Atlas Shrugged
by Ayn Rand
|
List Price: Our Price: $9.66 You Save: $15.34 (61%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $7.49 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of Atlas Shrugged
Book Review: Beautiful, Brilliant and Necessary
Summary: 5 Stars
Sitting down to pen and paper--or rather lap and laptop--to write a review of this book which has long had a profound place in my life, I look at the headlines around me: a bridge in San Fransisco reported to be on the verge of collapse after years of bureaucratic neglect and irresponsibility; a half-million pounds of contaminated beef are to be recalled, a report predicts that half of US children will be on foodstamps within twenty years, a tax-payer housing project for illegal immigrants is being planned by the US government.....and in the 1 November New York Times, the publication of an essay by one Adam Kirsch of The New Republic, a distorted hack-piece of an attack on Rand under the guise of a review of a new Rand biography. The silliness, the complete misinterpretation of Rand's work is so vast as to seem deliberate (it was written around Halloween--I thought maybe Kirsch wrote it dressed up as James Taggart--?). It would not be worth commenting on, were it not for the fact that his views represent, in general, what is so exasperatingly misunderstood about Rand's message (particularly in AS). I ask your pardon, in advance, for the length of the following.
Let me begin by saying that I am not an 'Objectivist', as I don't 'need' to be. I read and loved both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged; they have been enough in terms of reinforcing or shaping anew certain convictions of mine. I read Barbara Brandon's biography of Rand, which I found beautifully written, both respectful (but not worshiping) and objective (but not artificially detached), particularly in light of the dramatic events of their friendship. Mr. Kirsch (we'll get to him in a moment) makes a smarmy aside about the book's appeal to a "mass market". There is nothing 'mass-market' in my background, education, tastes and life in general, outside of trips to grocery stores. I am a very highly-educated American, distinguished in my field and female. Some of my other favorite authors, for example, are Vladimir Nabokov and Graham Greene. There is no 'pulp' in any of my cultural or intellectual interests. I used to be a conservative Republican until it was taken over by the Bush, Neocon, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh crowd; I used to see the potential of Democrats until that party was taken over by the Obamamania, Pelosi, Clinton-worshiping crowd. I am a political loner.
Atlas Shrugged is a beautiful story about the possibilities of the human spirit. It is about adhering to an exalted vision of man's potential, and the deepest sense of a love of life that comes with such vision. The basis of this outlook is the rigorous application of Reason as man's greatest gift, his only tool of survival and success in all areas of life. It is the proper exercise of Reason that is at the foundation of how he defines and applies his intellectual ability, his moral code, his sense of justice, his personal comportment and how he utimately find the one person--the ultimate object of desire--he will and can only love. She, Rand, defined this philosophy as "rational self-interest". Please note the word "rational" before "self-interest". She does not mean the 'self-interest' of those who have no Self--i.e. the foam-at-the-mouth wimps--both rich and poor--in her books.
It is a heroic view of life, one with a great sense of the dignity of man. The Kirsches of the world sneer at this kind of thing for one reason and one reason only: they don't believe it possible in themselves so they don't believe it possible for anyone. Given the state of jadedness and cynicism pervading most of our "cultural" standards today, this is to be expected.
The writing in the novel and its structure are exquisite. She repeats, but has to, given the scope of the work. She masterfully pulls together suspenseful, well-paced events and introspective flashbacks with complex, interlocking themes, interlocking storylines, profound, but never boring technological data (she did her homework), peak, dramatic scenes of high crises, and then orchestrates these elements into the novel's brisk, smart closing scenes, all the while keeping the whole vessel together with an overriding, consistent philosophy. The psychological portraits of her characters is masterly. There are several scenes of sheer beauty and emotional poignancy: the childhood of Dagny and Francisco, the first journey of the John Galt Line (the scene that made a Random House editor rave over the manuscript), the coal-engine tunnel disaster, the college-student assistant who dies in Hank Rearden's arms, John Galt confessing to Dagny that he wanted to be a world success like Rearden....these, and many more.
It has been said, like Kirsch writes, that her characters are "abstractions". No one can be so "emotionally repressed", no one can be so infallible, so self-possessed, or to coast off into eloquent speeches at the drop of a dime. These characters--"cartoon characters" in the words of the Garfield fan, Mr. Kirsch--would be more 'real' (hey, man), of course, if their language were strewn with obscenities, if they broke down and whimpered in times of crises, if they had sex indiscriminately with any breathing body at the bar that night; if they joined hands around Wyatt's Fire to sing ' Kumbaya' and ask that Jesus and Buddha both help in lobbying efforts to move the supply base of Taggart Transcontinental to a slave labor camp in China.
