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 $5.00 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of Atlas Shrugged
Book Review: Crisp in the beginning, then just awful.
Summary: 2 Stars
Dagny Taggart is the granddaughter of the great Nat Taggart, the man who built the nation's largest railroad, Taggart Transcontinental. She is a woman who only respects men of vision and ability and despises weakness in any form. She is surrounded my government bureaucrats and weak-willed men like her brother, the President of Taggart Transcontinental, James Taggart. Dagny has always loved accomplishment and we get a flashback to her adolescence where she loves a very promising young man named Francisco D'Aconnia. But after attending college, Francisco becomes a very different man. He is a slacker and a playboy living on the inheritance he is given as the sole heir of an international copper mining operation. Dagny ends up leaving him and burying herself in her work. She decides that just walking into the top of the railroad organization would not be honorable, so she starts as a station operator and works her way up to Vice President of Operations.
In that position, Dagny realizes that all the spineless men around her, especially her brother, have let the great railroad fall into disrepair. She works desperately to have the railroad return to its previous glory. In the process she meets great industrialists who share her disdain for any hint of moderation or reflection. These businessmen have set up shop in Colorado because they are burdened with the least amount of regulations and taxes there. Dagny knows these are men who deserve her effort and her railroad, and she risks her reputation and company to bring it to them. In the process she meets Hank Rearden, a steel and metal alloy magnate who provides her with new rails when all the other incompetent suppliers will not. Soon she falls for him and eagerly becomes his mistress. The two of them overcome great mediocrity in their suppliers and incompetence in their government regulators to build a great shining monument to freedom and capitalism. The John Galt Rail Line that ships oil, cars, and metal out of Colorado to the rest of the nation.
That's basically the story of the first 250 or so pages. Although it sounds rather dry the story is strangely compelling. The prose is full of memorable descriptions and phrases and is a pretty quick read. If the book stopped here, it would be a pretty good book.
But it doesn't. The book drags on for another 800 or so pages and those pages are just awful. The problem is that the book switches from telling a story to expounding a philosophy that is downright bizarre. The arc of the story follows Dagny, Rearden, Francisco and others as the government sets out actively to destroy them. There is a long slow decay as one by one the brave capitalists are crushed under the wheels of a thinly veiled communist government. Accelerating the decay is a man named John Galt who convinces all the men of vision and ability, i.e. great industrialists, to quit working and retire to a hidden valley called Galt's Gulch.
Underneath that arc is page after page of dialogue where people are not speaking to each other -- they are making speeches at each other. Even the dialogues of the lovers -- Dagny and Hank, later Dagny and John -- are just opportunities for extended soliloquies on the nature of freedom and capitalism. The crisp dialogue of the first part of the book is long gone, drowned in a pedantic attempt to convince the reader that Dagny and her gang are heroes by repetition and wordiness.
Although I read the first part of the book in a couple of days, it took several weeks to finish this book. I found myself alternatively shocked by the philosophy being expounded or bored and disgusted at the mangling of the plot in an attempt to make an ethical point. I haven't struggled this much to complete a book since getting bogged down in Battlefield Earth back in my early teens.
I might have liked the book better if I agreed with Objectivism. Atlas Shrugged is supposed to be a description of the ultimate application of that philosophy. After reading this book, many people find it appealing. I, on the other hand, found the application of that philosophy and the results of that application to be disgusting. Here are some examples:
- There is a child-like confusion of a pinprick with a death blow: After a railroad trade group made a decision Dagny didn't like, she compares the action to compelling self-immolation and that if it were to continue, "then we better start slaughtering one another, because there isn't any right at all in the world!"
- There is no recognition of the love and support that was provided to the great industrialist by his family when he was a child, rather there is a bare assertion that he owes no love and support to his family at all: After Hank Rearden is asked by his mother to give his brother a job in one of his steel mills, his response is "Mother, I'm running a steel plant -- not a whorehouse."
- Sex between Dagny and Rearden is described in the vilest terms of dominance, obedience, possession, and violence. Then their adulterous relationship us held up as the example of virtue.
