Atlas Shrugged (Centennial Edition)
by Ayn Rand
|
List Price: Our Price: $24.05 You Save: $15.90 (40%) Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours Buy Used: from $19.94 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of Atlas Shrugged (Centennial Edition)
Book Review: Night's Splender Studded in Diamonds. More Stars, Please!
Summary: 5 Stars
I've read this novel three times. I'll read it again.
Each time it seems to live in my mind on a grander, higher scale.
In interviews and in some of her nonfiction books, Rand has said that the purpose of a novel is to entertain, to tell a good story. In ATLAS SHRUGGED she has accomplished this purpose, possibly better than any other novel. I haven't read every other novel; I don't want to read every other novel, so I won't attempt to say or prove this with certainty. I will say with certainty that ATLAS SHRUGGED is not a good story; it's a great story.
Reportedly, Rand's intellectual friends were continually asking her to write her ideals into nonfiction (maybe so they could digest them better); yet her soul lived in stories painting the heroic in life. She believed we live in a beneficent universe and that human beings were meant to achieve great joy, and to feel that joy in every moment.
In ATLAS SHRUGGED, Rand proceeded to dramatize (not to intellectualize) her concept of why we have thoughtlessly allowed ourselves to pervert this beneficence, and how to get back on track.
Many would say that a 50 page speech, given to the world by John Galt over secured radio waves, is more intellectualization than dramatization. I read that clear radio voice as drama perfectly staged within a well executed plot; I saw it as well earned, actually necessitated, by the complex weaving of multiple mysteries building unequivocally to the dramatic enlightenment presented in that speech.
The first time I read Atlas, in 1986, it took me a few months to get through it. It had taken me years prior to that to get past the first scenes of Eddie's "causeless uneasiness." I would read carefully to the point of him recalling the magnificent oak tree which was rotten inside, and I'd put down the book. Eddie's gestalt was so depressing and confusing, I couldn't push forward, couldn't go beyond this budding and painful awareness in Eddie, a seeding of consciousness which felt as if it had nowhere, no way to blossom.
Maybe I sensed the plot would move slowly, complexly, mysteriously, dramatically ... backward ... into the darkest night of the soul of the human race, before it would be ready to lift into any type of healing light.
It took me a while, a bit of growing, to be ready for that backwards, downward soul drop.
Yet, when Atlas lifted the reader into Galt's Gulch, I soared.
I soared higher than I've been taken by any work of fiction.
Is it a great story when an author takes a reader into the bowels of human culture, into the primal, absolute absence of true thought, paints that dank sewer-of-a-world brilliantly with the deepest, richest, most frightening and heart-wrenching color and clarity, then surges the reader suddenly upward on the strongest wings available to an embodied human form? Is that a great story, or what??
I'm speaking beyond the airplane ride Dagney piloted to break through to a small setting where a tiny, almost toy-like railroad was a more true-to-life example of that industry than the ugly, gritty, dark world beyond Galt's location.
When I say, simply, that there are true CHARACTERS in this book, I might have to set that statement against a contrast which would have to consider that there may be no true characters in any other novel. But, I don't want to say that, exactly. I merely want to exalt as it deserves, Rand's executed skill as a novelist.
I love stories. I love characters. I consistently read books I'm able to unfailingly and honestly give 5 Star reviews.
But to read ATLAS SHRUGGED is to be temporarily diminished in ability to fully enjoy other novels. This is why I hesitate to read it again right away. The contrast in the depth of characters, the complexity of plot and subplot machinations, the beauty of the mystery which unfolds in pacing so perfect it cannot be called pacing, it must be described as a natural, living sequence of cause and effect, all this honoring of the true form of the story, of a saga, is almost too rich to exist in the same time frame of other examples of human art.
Even as I exalt Atlas, however, this time I will be able to return immediately to my culinary cozies and love the heck out of them. Why? That's for me to know and you to find out, if you're interested.
For a placement of my customer review of ATLAS SHRUGGED on Amazon.com, I chose the cover of this novel which was taken from a painting by Ayn Rand's husband, Frank O'Conner. He was an artist; he gave a worthy image for his wife's novel.
