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: An essential, but deeply flawed book. Opens the mind but doesn't really take it anywhere.
Summary: 4 Stars
This came up as a recommendation, and I thought now there's a blast from the past. I was interested in seeing what today's people had to say about it, so I had a look and somehow here I am with my own very first Amazon.com review. I must confess that it has been many years since I read this, so forgive me if memory and the years betray me in places.
I see from other reviews that more people cite this as the most influential book in their lives than any other work of fiction. I am one of those people. This book hit me like an unexpected brick on the head shortly after I got out of college. I had no idea whatsoever of what the book was about, although I had certainly heard of Rand, always pejoratively. And I was completely unprepared for what I found. The clear, comic-book like simplicity of the premise brought out into the open for inspection ideas that I had up until then simply accepted without question.
But ironically, the book did not draw me to her Objectivist philosophy. Quite the contrary. It felt cold and lonely and mean and I wanted nothing of it. But she shook me up, destroyed chains, cleared out cobwebs, got my brain moving and put me on the path to discovering my own philosophy. Which ultimately makes for a greater accomplishment than a merely persuasive treatise would have been. This is one of those rare books that actually frees your mind, rather than simply moving it from one master to another. I am forever grateful to Rand for this gift.
It is difficult to discuss this book's literary merit. In many ways it is a really bad novel. As others have noted, the characters are one dimensional, everything is totally unbelievable, it is way too long, the dialog stinks, and so on. But it is also mesmerizing and a real page turner. In the week or so that it took me to read it, I did little else, beside eat and go to work. And my days were filled with images from the book as I imagined directing a movie version. I got angry at her cheap literary devices such as giving gratuitous moral flaws to the representatives of opposing philosophies. And I literally couldn't sit through John Galt's interminably repetitive speech.
But this is the paradox. Aspects of the book were so good that I was angry that it wasn't better as a whole. And I was disappointed when she finally unveiled her uninviting philosophy, because I wanted her to give me a vision to replace the simplistic clarity that she had taken from me.
So what's so good about it? It's the way that she demolishes the moral and philosophical underpinnings of Leftist/Collectivist (now paradoxically called "Liberal") thought. Conservatives have traditionally attacked Socialism on utilitarian grounds. Stuff like it's a really nice idea, but too bad it just doesn't work in practice. But Rand shows how it is morally repugnant as well, feeding on mankind's basest tendencies. It's easy to recognize yourself in her negative characters, and it's hard to just keep going on after looking into her mirror. If you are a Liberal, you simply can't read this and keep both your philosophy and an open mind. At least I couldn't. I went in a bit shaky but still pretty Hard Left, and came out something else, a seeker perhaps, on a meandering rightward journey, although it would still be many years before I could comfortably call myself a Conservative.
I got many great things from this book. Make sure you carry your own water. Be your own man. Stick up for yourself. This sounds simple, but she put it in a way that I really got the spiritual underpinnings, in a way that I didn't reading Emerson and Thoreau, who covered similar territory. She lays bare the greed of those who demand the property of others, who claim virtue in their supposed weakness and need, who condemn as evil those who create what they desire. The spiritual bankruptcy of claiming moral superiority for stealing the fruits of others' labor. I really understood the spiritual necessity of not being a parasite.
It's fascinating that such an influential book is so invisible. Like her heroes, she is shunned by the entitled. She may not be taught in universities, but she is studied in living rooms everywhere.
And she will always be a lonely prophet. The Left of course will always despise her, but she doesn't really speak to the Right either. For all of her purported individualism, her worldview is essentially that there are a few virtuous producers who are exploited by the parasitic masses. And I sense a demand that the masses bow down and acknowledge this debt, which feels suspiciously similar to the Liberal demand that all bow down to the elites who run the all-giving mother government. Rand makes her claim to power based on productive ability while the Leftists make it based on moral superiority. Completely different (she wants to be free of the masses, they want to rule them), and yet somehow fundamentally the same in their condescending dismissal of the bulk of humanity as "the problem." Both offer the trap of specialness, so appealing to our narcissism but a dead end as social policy. And all of this is totally out of step with modern Conservative thought, which is in essence a celebration of the potential greatness in all people, who need only be allowed freedom to develop. And conservatives tend to not see masses, but individuals. I get the feeling that Rand doesn't really like people all that much.