- An industrialist is praised for doing what he pleases, the environment be damned. When the oil baron of Colorado decides that he will retire, he sets fire to all his fields and refineries and walks away. No mention is ever made of the devastation left behind, nor who will clean up after him
- When Rearden is caught in his adultery, he is praised on two different occasions for having the restraint to not kill his wife then for having the restraint to not beat her up. In that way Rand suggests that this woman who kept her vows when Rearden didn't deserves physical abuse and ultimately murder.
- In a stunning passage, Rand states that the following people are not just wrong, or misguided, but deserve to die painfully by poisonous gas: (1) a professor of sociology who didn't teach Objectivism; (2) a journalist who wrote that good intentions and good causes were sufficient reasons for social policy; (3) a public school teacher; (4) a newspaper publisher who believed man is basically evil, i.e. in the doctrine of Original Sin; (5) a businessman who had the audacity to accept a government loan; (6) a businessman who made a fortune by using political connections; (7) a union worker; (8) a pushy consumer who had the temerity to demand service; (9) a mother and her two children who was married to a government worker; (10) a "sniveling little neurotic" writer who did not portray industrialists as the modern equivalent of Greco-Roman Gods; (11) a person who, in Rand's eyes, did not do sufficient research into a candidate before voting; (12) a lawyer; and on and on and on . . .
- Murder is a valid means to any end: Dagny, with no concern for a life that she considers worthless, executes a guard who refuses to make a decision without input from a superior.
Then there are the contortions Rand makes to force these disgusting people into the role of heroes. There are too many to list. Suffice it to say that the "America" in Atlas Shrugged seems to not have a Constitution, military, nothing remotely resembling a real court system or regulatory agency. And this is the final problem with the proponents of Objectivism. It only seems to work in a completely fictional world. Any attempt to apply that philosophy in the real world would end in a rude awakening and ultimate failure.
Book Review: Life changing book?? Are you kidding?
Summary: 3 Stars
I first heard of Ayn Rand when I was in my teens and listened to the rock group Rush. At that time I bought "Fountainhead" and tried to read it but was bored silly--end of Ayn Rand. I recently read "Atlas Shrugged" as I kept hearing how it is "life changing" and "a classic". I liked the book as a story, but I don't think it is life changing or a modern classic. It was just a long-winded book pushing a jaded philosophical style.
I do admire Rand's descriptive powers, particularly in describing surroundings and the outdoors. The basic plot of the book is that a business man and woman fight the establishment to build a superior steel mill and railroad. The estabishment has passed so many "do good" laws that this becomes more and more difficult. They learn of a innovative engineer who built a space-age type of motor and seek to find him. This engineer has "dropped' out of society in protest of the establishment and decided to "stop the world" and manages to do this through his wealth and wit. I admit I had to chuckle when I read the main characters' outrage over the United States subsidizing Mexico for philanthropic reasons at the expense of her own people. That had a curiously modern sound to it, as did the oil shortage, bankruptcies, incompetence of workers, evil robber barons of big business, and the all around liberal tax and spend attitude of the government in the book. This made the book seem much like a modern novel. Over all, the plot was good, if somewhat long winded, and convoluted.
However, it was the main characters who embody Rand's philosophical style that really turned me off a 5 star rating for the book. Talk about mechanical, wooden, self-centered, stuck-up people!! I realize they are exaggered to make a philosphical point, but heaven help us if everbody was like them! Do you want to be changed to be like this?? They are so convinced of their superiority that they cheat on their spouse/commit adultry and manage justify it based on their superiority. When the two main characters get together for the first time, the man contemptuously tells the women that he has no respect for her and nothing but contempt for what they have done. She basically says the same thing back--but then they go on and continue their affair. For such a "strong" woman, this character is a real wimp when it comes to men!! She even sleeps with a man who just told her he is trying to destroy her company. Again, this has some modern political tones--stand by your man even when he is cruel and nasty to you. I guess this is what superior people do.....Come to think of it, I believe Rand cheated on her spouse for several years--and even managed to convince her wimpy husband and the other man's wimpy wife that this was OK and not selfish or immoral--and they went along with it--and to top it off wrote books praising her! How superior can you get??
