that being true. I don't think this book could've been written otherwise: the AR would've probably gotten tired of preaching to the choir, to the passers by, to people everywhere and not even really there...

Basically, this is a very outsized rant, one of the longest and the most monumentally declarative ones I've ever seen. It masquerades as fiction but drat, it's a lecture on precisely how dissatisfied the author is with the world and what could be done for the purpose of reviewing the said world to make it a better place (or maybe just a more boring one).

I have a feeling that someone somewhere had a very outsized commonplace book where every idea that ever crossed their mind was meticulously noted and these same notes (random and mutually irrelevant) made it into this novel and were a large influence on the plot building.

I seriously disliked the postscriptum where AR is so blatantly demure about her place of birth and education. 'Born in Europe', 'graduating from a European college', huh, my ass. She graduated from a Russian University, was born in Russian Empire, was chased out of there by commies - was it so hard to put it like that without all the obscurification? Or was it something else: did she expect that such reveals would negatively impact on her books' sales? Russian Empire is not the same thing as the USSR (or the modern day Russia) - did she expect that that would've been such an overly difficult concept to grasp for the general public? That's sort of a telling tell...

I am not really sure how to rate it, since I can probably rate it every rating between 1 and 5 and even FAV... I think I'll wait a bit and see how I feel about it when I finish this review and do some palate cleaner reading.

Some ideas are inherently incorrect (at least in the most generalized case):
Q:
man's sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions.... He will always be attracted to the woman who reflects his deepest vision of himself, the woman whose surrender permits him to experience a sense of self-esteem. The man who is proudly certain of his own value, will want the highest type of woman he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer-because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of an achievement. (c) I don't think this aplies to just everyone.

Some ideas are questionable:
Q:
I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. (c) Like uh-huh, should parents just abandon their newbors? You know, those parties won't party themselves and there are these incovenient kids... On the other hand, some people just abdicate of their own lives for the sake of 'bettering' the life for other people: parents smothering kids with unnecessary control, overbearing relatives knowing how everyone else should live and so on... So I'd say this should be interpreted on the case by case basis.

Some quotes are probably tongue-in-cheek:
Q:
In this world, either you're virtuous or you enjoy yourself. Not both, lady, not both. (c)


... and some more are really catchy:
Q:
Power-lust is a weed that grows only in the vacant lots of an abandoned mind. (c)
Q:
What is man? He's just a collection of chemicals with delusions of grandeur. (c)

Yet other concepts are quite epic and intriguing:
Q:
People think that a liar gains a victory over his victim. What I’ve learned is that a lie is an act of self-abdication, because one surrenders one’s reality to the person to whom one lies, making that person one’s master, condemning oneself from then on to faking the sort of reality that person’s view requires to be faked…The man who lies to the world, is the world’s slave from then on…There are no white lies, there is only the blackest of destruction, and a white lie is the blackest of all. (c) Now, that's got interesting applications.

While I do value the philosophical ideas presented in this book, I find it challenging to overlook it's extended speeches, one-dimensional characters, and didactic tone, which ultimately impacted my appreciation for the work.

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.

Mike Reads Rand, Ep. 1
I've always felt that you shouldn't take positions on things you don't know anything about. So while I'd heard plenty of people talk about Ayn Rand's phonebook-sized novel, they were always conversations I'd had to stay out of. Finally my curiosity got the best of me, and I picked up Atlas Shrugged on a trip to Barnes & Noble. When dealing with a book I know nothing about, I open it up to a random page, read it and, if it's enjoyable, I'll give the book a shot.

I opened up on a page of John Galt's speech.

I did not leave the store with a copy Atlas Shrugged that day.

Several years later, my nagging curiosity finally overwhelmed my better judgement and I started off. It's a relatively easy read despite the size, mainly because of the straight-forward nature of the story, but don't let that fool you - this book can be one of the most torturous slogs you'll ever endure for the simple reason that Rand doesn't have any characters in Atlas. Instead, she populates her book with a series of shambling automata that spout three-page long lectures supporting whatever ideology they're meant to represent at the drop of that hat. Ignoring all the other problems with her characters, people simply do not act this way. Every conversation tangents off into lectures thinly veiled as dialog, and it gets progressively more ridiculous every time it happens. Galt's 50-page speech (no, really) is the most egregious example, but Francisco is another common violator - get ready to settle in for a symposium any time he shows up. I realize that this is a philosophical novel, but first and foremost a philosophical novel should be a novel. Plot and writing should never be sacrificed for you to make your point. If you can't manage that and your book devolves in to simple pedagoguery, then maybe non-fiction is the format for you?

Rand may as well use the naming scheme from The Pilgrim's Progress for all the subtlety she displays here. Everyone in Atlas is either pure as the driven snow, righteous and good-natured beyond reproach, or ridiculously evil cartoons, twirling their moustaches while they tie Capitalism and Liberty to the railroad tracks. It also goes without saying that all the good guys are to a person handsome, athletic supermen, while the bad guys are all balding and overweight or cringing weaklings. And of course, when Dagny finally makes it to the striker's hide-out in Galt's Gulch, both the town and its inhabitants are flawlessly perfect and happy.

Which ties directly to the next problem - Rand never shows, she tells. By which I mean to say that even beyond the characterization, she always leads you by the nose. You're never allowed to infer anything; instead, she spells it all out in big crayons so you're sure to get it. If it's tiresome in her characters, it gets even more so when it's drawn out in to her writing in general. For someone who's based her entire philosophy on the intelligence and ability of the individual, she seems amazingly unwilling to trust us to figure things out on our own. She also undermines her own case by beating you over the head with her ideas so constantly. After awhile you start to dread hearing someone talk about personal responsibility or the sanction of the victim.

Which is all a shame, because there are the bones of what could have been a really great book here. The concept of all the creative, productive members of society going on "strike" and abandoning civilization is an interesting one. Rand doesn't do too bad of a job setting the scene either. She manages to create a surprisingly pervasive sense of despair in the book - this is a world that's grinding to a halt and it shows. Also, she does an impressive job of not tying the book to any definable time period. Sure, the prevalence of passenger rail travel and the fact that TVs appear only briefly towards the end is something of a give-away to people reading it today, but otherwise it's a story with remarkably little to demarcate when it should take place. I also have to give her credit for the first half of the book, where Dagny and Rearden start to piece together what's going on and try and to find the inventor of the discarded, revolutionary motor they find. This section actually reminded me somewhat of The Crying of Lot 49 - there's the same sense of a grand conspiracy just beyond view and the nagging suspicion that the conspirators are all around them. And the entire book does move briskly when people aren't speechifying - there's always some new scheme or plot twist going on.

But then the last half ruins what little goodwill the book may have eked out in the beginning, as the book slams to a halt for Galt's speech and the "moochers" (groan) ratchet up their vaudevillian evil to even greater heights. It's genuinely funny to watch as they progressively screw things up worse and worse every time they try to solve a problem, but it's the loud abrasive humor of a pulp novel, not the bitting satire Rand so clearly intended it to be. Which is a good metaphor for the story in general - it reads like a pulp. And while I love pulps, they're not the vehicle for getting across arguments about the nature of truth and beauty. Like I said earlier, I feel that these sorts of works should be novels first, and I'm rating her novel, not her philosophical arguments. Rand's ideas are certainly interesting and she does make her case here, but her book pays a huge price to do so.

Also, Rand has some weird ideas about sex and that's all the farther I'm going to touch that one.

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!

I didn't enjoy it as expected.