Rand depicts what excellent human composure consists of: emotional control as a means of keeping one's focus and mental balance in life (Not 'repression'--there are many many scenes of "emotion" in her main characters); being well-spoken in order to use words properly and to convey thoughts in a clear, precise manner (she fought her editors to keep the language "elevated". She maintained that debased language was for graffiti on subway walls, not books, and I would agree). The aristocratic manner of some of her characters (Dagny and Francisco) is meant to demonstrate the type of steely discipline and personal calm that best works in face of the onslaughts of stupidity and sloppiness around one.
We have all known James Taggarts or Lillian Readens or Robert Stadlers. The Eddie Willers type is familiar to us as well. But so is Hank Rearden. And we have somewhere met the Dagny type and the Francisco type. The latter is difficult to imagine for one reason only: that he was, apparently, exclusively loyal all those years to a Dagny he rarely saw. Given that he is depicted as one of the best looking men on earth, one of the wealthiest and, last but not least, Argentine (i.e. the Latin lover image), it is "impossible" to imagine him so chaste. Fine. But his type--his elegance and self-certainty and "mocking pride", many of us have seen in certain kinds of men. The "severity" of Galt, meanwhile, is partially for the effect of literary drama. But given what he represents, his characterization could not have been otherwise. Do we know Galts? I think that the "millionaire next door" type is the real-life version of him: the serious, determined, "hidden", American-dream worker who is carrying the burden of the nation's wealth....
One should also note that her heroic characters are inventors, engineers, a conservative investor, a philosopher, and an artist (a composer). Her "Capitalism"--the application of a man's Reason to preserve his material well-being, security and enjoyment in life--is that of rigid intellectual application. It is not Bernie Madoff, Wall Street meltdow hey-day anything-goes "capitalism". It is why many of her villans are businessmen. This essential difference is one that has remained strangely elusive to many if not most critics.
About the sex in this book. In Mr. Kirsch's "review", he boyishly, gleefully notes right away that part of the "mass appeal" of this work consists of Rand's vivid sex scenes. Now, c'mon folks. In a book that is some 1100 pages long, I counted about four, and these about a paragraph or two long. There are no crude mechanics described, no florid description of them pwivate pawts, no shrill aches and pains detailed ad nauseum. The "sexual struggle" aspect in which Rand pits Dagny and her devoted male suitors (three of them in her 37 years, no slut is she) is meant to highlight their conquest of a heroine. I found the sex scenes to be very well done, and at times, beautiful. These were men who represented Dagny's sense of life, and the sexual dimension a celebration of that.
On this note, one of the most beautiful "theories" on the meaning of love between a man and a woman is to be found in Francisco's speech to Hank Rearden on that subject, after Rearden, the one hero who struggles with self doubt, asserts that sex and a man's value or spirit are two separate categories. Read Fransicso's respose, I think it is one of the most lovely, poignant comments on the meaning of sex, ever.
Then of course there is John Galt's speech. Read it at its own sitting, it is wonderful. Kirsch, pounding away at the favorite mantra of his and his ilk, writes that the speech "makes Gordon Gekko's look like the Sermon on the Mount". Really, where? Where does it sound like that? In its defense of using your brains? In asserting that enduring money and success cannot exist without integrity and honesty? In telling men of 18 hour days and entrepreneurial risk to stick to their convictions and not give into the pallaver of "public policy" that breaks their backs in order to prop up incompetence? ( Mysteriously Mr. Kirsch gives no example of these GG-like comparisons--this being the Times and all where any journalist must scrupuously defend his or her points and...whatever...).
Finally, no attack on Rand would be complete without a) mentioning Nathaniel (!), b) book sale comparisons to the Bible c) Bennet Cerf and d) Her "amphetamines".
The lady was married fifty years, sometimes wonderful sometimes hellish. Fifty years, friends. Her husband Frank was not the intellectual giant she was but he played a very good complementary role, and even supplied the title of the book, and was her sounding board for its writing and Fountainhead, Anthem, etc. Branden came into her life at the height of the professional upswing in her life, and they had an affair that ended badly. End of story. Her critics just do not relent, it seems, in sniping away at her "infallibility", her mistake.
Kirsch gloats that AS, in having the highest sales in American publishing after the Bible (so it is said), can mean only that a bunch of thick-headed commoners find as much mystical, rah-rah appeal in AS to pump up their wobbly self-regard as they do in ingesting hearty, wholesome fare from the Gospels. Yawn. Note the snide, second-hand elitism of a Leftish journalist who can't for a minute imagine that an intelligent reading public may be attracted--very attracted--to the convictions she espouses. Convictions one cannot otherwise voice without the Kirsches of the media or a university classroom or God knows where hurling insults at them. The Bible, of course, is an entirely separate matter. We are talking about the religion of one billion people who own and will continue to buy the Bible. This is something else. The appeal of Rand, I would argue, is on its own merits. And what Kirsch doesn't want to confront is that people might be far smarter than he thinks.