The conversations in the book are stilted and wooden--and 90% of them are business or philosophical in nature or disparaging of common people, revealing some very shallow people. Even the bums they bump into spout philosophy. The main characters cannot stand the "average" working person, whom they disparage at every turn and only want to be with people "like themselves". The male character had married a perfect, beautiful, but ordinary trophy wife who seemed mysterious to him, but then on the honeymoon becomes contemptuous of her after consumating the marriage. (Sex in this book is an act of contempt) He wanted a trophy wife but then is contemptuous of her "depending" on him and spending his money. He cannot carry on a normal conversation with her without talking about business. Thankfully, this couple does not have children--but nobody in this story does except for the stupid ordinary people who breed indiscriminately. I wonder how superior people intend to have like-minded heirs to their wealth if they don't have kids....(Maybe the abnormal wooden sex prevents this in their world)....Perhaps they clone one another instead??
Rand's philosophy regards atruism as a sin. I agree that unchecked altruism is wrong-- such as supporting lazy people who could work but won't, tax and spend to accomplish this. However, the main characters in this book take their hatred of doing good to someone else to extremes (of course). They cannot give of themselves even to their families or spouses (they think this is petty weakness) and begrudge the financial support they provide. The recipients of this support are, of course, petty and unthankful. The altruists or "looters" in the book are as over-the-top as the main characters and pass incredibly dumb laws designed to "spread the wealth" and anger the superior people. The altruists in the book are all characterized as weak, plotting, conniving, lying types who don't have enough brains to see what they are doing. I hope the people who find this book life changing don't wind up changing into either type stereotyped in this book....
Ayn Rand had a deep rooted hatred of people and this book shows it. Everybody hates everybody in this book. The biggest "haters" (another modern concept) in actuality are the superior people who take over the world in this book with their magnanimous disgust for the common man. The elitist believe they have been persecuted and hounded by the inferior looters and use their superior skills to bring the world to a halt. The result is a superior handful of people taking over control of the entire world to do their bidding--which they believe is "best" for everyone since they have the "superior" minds and financial means to do this. (another modern political parallel) Does this not sound a bit like the communism or collectivism that Rand reportedly fought against? Of course, the noble main characters could not possibly have any collective ideas and only want to provide freedom for the superior individual to make a profit and not have to associate with the masses. Of course, Rand does not mention the obvious future result of such a move, she only deals with an unrealistic, idealized present. She conveniently forgets every dictatorship known to man has been evil.
I think the strangest thing of all about this book is that the ultimate result of the takeover plot would lead to the establishment of very thing collectivist ideas the book seems against on the surface---a dictatorial rule by the elite and subjugation of the ordinary people. Yet another modern political parallel??? Perhaps brainwashing is how lives are changed?
The most disturbing, revolting thing of all about this book is not in the actual book itself but in the quote in the introduction to the book: "I trust that no one will tell me that men such as I write about don't exist. That this book has been written and published-is my proof that they do." OOOH, the elite approved of Ayn Rand and her book. How superior of Ms. Rand....and scary. WE will "allow" this "individual" to write a book that expounds "our" ideas, while we advocate working towards repressing the ideas of inferior individuals with whom we do not agree.
Want to read a truly life changing book about the True Elite? Read the Bible. There are no superior men in the end, only a Superior God.
Book Review: Ayn Confused
Summary: 2 Stars
Having looked at some so-called `100 all-time favorite books' list recently, I was surprised to see that Ayn Rand had four books in the top five positions.
Having read her `big four' (Anthem; We the living; The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged), I have to say that I am no fan of Rand. She comes over as nothing less than an ideological propagandist; rabidly opposed to any sort of mutual assistance or social co-operation whatsoever; banging on, ad nauseum, with her relentless, one dimensional support for arch capitalism.