I admire and appreciate every artistic version of this book, every exquisite cover presentation; the book's gestalt has the capacity to draw greatness from anyone who attempts to capture any nuance of it. But, I wanted to honor Rand's husband's contribution to her career as a novelist, a contribution which went beyond what most of her readers would be able to imagine. And I love O'Conner's red sun setting, his glowing, straight steel rails heading toward that day's end. I love the deep greens and iron-rust-red of the sun ball, and more.
I will stand, spine straight as possible with arthritis, and salute Ayn Rand and Frank O'Conner. They lived. They suffered. As all of us, possibly they suffered unnecessarily, as a matter of maturing as a race, as a matter of growing in consciousness about cause and effect. In their art, Ayn and Frank transcended the pain and left us gifted.
Live enthralled within this book as a story, as a novel, first. Then begin thinking your own thoughts, making your own living, one you're able to enjoy as who you are, not as Ayn Rand, not as Frank O'conner. As you. A simple person rich in capacity to enjoy the most basic of moments, to feel the grandness of human life in every breath.
Remember the perfect flavor of that cheeseburger Dagney relished in the small diner which almost magically appeared on her hardrock route to nirvana. (And you wonder why I love culinaries?)
Maybe that's what Rand wanted to accomplish all along. She wanted to give each of us that unique individual inside, terrified of shining, filled with shame (afraid to eat, even). Maybe she wanted to tell us, no, to show us that we have made no Original Sin. We were born free.
Now we must each live free, in our own way. And, to be a hero might not mean to conquer impossible dreams which we honestly don't want to reach. Maybe it means to enjoy each day and do what we can to live as who we are, to know who we are. Inside and out. As unique individuals, each unlike any other, yet coexisting with other individuals who are interesting to know in their variety of faces, not masks.
Who is John Galt?
Who are YOU?
I know who I am. Sort of. I'm gaining on the concept daily.
Rest assured that life was meant to be abundantly benefic, not a pain in the patootie.
For attempting to paint this awareness in words and oils, I thank you Ayn Rand and Frank O'Conner. Wherever you are (somewhat against your precepts, I believe your consciousness still exists), "live long and prosper,"
Linda G. Shelnutt
Author of several Kindle books, including:
Molasses Moon
Book Review: A book which you will ignore at your peril
Summary: 5 Stars
I read this book when I was a freshman at St. John's College in Annapolis (yes, that's the "Great Books" college). So, while I was inhaling Homer, Plato, Aristotle and the rest, I was often to be found in the student union with this huge paperback written by Ayn Rand.
I found the book to be enthralling, and in many ways it turned my view of the world completely upside-down. Just as interesting was the reaction of the other people who "caught me" reading this "awful book."
The main "problem" with this book is that it attempts a complete destruction of the philosophical foundations of modern leftist thinking (and I am using the word "leftist" quite consciously, being a "liberal" myself --- in the original sense).
I can illustrate one of the main ideas in this book with a homely anecdote concerning two different people I hired to work. One was dedicated, hard-working, and persistent; the other was lazy, incompetent, and a drunkard to boot. In my own estimation, the first man was worth a thousand a day, while the second was barely worth one or two hundred.
The point where all the fighting usually starts is that some people think that paying the first person a thousand and the second person a hundred or two is ALREADY "economic justice." Some other people think that this is "unfair," and want to reach into the pocket of the hard-working man, remove some of his money, and give it to the lazybones. This represents something other than plain old "justice" and is generally called "social justice" or some such. It may even get dressed up as "robbing from the rich to give to the poor," because, just between you and me, "robbing from the workers and giving to the idle" would not attract many minds or many votes.
This may be a political point, but "Atlas Shrugged" is a profoundly political book. I hear that new hires at the Cato Institute are referred to as "virgins" if they have not yet read "Atlas Shrugged."
Another interesting fact is this: Ayn Rand was one of the most famous & independent women of the 20th century. She thought for herself --- and, come to think of it --- may be the most able female philosopher in history. But, to put it very mildly indeed, feminists do not like her. It's one of those strange things, like feminists not caring about the mutilation of Muslim girls in Africa.