Bennet Cerf and Ayn Rand became lifelong friends. The editors were ecstatic about the book and, as I wrote above, the John Galt Line scene was the selling point of the manuscript. He made the comment that he found her political philosophy "abhorrent"--at first. But he came to agree with many of her views. See Barbara Branden's biography on this. The sections on Random House and the book's publication is a wonderful read.
And as for the "amphetamines".....Rand did not knowingly take any kind of narcotic. She took an appetite suppresant, so she believed, that was prescribed to her by her doctor in order to maintain the energy to write. She was constantly tired. Years later, it was discovered that what she was taking was newly categorized as an amphetamine. She stopped taking it at once. Again, this is from Barbara Branden's biography, in footnote form. But the sly Kirsch wants you to think that the moralizing grande dame was some kind of druggie.
But...enough said. In grand Randian fashion, go, find out for yourself, think independently, see what the book tells you personally. It's been a great event in my life.
Book Review: Not as good as if could have been, but at bad as I'd feared . . .
Summary: 2 Stars
I came across Atlas Shrugged here on Amazon while looking for something else entirely. I read some of the reviews. Many people loved this book, and some people absolutely hated it. There was a real conflict going on. The one star reviews sighted an overly lengthy tomb that was preachy and highly opinionated with poorly drawn and poorly developed characters, unrealistic dialogue and confusing descriptions. The 5 star reviews touted amazing characters, poetic descriptions and ground breaking philosophy. But, it was the comments to the 5 star and 1 star reviews that got me interested. I read a comment on a one star review that the commenter thought the one star review was unwarranted and the reviewer needed to read some in-depth analytical books addressing this book and its author's philosophies - then re-read and try the review again (and that the second time around couldn't possibly be a low rating). Well, any book that needs other books to explain it and make it understandable and worthwhile does not sound like a good book at all in my opinion. Other commenter on the 1 star reviews basically said that the reviewers (and anyone who would rate this book low) were a bunch of closed minded sheep that COULD not or WOULD not understand the monumental, brand new philosophy in this book. Well, when anyone says that the reason a book is not liked is because of stupidity, ignorance or willful disregard, it makes me wonder - about both the book and the commenter. On the other side, the comments on some of the 5 star reviews accused those reviewers of being brainwashed cult followers. Overall, I was interested enough to read the sample on my Kindle. I wanted to know what all the controversy was about. I was pretty underwhelmed, and I have to say, I agree more with the 1 star reviewers than the 5 star. It was not well written, it was unrealistic in many ways, not believable at all, and was way too long. I was not fired up in either way. I do not vehemently hate it, nor did I absolutely despise it. I was pretty unimpressed, both with the writing itself and the concepts therein.
As I said, the book is not well written. Many of the reviewers did comment on this, and the response from those who loved the book were often that English was author's second language so cut her some slack. I do not agree that that is an acceptable reason nor is it even a good excuse. A good editor or even a proof reader, even a few willing friends, could have cleaned it up. There is no reason why a book should be published like this. A few examples follow. Verb tense. Often the verb tense was inappropriate, especially when switching between past memory to current time. At one point, a character was thinking about an oak tree from his child hood (in past tense) and then this sentence "He stood there for a while, making no sound, then he walked back to the house." Now, of course, after a moment of thought and a quick re-read, I figured out that he was still remembering a memory and not actually looking for a moment and walking back to the house NOW, but when there are multiple instances of verb tense mix ups throughout, it makes for a very confusing, jarring read. There are also many places were the wrong form of a verb or adjective is used, such as singular versus plural. An example: "It was as if normal existence were (should be was rather than were) a photograph." And "-not more than every fourth one of the stores was (should be were) out of business; its (should be their) windows dark." A proof reader or editor would have easily corrected this. Also, there were sudden point of view changes without indication or warning, one moment we are in one character's head, with their thoughts and feelings, and then we are suddenly in the head of another, then back again. Then, there is Rearden's name. He's referred to both as Hank and as Henry. Again, I figured it out, but there were a few pages where people were talking to "Henry" and I was thinking, did someone else walk in? I read back and forth, trying to find where it was explained that Hank was Henry, and couldn't find it. Earlier in the book, people would suddenly speak up that hadn't been initially described as being in the scene, so it wasn't unprecedented to have new characters show up without introduction.
In addition, the sentence structure was rather cumbersome and confusing at times. Sentences are very long, repetitive and strung together with commas and semicolons. Example: "The notes flowed up, they spoke of rising and they were rising itself, they were the essence and form of upward motion, they seemed to embody every human act and thought that had ascent as its motive." Or "But from the sunset far at the end of the street, yellow glints caught his eyes, and the eyes looked straight at Eddie . . ." So, were the yellow glints at the end of the street and did the glints catch his attention? Because, if they did, how can he look at Eddie at the same time he's looking at the glints? Were they supposed to be caught IN his eyes? I think so. Or ". . . not an active fire, but a dying one which it is too late to stop." This sentence indicates that it's too late to stop the fire, which doesn't make sense because the fire is dying. But I think what it is actually trying to say is that it is the dying of the fire that is too late to stop. There were instances of this thoughout the book, and it made reading it difficult because I found myself re-reading and re-reading, before I got it. You can't just read through this book non-stop with images and experiences running through your head, because the words keep getting in the way.