Having come from a privileged `White' Russian family that was dispossessed by the `Reds' and having lived her formative years in her native Russia, through years of civil war and, ultimately, revolution, one can see just how her bigoted point of view was formed. However, this bias is also her downfall as an author.
She may have called her pseudo-philosophy `objectivism', but her point of view is never objective.
Rand is an extremist in the true sense of the word, to the extent that it has clouded her ability to judge rationally, and led her to a basic misunderstanding of exactly what she was fighting against. As her publisher, Macmillan, stated when rejecting her manuscript for `Anthem'- "The author does not understand Socialism."
While Rand's descriptive ability is usually quite wonderful, at times even poetic, her plot devices are pedantic and overly contrived. In `Atlas Shrugged' she builds for us a growing socio-economic crisis of Alice-in-Wonderland type proportions, that results in a plot that has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese: The `good' characters are without exception, pure, noble and unflinching `Gods'; the `bad' players conversely, are all, without fail, spineless, conniving, maggots.
There is an underlying lack of credulity throughout the entire plot which grows exponentially more fantastic with every new and absurd revelation. For instance, every single one of the noble characters is a captain of their respective industries: Coal; Steel; Automobiles; Railways; Oil; Mining etc....no carpet manufacturers or tee-shirt emporiums for them, oh no! Coincidences abound: these tycoons all went to the same university; all the other nations on the planet are socialist nations, although to be fair, Canada isn't even mentioned.
Our heroine, Dagny Taggart,then discovers a lump of metal in a disused factory and amazingly recognizes it immediately to be a futuristic engine that will eventually save the world, even though it is half buried and half the components are missing.
We are told that Dagny Taggart's grandfather once `hocked' his wife for a million dollars and repaid it in the nick of time. Another industrialist, Francisco D'Anconia's ancestor `threw a glass of wine in the face of the Lord of the Spanish Inquisition' and then fled leaving behind a marble palace, fortune and his girl. As a kid Francisco D'Anconia himself hit a home run at his first ever try! The Taggart's and D'Anconia's were neighbors and played together as kids. There is also a mysterious pirate called Ragnar Danneskjold, who steals every critical shipment of whatever is needed anywhere. It appears there is no navy or coast guard or air force to stop him, or even see him. There is constant mention of a man called John Galt whom everyone seems to know wonderful true stories about, but who disappeared 12 years previously, threatening to `stop the motor of the world'....Galt, Danneskjold and D'Anconia all went to university together....the same university as everyone else!! Later on it transpires that the Galt character who the baddies are frantically hunting for, is an ordinary employee of Dagney Taggart's corporation, Taggart Transcontinental and has lived in the same apartment with his name on the door for the past 12 years. He even eats in the cafeteria and chats to Dagny Taggart's right hand man at lunch....and still nobody can locate him!
The coincidences come in so thick and fast that the whole plot becomes overly predictable. In fact only one third of the way through the novel I successfully guessed the entire outcome, with one minor detail awry. (a hidden valley in Colorado instead of an uninhabited island)
What Rand is so obviously trying to achieve is to demonstrate the wickedness and unworkableness of socialism. However, she embellishes to such an extent that she overcooks the whole pudding. She finally pops the souffle herself, by having one of the chief stooges, a Dr. Ferris, admit to our hero Hank Reardon, that what the good guys have been fighting against (pointless, limiting laws that the Machiavellian politicians of Washington have been passing) is not communism at all, but the underbelly of capitalism: gangsterism. Ferris admits that, when the industrialists break the law, as Washington knows they must, that they will be able to blackmail them into compliance.
Not so much Engles then, as Capone!
This is the point where Rand throws the baby out with the bath water, and confirms Macmillan's opinion about her.
If Rand really understood socialism she would have known that she actually shared an aim of Socialism: a stateless society. Capitalism on the other hand, will always need to have the very infrastructure that she loathes, as under Capitalism, unlike Socialism, there will be individual nations trading with each other using money as a means of exchange. If there were no such thing as the State, how would treaties be formulated; national boundaries guarded; private interests protected; trade monitored; crime prevented or detected; jails run etc etc?