This is one of those books you really must read for yourself. It's a monument of the human intellect, and (strange?) it has reached #128 on the Amazon best-seller list as I write this review.
-----Updated review------
I just read another opinion that said: although Ayn Rand had a fine insight into the workings of economic systems, she basically didn't "get" how people work. I would agree to the extent that I find the dialogue between her "lovers" to be the worst things she ever wrote. (And I have NOT read it all! :-) )
---- Review updated again------
In the time since I posted my original review, it has become clear that the "anti-Rand" contingent basically regards her as a tool of the wealthy classes. This view is mistaken, and I can show you why with a simple example.
If you look at our current economic mess, two things seem clear: tax revenues are falling because business is stagnant, whereas government spending is increasing because of current administration policy.
Now, how could we get out of this mess? Imagine that a group of clever men create a new source of energy: let's call it "NewSteam." This new source of energy does not depend on fossil fuels and is a lot cheaper than fossil fuels as well. Imagine one step further: "NewSteam" relies on manipulating the force of gravity, and provides an energy source wherever there is a "NewSteam Engine," which costs $999.
Almost overnight, a new industry starts to grow up around this original design, and it mushrooms. It is difficult to meet global demand. Revenues --- for all the companies in the "NewSteam" chain --- first quickly reach $100 billion, and then $1 trillion in the first three years. Within a decade or two, hundreds of thousands of Americans find good jobs in these industries. In the meantime, government tax revenues soar, and a huge amount of government spending becomes completely unnecessary --- for example, "Cap and Trade" is by now completely unnecessary. The government is happy because unemployment is way down, and taxes are flowing in -- not just from the corporations, but also from the employees of those corporations.
And, needless to say, the original inventors become extremely wealthy men.
I should point out, as an aside, that something very much like this did in fact happen in America, in the Silicon Valley, with the invention of the microprocessor and the personal computer.
What Ayn Rand is pointing out is that these innovators are not evil men. They are the benefactors of mankind. Certainly the last thing Ayn Rand ever imagined herself as being was a "tool of the wealthy classes." She was trying to show us (a) the ways in which a society can become productive and wealthy (b) the ways in which a corrupt government can actually destroy the real path to wealth and personal fulfillment.
If the "looter mentality" eventually rules America, the country is doomed. The personal computer industry will leave. The "NewSteam" industries will go elsewhere. In fact, I can stop here, and recommend that you read "Atlas Shrugged" for the full picture.
----- review updated 2/3/11
I have just had a new question about Ayn Rand pop into my mind.
It occurs to me to ask, "Did she confuse the proper economic policy for a country with the proper way for a human being to live his life?"
This arises from her producing such a weird essay as "The Virtue of Selfishness."
You know, and I know, that this simply does not work in any known culture. Calling someone selfish is the same as calling him evil, or wicked. I will go further, and claim that selfishness will never, ever be regarded as a personal virtue among humankind.
But, paradoxically, it IS the proper course for a business to pursue in a free market. A successful business may well contribute to charity, but in its main economic activity it must be relentlessly "selfish" and relentlessly competitive. This leads automagically to a dynamic free-market economy, where miracles occur on a daily basis --- where cell phones cost a thousand bucks fifteen years ago, and were laughably large, while nowadays they can cost as little as $25, and be lost in the cracks between sofa cushions.
This probably means that people have to switch modes of thought between work and home, but that's not exactly news, is it?
Book Review: Don't trickle on me
Summary: 3 Stars
After reading "Atlas Shrugged", I can't stop thinking about the impact that
Ayn Rand had toward political thinking in America over the past half-century.
A few years ago I also read "Age of Turbulence" by Alan Greenspan. He wrote
it after retiring as the 20-year long Chairman of the Federal Reserve. In
this book, he mentioned his close friendship with Ayn Rand many times. I
didn't think much about that relationship until after reading Atlas Shrugged
and then I realized the importance that Ayn Rand had on economic policy in
America, and the rhetoric we hear so often in politics.