I don't know about all readers, but I would guess many of them would be thrown off balance and just plain confused by the writing of this book. I was. I had a writing teacher once who gave some of the best advice I've ever gotten, "You want readers to read your story not the words of your story. You want them to read without seeing the words. If they are seeing the words or worse, being confused and tripped up by them, then you have failed." That was certainly true for me reading this book. It was only a string of words without imagery that envoked no feeling.
Onto the characters. I too found them to be unrealistic, contradictory, and poorly drawn. There were only a few types of people in this book, those portrayed as stupid, selfish (wanting things only for their own gratification) and charitable beyond any rational reason and those portrayed as cold, emotionless and selfish (wanting things only to feed their vision). I would agree with the other reviewers who said the dialogue was preachy, contrived and unrealistic. Example: "Of what importance is an individual in the titanic collective achievement of our industrial age?" or "little slum children", "it's purely non-commercial", and "selfish greed for profit is a thing of the past.", or this great big long, incongruous statement, "I'm not going to requisition a new typewriter. The new ones are made of tin. When the old ones go, that will be the end of typewriting. There was an accident in the subway this morning, their brakes wouldn't work. You ought to go home, Eddie, turn on the radio and listen to a good dance band. Forget it, boy. Trouble with you is you never had a hobby. Somebody stole the electric light bulbs from off the staircase, down where I live. I've got a pain in my chest. Couldn't get any cough drops this morning, the drugstore on our corner went bankrupt last week. The Texas-Western Railroad went bankrupt last month. They closed the Queensborough Bridge yesterday for temporary repairs. Oh well, what's the use? Who is John Galt?" Who says things like this? Nobody! People don't talk like that. They give speeches with that kind of language, maybe, but not talk to each other like that in everyday conversations.
I found no new concepts in this book. The individual versus the whole, society versus industry, ect . . . Rand did not discover something new and reveal it in this book. Nor was her restated concepts portrayed in any realistic setting. The man who runs the train company is whining in response to urging to use a big, established, good quality supplier because the small company (low quality and long lead times that cost them months of time and money) should be given a chance. Or defending a failing venture in an undeveloped country because - shouldn't those countries have help and have modern facilities too? And he's telling his more efficient, hardworking and profit minded hardnosed co-owner sister that she doesn't understand or care about the human element . . . well, as far as business is concerned, of course she doesn't! And to portray any leader of a business as this man is silly. I work in a manufacturing field, and I can tell you, a vendor that provides high cost, low quality parts and is constantly blowing delivery dates is dropped. Same with business ventures, if something isn't making a profit, it goes. And what's this whole resistance to using the new type of metal? "but - but no ones used this new type of metal before . . ." Once again, businesses are always looking for the newest tech, the newest discoveries and inventions to make themselves bigger and better and give them an edge and make them money. This whole business set up in this book just seriously annoyed me. No business runs like that, it couldn't, and rendering one as such, even to make a point, just rang false for me. In the book, sentiment, affection, charity were portrayed as weak, negative emotions that none of the obviously strong, truly successful, hero characters had, even towards their families. The strong heros were condescending, arrogant and bitter.
I did read the forward, which had some comments on Rand, as well as some explanations of her characters and the parts they played. Again, if I have to have things spelled out before hand and be TOLD (because it's apparently not clear enough in the book itself) what something ACTUALLY means (because my own ability to drawn my own conclusions must be faulty or my willful ignorance might make me ignore logic and reason) then I suspect there is something lacking in the book itself, either in the nuts and bolts of the writing or in the characters or plot. I found all that to be true in this instance. The actual structure of the writing was confusing and repetitive as well as contradictory, and both the characters and the plot were unrealistic, unrelatable, inhuman and also contradictory. Clarity, concise and realistic dialogue, sympathetic characters, believable plot/people/motivations/actions were all lacking. As a story, it is not something I want to read. As a philosophy, it was nothing new or groundbreaking, that I need to read, and certainly don't want to if its not well written.
Quote from Rand: "I seem to be both a theoretical philosopher and a fiction writer. But it is the last that interests me most; the first is only a means to the last . . ." Well, this book is not evidence that supports this statement. It is the exact opposite, in my opinion. This fiction book was not a vehicle for her philosophy. Her philosophy was a vehicle for this book. That was evident to me in the preachy speeches of the characters and the unrealistic mold every scene was shoved into. She did not use her fiction to tell about a philosophy but rather used her philosophy to tell a story. Everything was drawn and built to fit that philosophy.