A final nail in Rand's coffin comes when Dagny Taggart is discussing the society that all the tycoons have created for themselves in a secret and hidden valley in Colorado, and a type of society that Ms. Rand is obviously extolling the virtues of. Dagney Taggart asks The ex-oil mogul, and now potato farmer, Ellis Wyatt "Where is your market?" He replies "I now work for use not profit!" This of course is a central tenet of socialism, the very system Rand purports to hate! Other revelatory gems from inhabitants of this cloistered world also demonstrate the philosophy that Rand obviously admired- A Dr. Hendricks announces that he has found a cure for aneurisms or embolisms, and yet ..."not a word of my method will be heard outside" (our valley). A famous composer concurs, in regard to his latest music. As John Galt puts it "We're on strike" What, if anything, was she thinking when she wrote that?
Rand was a bigoted, elitist snob, whose narrow focus and ignorance, combined with her traumatic early life, evolved her into little more than a fascist. Her paranoia was a product of the times however, and her most famous work was published at the height of the McCarthy witch-hunt. It's a pity so many people should have fallen for this particular brand of hysteria; but not surprising why so many conservatives continue to admire her shabby and third-rate work.
Book Review: Which is Worse, the Cure or the Disease?
Summary: 3 Stars
Every few years I pull out Atlas Shrugged and read it again. Amid an intensely structured writing style with detailed characterizations that would make Sir Edward George Bulwer-Lytton blush ("It was a dark and stormy night"), there are economic, social and political descriptions that seem to mirror our times.
These comparisons include a world where popular leaders are less concerned about the correctness of the ideas they advocate, but more concerned about the number of followers they can attract. A world where some highly publicized and popular ideas, if taken to their logical conclusion, would result in the eradication of mankind from this planet. And finally, a world where rhetoric counts for more than logic.
Ayn Rand attempted to identify the root causes of these behaviors and propose a solution in an epic end-of-the-world story. To summarize, in some future or parallel world, everything is grinding to a halt. The primary producers are dropping out and disappearing. They are being replaced by people who are both humanistic and opportunistic, but not very knowledgeable. As a result, industry continues to collapse. Eventually the government steps in and in a series of directives are issued: each more severe and more socialistic. But each directive worsens the situation, until a dictator-like status is reached.
Amid this crisis, the book primarily traces the activities of two individuals: Dagny Taggart, in charge of the operations of the last Transcontinental Railroad, and Hank Rearden, the last of the steel barons. Both characters are very intelligent, responsible, and highly productive. Other important characters move in and out of the narrative: the good, the bad, and the indifferent, but Taggart and Rearden are used to discover the root causes of the world-wide collapse.
Near the novel's end, when the causes (according to Rand) are rooted out by both Taggart and Rearden, there is a long speech (Part 3, Chapter 7: "This is John Galt Speaking") that sums up Ayn Rand's philosophy. It is the notorious 50 page speech, which most people either skip or browse rapidly. Unless one is reading Atlas Shrugged simply for entertainment, I recommend that you take the time to carefully read the "speech." There are a number of issues (especially her very anti-religious stance) that are spelled out and justified in that speech, but hardly touched in the book.
I believe that Ayn Rand correctly identified the significant root causes of this double-minded world, but her solution (taken to the extreme that she advocates) is seriously flawed. For Rand, the problem can be distilled down to the fight between the romantic/emotional side and the rational/logic side. The descent into political, social, and economic madness has occurred because logic has been discredited by the elite, and decisions are made solely on how they appeal to our emotions.
For Ayn Rand, the mind and the rational process take precedence. Her sense of morality is linked to the ability to produce. Religion, as is, is to be discarded, because it ultimately depends on a non-rational activity (the religious experience). So she believes that any morality based on a non-rational activity cannot be the basis of a moral code. However, Rand's use of religious terminology and illusions are scattered throughout this work. One cannot help but make comparisons to the "End of the World" and the "Second Coming" (of Christ or the Capitalist?) along with the "Sign of the Dollar" as opposed to the "Sign of the Cross."