In this book, the heroes are the captains of industry and the villians are
those in the government. Ayn Rand makes the case, using great verbosity (1200
pages of it), that collectivism is the greatest evil of all and that it drains
the life's blood out of the spirit of individuals who strive to live in
freedom. Basically, she tries to prove that decisions made for the good of a
community (the collective) always step on the rights of individuals and that
those individuals serve a high moral purpose while the collectivists are only
robbers who provide no value to anyone and steal everything.
The whole idea of "trickle down economic theory" seems to have been invented
in the pages of this book because the author believes that unfettered
capitalism will provide all the great things needed by a just society. She
makes this argument based on the assumption that industrial competence is the
highest virtue and the very definition of morality. Alan Greenspan tried to
make the same argument in his book but in another way. He said that
intelligent people will never act in a way that is against their own interests
and therefore the world banking community would never create a situation that
would cause economic collapse. He had to rescind his own argument in front of
a senate panel a few years after making that statement. Ayn Rand did not live
long enough to see the folly of her thinking. She seemed to believe that
America was headed toward Communist Socialism, even though those words were
never used in the book, and that she must save us from this terrible destiny.
"It is only by means of physical force that one man can deprive another of his
life, or enslave him, or rob him, or prevent him from pursuing his own goals,
or compel him to act against his own rational judgment." - Ayn Rand
There is an oath taken by those who would achieve the highest place in this
laissez faire world of hers - "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." In other words, she believes in the pursuit of individual happiness as
a means to creating a great economic society. As I read this book, I got
caught up in this kind of thinking and started believing it myself, because her
arguments were compelling. But as I got deeper into the book, I realized what
made them compelling was not logic of the arguments in themselves, but that I
was relating to the characters who she had made into bastions of virtue and
was rooting for them more than I was rooting for her great vision. This is
what we tend to do and this is what Ayn Rand did in her book. She created a
set of protaganists who were intelligent, hard-working and willing to take
great risks. Then she described how these great people were being undermined
by a government run by people who could not see their greatness but only their
greed. And so she created an image of the persecuted and the persecutors and
gave this as a gift to the Republicans (the persecuted) to use as fodder
against the Democrats (the persecutors).
It is no coincidence that sales of Atlas Shrugged go through the roof when a
Democratic president is elected. Ayn Rand supported Wendell Wilkie, the
Republican candidate who was running against Franklin Roosevelt. She believed
that she was the only voice in the wilderness who could take up this fight
against the socialists (the Democrats). She also gave creedence to the idea
that intellectuals were the great enemy of common sense and hard working
people, even though she was one of the great intellectuals of our age.
Conservative demagogues such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck promote "Atlas
Shrugged" as a kind of "Conservative Manifesto" yet it seems to me that
neither of them probably read the book or know anything about Ayn Rand.
Limbaugh and Beck are the darlings of the Christian Right, yet Ayn Rand was a
famous aetheist. In the John Galt rant that went on for pages and pages,
there were numerous jabs at Christian thinking, especially the idea of
"original sin". This concept is the basis of all Christian thought, so why
would Limbaugh and Beck support this person and her book? Go figure.
There is a great division between the Republicans and the Democrats and it
seems to be getting worse every year. I believe that this divide became
much wider when Ayn Rand wrote "Atlas Shrugged". Funny though, that she was
also the same person who wrote "Anthem". This sci-fi short story reminds me
of "Harrison Bergeron", by Kurt Vonnegut. Republicans wouldn't have ever
heard of him. I think that Ayn Rand was a brilliant person, and if she had
lived to see the folly of her thinking, as did her friend Alan Greenspan, she
may have corrected it in another novel - possibly titled "Delusions".
Book Review: Rand goes to extremes so that we don't have to
Summary: 4 Stars
`Atlas Shrugged' follows the lives of great Americans as their country deteriorates from a capitalist democracy into a socialist communism. It is not a joy ride. In fact, it is a grueling, plodding process, filled with convolutions, and ultimately ending in a chaotic mess. But the story shows us how such a disaster might occur and thus grants us a tool for avoiding it. Meanwhile, the book plunges headfirst into man's all-time greatest political, cultural, and spiritual challenges, offering a fascinating look at each if not quite resolving any of them.