Quote from Rand: ". . . creating a new, original abstraction and translating it through new, original means. This, as far as I know, is only ME - my kind of fiction writing . . . May God forgive me if this is mistaken as conceit. As near as I can now see it, it isn't . . ." Well, I saw nothing new or original in the philosophy and certainly nothing new in this book, and to think it is, to judge one's own work as such, sounds conceited to me. And, in reading Rand's other statements in the forward, she certainly left me with an impression she is an elitist, arrogant, condescending and bitter woman, just like the heroes she created. I will definitely not be paying the high Kindle price to read the rest of this book.
This all makes me sad, in a way. There were moments and certain descriptions that were like breathtaking snatches of sunlight and left me thinking - wow, this woman could have been a great novelist. With a little editing, a little less soap box preaching, a grounding in realistic, believable settings and characters, she could have written a tremendous book. There is talent here, but its warped and lost in the extrusion through her narrow and bent mold.
Book Review: A once in a lifetime read
Summary: 5 Stars
This is a very difficult review to write because I don't know that words can adequately define how much this book has both changed me and inspired me. Atlas Shrugged is a masterpiece in its truest sense that will captivate the reader from the first page on.
Atlas Shrugged is about the industrial giants in our country, the movers and shakers, going on strike and taking their ideas, work ethic, and abilities underground and away from society. In fact, the title of the book was going to be "The Strike" until Ayn's husband Frank O'Connor suggested "Atlas Shrugged" to her. This book examines what would happen should these individuals disappear, and explores reasons why they should want to leave. Rand explains that with so many "looters" trying to get their hands on their "earned" money (through taxes, gov't regulations, nationalizing industries, welfare, etc.), they are the ones that are the real victims; not the poor. Without these leaders holding the world on their shoulders, we would have very little, therefore, we benefit from their ingenuity and leadership. Before I read this book, my political ideas were slowly drifting towards the left. I would have said that the scenarios she presents were overly simplistic and exaggerated before I actually read her very compelling arguments strung throughout the entire book. She portrays several heroic figures in the book that are forced to fight the obstacles that our society and people put in their way; when all they ever wanted was to produce and earn an honest living, free of interference (I am aware that not all industrialists are that ethical in real life, but most are this way). Our society expects and relies on their virtue and work ethic to stay put, regardless of our society's demands and impediments. But what would happen if they finally say "enough is enough!"? Then what?
One of the best elements of the book was Rand's ability to develop her many characters, both good and bad. Ayn Rand has an astonishing grasp of the English language and uses it in such a way as to persuade and to provoke thought. Throughout the book, I literally felt the range of emotions that Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden experienced. I was able to feel the fervor they felt to wake the people up around them, the passion they felt for each other, and the rage and frustration they felt as their companies collapsed around them. I was also amazed at how many times the "bad guys" would make statements that I myself would have made ("it's not their fault that..." or "...we should have a right to..." or "...everyone deserves a chance to..."), only to have those statements completely torn apart by one of Rand's "good guys" replies. She certainly has made me reconsider many statements that I have made in the past.
Throughout the book, the four main protagonists consistently provide some of the most insightful soliloquies. The two that stand out the most to me are the 5 page speech on money given by Francisco d'Anconia (page 410-415 in the 35th anniversary edition) and of course the John Galt speech on the state of the world (pages 1,009-1,069). The money speech debunks the idea that "money is the root of all evil" and really opened my eyes to a new way to think about money: earned vs. unearned and the fact that it is a "product" of blood, sweat, and tears... and virtue. The John Galt speech, though long winded at times, clarifies almost all of Rand's ideas and expresses almost all of her "Objectivism" philosophy on how life and the world should be. She provides simply amazing and persuasive arguments to support her views on altruism, sacrifice, love, self esteem, religion, communism, etc, etc, etc.
In response to many of the other reviews that I have read regarding this book, I wanted to make the following points:
1. I've read that Atlas Shrugged (and most of Rand's writings) inspires and appeals mainly to the youth by capitalizing on their boundless energy, idealism, and naïveté's of the "real world". However, I am 31 years old (some may still consider this young) and have worked in the "real world" for over 8 years now, and no other book has ever inspired me to achieve my full potential as much as this book has. No other book has given me as much courage to struggle against the "doubters" we all have in our life, to combat the negative theologies that we have been raised with, and resist the constant pressure to settle for mediocrity, comfort, and complacency. No other book has motivated me to pursue my deepest desires and to find real happiness, love, reason, truth, and a fulfilling existence.