As far as I am aware, no one has successfully described how to balance the emotional with the rational, and Rand does not even try. Rand's solution is that the emotional must be completely subjugated to the rational. Rand would redefine all emotional things, including Love, Hate, Respect, etc, in strictly rational terms.
At this time in our history, when rhetoric is replacing rational thinking, especially in the political realm, it is obvious that we too need to rebalance the rational (a terrible shock to most Political Romantics), otherwise we too will face a collapsing world. But rejecting the emotional or trying to redefine the emotional in strictly logical terms is absurd. It denies our humanity and our history.
I question Rand's attempt to define a purely rational moral code based solely on the ability to produce for several reasons. The first objection, I admit (ironically), is solely (and ironically) a matter of one's taste: the image of Dagny Taggart as a willing sex-slave to the highest producer (not based on love, because that is irrational). That's right, abolish love or redefine it so that it fits a rational definition. Rand's attempt to do exactly that is probably the most warped thing she proposes in this book.
My second objection is purely practical: an atheist morality has one significant flaw, even Bertrand Russell acknowledged that weakness: Pride. The ability to compete, no holds bared, without having to acknowledge any higher power would lead to a dog-eat-dog environment that would be Hell on earth for the majority of mankind.
I realize that Rand believed that (socially-evolutionary-speaking) that the dog-eat-dog world would eventually destroy itself and finally result (and then a miracle occurs) in a harmonious capitalistic society. Unfortunately, US History does not support her. We have a long dog-eat-dog history of capitalism in 19th Century United States and it was not pretty nor was it getting better until governmental regulation stepped in and laws protecting the laborer were passed.
My third objection is historic: for every Ford (who paid his staff above Union wage and implemented work safety processes) there were several dozen Andrew Carnegies, John D. Rockefellers, and J.P. Morgans (who abused their workers, stole others' ideas, and manipulated stock prices to increase their own income). Rand would protect all the above, although I suspect that Ford was closer to her model of Rearden then the other Capitalists.
Despite my objections, I believe that Ayn Rand correctly identified the imbalance between the rational and emotional as the underlying cause for the inability to produce or to solve significant political, social or economical problems. While she argues that the logical conclusion of the pure romantic (one who rejects all rationality) is nullity, I believe that the logical conclusion of the pure rationalist (one who rejects all emotion) is tyranny because co-operation among any competitors will break down once the means to bypass or control another is found.
While Rand would like to believe that competing capitalists can cooperate, history has shown us a very different picture. After all, Capitalists, whether she wants to admit it or not, are only human and that means they do not suppress their emotions.
Book Review: #1 Absolutely the best book ever penned!
Summary: 5 Stars
The reason why some people don't totally get Ayn Rand's ideas at first read of atlas shrugged is because they are unprecedented. Most people have really no preparatory knowledge and what we do have, is usually incorrect. We have been so thoroughly conditioned not to think and to prevent thinking all together. Further, to let all manner of distraction in to prevent thought, to the point that it is virtually impossible to get it all at first pass and most people get very little even though very impactful then leave it at that and never fully understand!
The classical Liberals, the original capitalists or what most people are waking up to today lost it all to the socialists because they were missing something...the only reason we are even waking up today is because of one person, Ayn Rand. She single handedly sparked the world wide freedom movement of today because she firmly placed in the hands of what was left of the entire freedom movement which was literally under 100 people in the 1950s, the morality of capitalism! The real torch of freedom almost went out for ever!
Ayn Rand explained with crystalline clarity why capitalism not only worked and socialism did not but why it was the only fair, just, and moral system on the planet to distribute wealth and the only one that can create it! Ayn Rand placed it in terms of the reality that it was...Freedom or Slavery. How dare you make a slave of me (Tax and Regulate) no matter what use, you thieves make of the stolen loot!