The central challenge focuses on where virtue is lodged. Is it in the Self or in Society as a whole? It is a staggering question when one really thinks about it and Rand sets up scenario after scenario to help us think about it, pitting a troop of protagonists for the Self against an army of antagonists for the Society.
Of course, Rand has reached her conclusion before we sink our teeth into the question. Those for the Self are confident, logical, productive, and industrious while those for Society are pathetic, lazy, tetchy, and smarmy. There really is no question about which is right when you look at it through these characters and so there really is no conflict.
This is unfortunate because people on both sides have good, well-founded arguments. Simply writing off all socialists as crass nincompoops may feel right to the capitalist, but it does nothing to resolve the differences between the two sides and certainly doesn't help the case for self-interested industrialism. Nor can one say that all capitalists have the virtuous motives that Dagny and Rearden maintain. There are those who support the free market and industrialism for the wrong reasons, and neglecting that fact limits the effectiveness of the argument. In the end, a conflict between two reasonable foes is much more entertaining than a conflict between a master and a fool anyway.
Rand sees things characteristically in black and white; there are no shades of gray. At least, the grays that do pop up in this book are cut down by one of the two sides of the conflict. Such absoluteness defies modern standards of literature and many a grain of salt must be consumed while reading `Atlas'.
Granting it is in the Classical style, one can really enjoy the book for what it is. And it is Classical in every sense of the word. The story is heroic--you can take your pick among her many heroes and heroines although only one stands out as the flawless kind. Like a good Homeric epic, the narrative is long-winded and repetitive. One walks away with useful if silly clichés--`who is John Galt?', `looters', `A is A'. Actions are deliberate and spelled out for the reader and every action is related to the lesson being told with nothing irrelevant coming into view. And finally, the characters are very one-dimensional with no development or change whatever. These are charming aspects that can be appreciated by those willing.
Less forgivable are the inconsistencies that arise in the philosophy. Rand is making a case for self-interest, but throughout the book one will find instances where the protagonists seek validation from others, often to the deprecation of the self. The most notable example of this is in the romantic relationships. The two love each other and will do anything for the other person even if that means becoming vulgar animals and sacrificing the integrity of one's work. The couple receives selfish pleasure from the affair, but it comes at the expense of self-dignity.
Rand eliminates the only true way to resolve this inconsistency (is it a contradiction?) by rejecting the ultimate reason for romantic relationships: procreation and raising a family (completely absent from the book). This is the inevitable consequence of fusing self-interest with atheism. When there is nothing to strive for but material gain, the world necessarily becomes a contradiction. One fights the immoral with immorality and gains the respect of others by denigrating them.
The latter is actually a central theme in `Atlas'. Indeed, the protagonists who despise the masses require their patronage to be successful. Industry in general is worth-while only if there are other people willing to buy the product and enough people to make it useful. Even when it is not explicit, the need for validation is present. The driving force of the book, the strike, is designed to force other people to behave properly so that the protagonists can succeed. John Galt's speech is accusatory and insulting, underscoring the negative tone of the book. His purpose (as is Rand's) is to crush the looting society, which is rational because of the burden it places on the producers. But in the end, that purpose relies on there to be a society to crush--it relies on other people.
By the time Rand endorses coercion in the most direct manner (use of guns and killing) toward the end of the book, thus completely contradicting her libertarian argument, the reader is willing to give up on her completely. But the extremes to which she takes her story should not undermine the insight she lends on man's great challenges. Indeed, it is her willingness to identify the faults in society and rhetorically crush them that frees us to be constructive and wholly creative.
Despite its major flaws, `Atlas Shrugged' is possibly the only fictional work that addresses the kind of challenges it does. You will need to work for this book, but it will be worth it. Read it and discuss as they might have done in Aristotle's day.