2. It has also been said of her recently, that some of the ideas expressed in the book are "outdated" and are somehow not relevant to today's society. This claim is ridiculous and myopic. We have several examples in the current day of the type of government control and aggression that she demonstrates in this book. These include Venezuela and most of South America, countries throughout Asia, the Middle East and Africa, and even Russia has recently started centralizing many of its control back to the government and inching further and further away from capitalist and democratic ideals. Even in our own country we see a steady progression towards socialist ideas from the 1930's all the way to the current day (health care, retirement, public education, welfare, public housing, the patriot act, etc.). I am not saying these shouldn't be debated in our modern world or are necessarily a bad thing, but Rand's concern is that the more individual rights we surrender and the more we allow gov't to take control, the closer we come to the devastating scenario she puts forth in her book. And she should know something about this progression since she saw it in communist Russia as a child in the early 1900's, and lived through the communist movements of the mid 20th century around the globe. We need to learn from history so that we don't repeat it, not ignore it as if it could never happen again. With that ignorant attitude, we are destined to repeat it.
But this book doesn't just include her philosophies on politics and economics. Atlas Shrugged also deals with love, sex (R rated I might add ;-) ), courage, psychology, sociology, philosophy, human relationships, mystery, religion, and every aspect of life imaginable. These are all intertwined throughout and give the reader a complete and clear definition of what her philosophical views are. She leaves no stone unturned. It should be noted that regardless if you agree with her ideas or not, it is simply mind-blowing to be able to read a book that has an entire rational philosophical system within it.
With all this said, however, there are several criticisms that I will comment on that does take away from the book, but certainly not my 5 star rating. 1. The good and bad guys are obvious. There is no attempt at creating a middle ground for Rand. You either love the characters, or hate them. 2. She can be a bit long winded at times to drive her point home. I actually appreciate this about her writings, but many of you won't. My uncle put it best when he told me before I read this book, "If it is worth saying once, it is worth saying a thousand times." 3. The ending was a bit anti-climatic. It almost seemed as though a different author wrote the last 80 pages. I'm not sure what happened there. 4. Many will point out that the scenarios and outcomes in this book are exaggerated. Although this may or may not be true, this again is part of her writing style that you either like or don't like. I tend to like the direct and bold manner in which she writes because I myself am a passionate and enthusiastic person, and as I read this book, I could feel the emotion and intensity that she put into every single word she wrote.
Overall, this book is the most influential book I have read to date. It is bold, inspiring, intense, courageous, passionate, and life changing. For anyone out there that knows they are destined for something more than they are doing right now, for anyone out there that is passionate about life and the pursuit of real happiness, and for those out there that feel burdened by people and the mediocrity around them, I can't recommend this book enough to you. I know I have been changed forever for having read Atlas Shrugged.
Book Review: An intriguing though flawed book
Summary: 3 Stars
Ayn Rand weaves a tale full of characters, situations and settings that personify and exemplify some of her deeply understood philosophy. Each city, each landscape is imbued with meaning and her sense of the world. Each conversation or characters inner dialogue is important towards getting her point across. There is much to applaud in Ayn Rand's novel. A return to reason, an attack on the dumbing down of society, a celebration of the mind, a destruction of relativism and a return to objectivity are all defended. I get the feeling that this book was created as a defense to some startling trends which were occurring when this book was written, some of which are still occurring today.
Although from a literary perspective this was a thoroughly, encompassing novel, I did find a few shortcomings. Some of the dialogue was a bit wooden and some of the antagonists were created as straw-men. I can tell that the creation of her protagonists was a labor of love, but little time was spent on building up, equally interesting antagonists. The antagonists unrealistic statements include; a banker who was proud of giving money to those who were bad investments and took great pride in losing all his money (Page 289), a scientist who says that technological advancements are not fair to incompetent scientists (Page 330), professors who console mourning students by saying that because reality is only an illusion you can't know your son is dead (page 463), unrealistic directives designed by governmental bureaucrats to freeze time, train passengers who say that "the men of ability must be penalized to support the incompetent (Page 561), complaints that hiring qualified workers is unfair because then the weak would be dominating the strong (Page 903) and the constant absurd claim that the common view among society is that the mind doesn't exist. The governmental bureaucrats, scientists and the general public are painted with an extreme, unrealistic brush. Perhaps this was the author's point I couldn't tell. By painting her intellectual opponents with an extreme brush and taking events to an absurd extreme, it shines a spotlight on the weaker positions which they support. Perhaps, many of the positions that the antagonists express are not meant to be taken as ideas that are literally held by the sane majority.
I found much of the discussion of the corruption in the business and corporate world to be spot-on. Taggart realizes that when bureaucrats talk about the `public good', they really mean which individual member of the public bribed them to get on their good side. In this sense, one man Taggart, humorously becomes `the public good. When the bureaucrats directive becomes equivalent to a law of nature, it is profoundly illustrated by the author. The author divides these corrupting governmental influences in to those whose acts of plunder were brought on by gluttony and those whose acts were brought on by a charity lust. It is easy for the reader to criticize the gluttony of bureaucrats getting rich off of absurd regulations but the authors criticism hits more deeply when she criticizes those heartfelt `plunderers' who want to help out those less able at the expense of those who produce.