Atlas Shrugged is the magnum opus of all magnum opuses. "The Astounding story of a man who said he would stop the motor of the world...and did! Tremendous in scope and Breathe taking in its suspense, ATLAS SHRUGGED is unlike any book you have ever read. It's a mystery story, not about the murder of a mans body, but about the murder and rebirth of a mans spirit."
Absolutely the best book ever penned!
It literally encompasses all of human action...philosophy, economics, politics, sociology, phycology. Written in an easily and sharply understandable novel form, hits like a sledge hammer between the eyes. You will not understand the depth of this book for years and even after you read this booklist! [...] Every sentence has meaning and sometimes a full books worth.
There are mistakes in all the books on the list [...] or less clear redundancies with the exception of Ayn Rand's books. You should read all her non fiction as well. I originally thought there were mistakes in Ayn Rand books. As I read on not only into her works but into all of the greatest minds in history, all of what I had mistakenly believed as her mistakes have fallen of to the floor, been nailed down, the edges stapled to the floor then have been smashed into little peaces, crushed into dust then shellacked over I.E. It is correct and you will understand what I am talking about when you read on.
Do not ever take my word for it or anyone else...just read it from the horses mouth. Always, always go directly to the source & forget what he said she said about anything...this is a rule that you should staple to your fore head! There is another book with far fewer mistakes than all the rest except Ayn Rand's books and that is Socialism by Ludwig Von Mises...that is why It is number 2 on the list.
I had these silos or pillars of knowledge built up over my life that I knew were fact and true but they were unconnected...Ayn Rand came along and connected them all like a bridge adding the superstructure and the road bed and even painting it, I in my entire life would not have been able to do that without reading just this one book!
Atlas Shrugged...the most influential book in history next to the bible. Library of Congress
The 7 stages of reading Atlas Shrugged!
Most people who see the 1000 plus page novel hesitantly say, well its very thick...and the words are very small. Eliciting knee jerk comments like ya I usually can tell if I'm going to like a book in the first few pages, trying to escape the preconceived drudgery of reading such a large book. I say just read it you will like it far beyond any book you have read, in fact in most cases anything you have ever done.
Sometimes I call and ask how they like it in a couple of days and they say, well its pretty good and I'm reading it when I have time. I say great, keep reading!
But if they keep reading I will get a phone call in about a week. Hey Ty...this is a good book, I really like and can relate to it , etc. I say it gets better read on!
With consistent reading I generally get a call around 2 weeks. TY!!! I cant put this thing down...it's amazing!!! At this point I usually just smile at them! The 2 week time is partly because it is such a heavy and slow read in terms of the thoughts it generates...you may read a sentence or a paragraph and think for hours on that one thing.
Right around 3 weeks and this always happens, I get, in a very serious tone now...I haven't slept in days and I've been skipping work to read this thing!!!! The whole time I've been talking to them on where they are in the book and letting them know that it even gets massively better still. The first 2 parts are a build up to the last part!!! And they are now starting to understand! But unfortunately at this point some people tend to gloss over what just appear to be redundant details...DO NOT DO THAT!! Every piece of this book has meaning so read slowly and think!!!
At this point I am getting calls consistently now, asking things like Who is John Galt? I say John Galt discovered the fountain of youth, he discovered it high on top of a mountain and he crawled and scraped his way up to it. He was so happy that he found this incredible and beneficial thing that he wanted to bring it down so that all the people could enjoy its benefits...but he could not! And they ask why and I say Keep reading!
The last stage is when they finish the book and they are so on fire about Liberty/ freedom/capitalism that they want to charge off to battle socialism on the front lines and the power mongers who wield socialism like a sward...but I say keep reading because you still do not fully understand these ideas. But because of Atlas Shrugged you will now make room and time to read the books that are necessary to understand the rest of reality or what is really going on and most especially what really needs to be going on!!! i.e freedom/ liberty /Capitalism!
Enough said, just read it and never listen to the he said she said about anything. Always go the the horses mouth and see for yourself!