Book Review: The grand myth of Atlas
Summary: 1 Stars
I always got the impression Ayn Rand was a very sexual but unsatisfied woman. She seemed obsessed with hyper-successful men and...skyscrapers. I won't call it a simple romanticizing, as her writing repeatedly reveals itself as a non-physical outlet for her unrequited fixations. In Atlas Shrugged she tried hard to balance this with a strong female character who takes what she wants, but it's still with these same types of men who interestingly take what they want when she's with them. Vicarious? As to the less sexual but even more arousing aspects, Rand explores the Prime Mover: singular entrepreneurs who change the world. She does not stop at that, though. She focuses on the "Atlas" figures who are monopolizers. She does this in a misplaced attempt to show not just how Eastern European socialism but ultimately ANY constraint on capitalism is bad. I will quickly agree pure socialism (e.g. communism) like pure capitalism (e.g. China or the pre-workers' riots/rights era in the West) has its problems. Yet the rest does not follow.
The country she came from was not oppressive because it was socialist, rather because it was totalitarian and early on did not have a consistent rule-of-law or historically contiguous justice system...especially during the revolution. Most "prime movers" throughout history got to where they did not because of invention and innovation. In fact, the original genius inventors and innovators are often much less financially successful and not the ones who rise to the top. The heads of U.S. railroad, steel, and precious metal monopolies were able to centralize power primarily (pun!) through the use of worker exploitation, thievery, bribery, conspiracy, collusion, fraud, and a variety of other illegal acts...some even worse. Rather than being brought to justice, their companies were simply broken up under anti-trust law. If ignoramuses want to try and ignore facts in favor of the laissez-faire ramblings of some horney but homely Eastern European refugee, then be my guest. It's still ignoring history and as such must be repudiated with truth.
And don't get me started on the resemblances to the "handsome architect" shtick from Fountainhead. Architects and engineers are essentially interchangeable. If we're talking about artistic style in a design as in the prior novel, that's one thing. I have to assume that was a redeeming product of the editing process. Here you get the pure form. But there are no two, three, or even three hundred Prime Mover architects if jailed, put out of work for good reason, or just voluntarily went off to some brooding man-cave all the skyscrapers and bridges would collapse. There are plenty to replace them and capitalism is not even necessary for them to flourish. Only funding is needed. I'm all for intellectual property rights, but Ayn Rand was clearly deficient in her understanding of science, engineering, & technological development, and this is most apparent in attributing some of her characters with almost wizard or guild-like secret knowledge that no one else possesses. It is a complete and utter fantasy. The concepts are universal, and knowledge & intelligence can be taught. Good character and a healthy B.S. meter perhaps cannot.
If standardization is necessary, such as railroad gauge, there are industry consortiums (like the IEEE) and government mandates that routinely and effectively fill that role. The real-world success examples are numerous and the potential for future efficacy in everything from financial regulation to automobiles boggles the mind. Most of the current problems we face can in fact be quite easily solved through this. The entrepreneurs have their roles and their rights, but should not be deified. The regulation of and governing over capitalism produces a system that ensures diversity & market fairness so the evolutionary dynamics can play out. Just as The Founders used a solution in taking pieces of monarchy, aristocracy, and republic to form our mixed government, so too must an economy. There is wisdom in balance and moderation. Allowing a feudal-style super-mogul in a given industry is not only unnecessary, but more prone to putting a populace at the mercy of one person's whims. You would never allow that in a modern government, so why do it in the economic sector?
Rand's most fundamental core flaw is this, in her unwavering exaltation of the unbounded individual. While rights boil down to the singular because the group does not think, feel, sentiently bare witness to its surroundings, nor vote because it is merely an abstraction of collected individuals; you cannot get most grand things done through a single person alone, even at the managerial level through fiat. Collaboration and teamwork is what built the pyramids, changed the courses of rivers, got us to the Moon, fights crime in every city, wins wars, and is most effective in the most extreme of circumstances: the state of emergency. When untamed nature wrecks havoc, the credo "every man for himself" will fail. Nature also has a human twin in the unethical man. And he is in fact more powerful per capita than the ethical man because he has fewer limits on what he will resort to. Evil trends towards success and centralized power. Thus you fight the utility of evil not by becoming it but through superior numbers and teamwork.