I found her depictions of scientists and governmental scientists to be wholly inaccurate and absurdly wrong. The scientists are involved in bribery, in decrying any science that can make a profit and Mrs. Rand even had the audacity to say that governmental scientific inquiry is a contradiction in terms. Perhaps this was true in her day but today it rings completely hollow. Being a scientist myself, this seems like a critique from an outsider who has no idea what is going on.
Some of her strongest criticism is aimed at cultural relativists who claim that there is no objective reality only cultural reality and at Christians who created the disgusting idea of original sin. As a brief aside, I find it astounding that so many conservatives who are followers of Ayn Rand are devout Christians. You cannot be a Christian and be a follower of Ayn Rand's philosophy. The destruction of the evil Christian `morality' is some of her strongest critiques in this book and it is central to her philosophy. She uses some of her harshest words for the morality of original sin and the like.
Although this idea of cultural relativism is discussed throughout the book, it is most strongly exemplified when the Wet Nurse or Mr. Non-Absolute lies dying and makes the statement that people believe that there are no values only social customs. I am one who believes like the author that there are certain values that are etched in stone as it were, and they are not only social customs. There are certain values that some cultures hold that are superior to others. But where Mrs. Rand misses the point is when the Wet Nurse criticizes those who say that man is only a `collection of chemicals'. It seems to me that Ayn Rand the materialist, the mystic-basher and spiritualist stomper would agree with this idea that man is a collection of chemicals. Today in the science world, materialist is actually defined by this idea that man is a collection of chemicals, soulless, only lead by the workings of his neurons. I am confused why Mrs. Rand would criticize this idea. Her definition of materialist is most aptly put by Dr Akston on Page 729 and 730 when he says man must use his mind to discover his world and his values, create based on what he has found and he should be judged by his actions in the material world. There is no essence of goodness found in the weak, man must be judged according to that which can be measured. Recent findings in genetics and neurobiology, once again weaken her point. We are finding through twin studies that genetic and neurobiological determinants do play a role (often the majority) in the success and behavior of man. It is not simply a matter of the strong, through their own fruition, rising to the top. On top of this, recent findings in evolutionary biology have found that it is `natural' for humanity to exhibit traits of altruism. This is most rationally described by the game theorists such as John Maynard Smith. In the scenarios with which we are presented as humans, we can often achieve our selfish goals by helping out those around us. These traits developed within tribes due to the fact that we are social primates but in this day and age our altruistic sphere has expanded as the philosopher Peter Singer so eloquently explains. I will be the first to combat the `naturalistic fallacy' which says that what is natural is right. But the author stakes much of her claim on the objective circumstances with which we live and celebrates that like the wings of a bird, man should celebrate his natural gifts, his large mind and capacity to reason. It turns out that much of man's mind is devoted to reason and emotion. In fact, we are learning that you can't have reason without emotion. Other recent findings have made clear some of the cognitive biases that are a part of humanity. This makes the process of self-inquiry a little less trustworthy. Often our mind takes shortcuts and has heuristics that are irrational and serve to actually combat our own goals. For instance, everybody wants to have a happy, wealthy retirement. The best way to achieve that is to take the decisions of saving for retirement out of your hands and removing it from your paycheck. These cognitive biases shape us and in turn shape our society in negative ways. Public policies to combat these biases in social and economic realms will help us shape our own goals. These failings of humanity have the potential to topple us all, and Ayn Rand's rugged individual will be brought down to earth like the rest of us. A system where each man looks after his own self-interest only, will end up combatting his self-interest as the social structure around him is toppled by the failings of man. A governmental structure that doesn't overreach but makes up for these shortcomings will benefit the selfish individual.
Book Review: Nihilism with a "Yes we can!"
Summary: 3 Stars
What would happen if one day, Atlas, with the colossal weight of the world on his shoulders, decided to just shrug it off? If this has got your interest, then you should read this book. It is certainly long but it reads relatively easy, excepting some rather long winded diatribes. This is largely due to the fact that this is a novel of ideas and not a novel per se. Being Rand's self proclaimed magnum opus of her philosophical theories of Objectivism, the normal elements of a novel are secondary to the need to elucidate Rand's ideas on politics, ethics, morality, and economics. It has provoking ideas that are fed to you wrapped in a story of epic proportions (and distortions too, of course, to make a point). The influence of this book is equally epic. Just bring it up casually at any social gathering and watch the reactions from people. It can be intense. For these reasons alone you should read this book.
The story is an apocalyptic one with the world quickly descending into violent chaos because a handful of the 'producers', or industrial tycoons, business magnates, genius engineers, intellectuals, etc. decided they were tired of supporting the world of 'looters', the vast majority of humanity who are lazy, good-for-nothings that just mooch off the 'producers'. So, the real powers that be (which are not the government) go on strike. And all hell breaks loose. And who hasn't felt these same things in their own lives? This place would fall apart if it wasn't for me. My God, I'm surrounded by such stupidity. Look at the way that person's driving, what an idiot! If I ruled the world, it would be such a better place. And so on and so forth. This is what sucks you into the novel. These mundane feelings of indignation are cast in the grand historical narrative of social darwinism. And of course, you know how it must end as a result but you've just got to read it to find out! The novel will pull you along rather engagingly.
This is based on a rather nihilistic viewpoint of Rand's, casting the world as a meaningless, raw material to be molded by the hands of a select few with the intelligence and drive to create meaning. It has strong messianic overtones (though she herself, a daughter of secular Jews, was an avowed atheist and had very little patience for religion) in the central character of John Galt who delivers the few good from the masses of bad to then bring the new world in to being. Galt is the self-made man (possibly an every man but of course, not really) cast in the image of Christ. This line of thought produces what I feel is the single most important effect of this book - self-empowerment. It is very difficult to walk away from this book and not feel a tremendous amount of self worth immediately following. Yes, the world is against me! I am a worthwhile, intelligent, creative person who can accomplish anything! To hell with the world and everyone else! I'm getting mine while I can!
Some considerations should be kept in mind though:
1. As a work of philosophy, it is important to keep in mind that the vast majority of professional philosophers have little time for Objectivism. There have been occasional essays written about it, but they are often highly critical of Rand's philosophy. I have a degree in philosophy and I can count on one finger when Rand was mentioned in my years of study. To a student's question about what my professor thought of Rand's philosophy, the reply was, "One can get ideas from Winnie the Pooh books as well." A very quick overview of my understanding of the matter is that Rand's rigor as a philosopher is rather lacking. Her main inspirations are a curious amalgamation of Nietzsche (who's "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" is a well-spring for "Atlas Shrugged" with Nietzsche's understanding of nihilism based in Christianity and the ubermensch, personified in the novel by John Galt) and Aristotle. Her ethics are troubling at best as they are based on rather overly dramatic extremes and basic binary oppositions, Good/Evil, Active/Passive, Individual/Group and so on. Therefore, having little practical application to real world situations. In a story line plotted out by the author with an inevitable ending of her own creation of course it works. In short, beware the air of intellectualism as the logical fallacies alone in her arguments are enough to make any philosopher wince.
2. Ayn Rand spends very little time considering such apparently trivial matters as racism or gender or classicism. Her characters are either born into a beneficial position or are able to work themselves up with little hindrance as they've been able to somehow get by on their merits even in a world which she characterizes as being not even remotely close to a meritocracy. The vast majority of her characters who propel the plot and exemplify her ideals are white, Eurocentric males who never confront obstacles based on their race or gender. Her central female character Dagny Taggart somehow avoids all gender bias. Rand herself was an outspoken critic of racism and supporter of equal rights between the sexes. It is curious then her choice of characters.
3. For a novel that espouses notions of critical thinking for one's self and Rand's own constant iterations of the same, it is surprising the number of people who take her literally. And quote obnoxiously verbatim from her. Much like the Jehovah's Witnesses at your front door. In Rand's defence, she kept many long friendships with people that she disagreed with. It is sad to say that many people don't follow this example of her's. After you've read the book, trust me. You'll see this happen all the time. This applies equally on the other spectrum with those that dislike the book giving no inch in a discussion on the book. It inspires some of the most passionate and violent reactions from people.
4. It is an unabashed exposition of why free market capitalism is the only economic system. If this isn't your cup of tea, be warned. An interesting thought to consider after reading - can Bernard Madoff be interpreted as a Randian individual par excellence?
There are of course other problems, particularly the drive of innovation and production that has environmental ramifications that Rand was either unaware of or unwilling to consider. Her descriptions of the industrial landscape are rather horrifying but it is certainly not meant to be horrifying. It's supposed to be awe inspiring. And many more.
But do read this book. I've centered on the negative in the spirit of a critical review, but it would be a lie to say I wasn't deeply moved by this book when I read it. My own position was initially to fall quickly in line with the way of thought. It is intoxicating on a certain level. As I said, it really makes you feel empowered. But this quickly faded after more thought for me and I now largely reject most of her claims.
As an antidote, I recommend reading JD Salinger's "The Catcher in the Rye". It also contains a nihilistic view of a world that should be overcome but in an angst ridden, adolescent view of the world. Which has some peculiar similarities to Rand's. It is interesting to consider the dream of Salinger's anti-hero, "I keep picturing all these little kids playing some game in this big field of rye and all. Thousands of little kids, and nobody's around--nobody big, I mean--except me. And I'm standing on the edge of some crazy cliff. What I have to do, I have to catch everybody if they start to go over the cliff--I mean if they're running and they don't look where they're going I have to come out from somewhere and catch them. That's all I'd do all day. I'd just be the catcher in the rye and all."
John Galt would let them fall.