And I was particularly offput by the revenge fantasy of the strike that is the book's centerpiece. Although enticing, it has all the wrong energy. Destroying the world so that it can be rebuilt by and for the virtuous. A delusion that has plagued mankind since the dawn of time, and which is particularly topical now, as the Obamatons put torch to the country and its institutions. And Rand clearly takes pleasure in watching the sinners pay for their crimes, betraying a meanness that ultimately disqualifies her as a guide. There is no heart in her philosophy.
But these complaints are beside the point. I recommend this book to everyone. It's not about agreeing with her. It's allowing her insights to illuminate the space around you so that you can see the world more clearly. What you do after that is up to you.
Book Review: Understand Rand
Summary: 3 Stars
A friend who read both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead in the early '80s introduced me to Rand via discussion over the Christmas holiday, so I bought the 50th Anniversary edition at B & N; I finished the book today. I give Atlas Shrugged 3 stars for its overall quality as a serious and compelling novel. Its main fault mainly consists of the 176-page period between Dagny's return to "hell" and the beginning of Galt's speech (pages 747-923), within which little important takes place, and I thus quickly skimmed through. I also skimmed through several scenes of unnecessary drama between characters I didn't care about, such as Lillian and Cherryl. I can take very limited melodrama, and melodrama involving minor characters is too much of an irritant.
I studied the basics of Rand's character and philosophy before reading Atlas. I found Rand to be rather interesting, yet flawed. And my interest only grew the more I read people on liberal blogs trashing her like she was the original neocon, from whom Cheney and Rumsfeld and Bush hatched, destined to destroy the world as they have. I find it fascinating how much inspiration Greenspan got from Rand. Studying Rand and her ideas lead me to believe that she was not exactly what these liberals make her out to be, but I knew that I needed to read Atlas to see her put her thoughts into fiction before I could confirm that.
I was right, of course. Rand was a conservative, not a neocon. Some of her ideas are conducive to what has led us to ruin, but (Alan Greenspan excluded) they can't be the inspiration for the neocons. I believe that Rand would find Bush and the gang to be horrible people who practice the art of poison unto what she would consider effective government and policies. A few of my thoughts toward Ayn Rand follow.
Ayn Rand had a philosophy, but was not a philosopher. She was a strong-willed woman who was highly influenced by her childhood and grew to be talented, artistic, dramatic, emotional, odd, dark, hypocritical, elitist, and somewhere between confident - narcissistic. She may have been obsessive or had a psychological disorder. Concisely, she was an intelligent and talented person who was limited by her eccentricities.
Obviously, Rand is most criticized for her advocacy of Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Does it not seem that the most gaping flaw in her philosophy is that she did not appear to understand that all economic systems become corrupt because people are stupid? She clearly understood that people are stupid and that Communism was corrupt, so how could she come to believe that Capitalism would be immune and thus ideal? Well, this is why it's important to read Atlas Shrugged, because in Atlas she demonstrates her belief that regulated Capitalism also will fail because people are stupid. Her answer is that the only way to attain successful Laissez-Faire Capitalism is to let the masses kill each other and allow the world to sink into chaos, to be saved by a ruling class of the most brilliant and capable people alive, who will become the ruling class, install Laissez-Faire Capitalism, and rebuild the world into utopia. How much of that is fantasy? How much is a result of the governments she had experienced up until 1957? What I do believe is that if Rand's life continued and she were alive today, she would simply say that the deregulated Capitalism we've had so far is a miserable failure because of the corrupt idiots who have executed it, and until the best and brightest only rule, failure is inevitable. This distinction is why she is not a neocon and would not advocate what we're seeing today, and the people who think they're liberals who vilify her ought to pay attention to this.
As for the rest of Ayn Rand's philosophy, I agree with those who say that she's not a particularly consequential thinker. She admits her philosophy is an ideal one, centered around what man ought to be. If I overlaid my ideal philosophy on hers, there wouldn't be much deviation. In fact, I think it's essential to have an ideal framework of thought. However, a philosophy for the real world is likely to have more impact and success, and I have one of those too. It seems to me that Rand's propensities for drama, fantasy, and narcissism (plus perhaps more things) led her to believe that she was a big-time thinker and ought to be recognized as such and accomplish great things accordingly. What apparently happened was enough gullible people fell for it and helped her get where she wasn't going without their assistance (okay, so I contributed $8.99 to buy Atlas!). Really, she ended up making herself believe that she lived up to her philosophy as well. Page 1070 (the final page) of the 50th Anniversary edition I read includes the following quote: "I have always lived by the philosophy I present in my books---and it has worked for me as it has worked for my characters." To put it mildly, significant selectivity would be required for that to be true; Rand did not consistently live up to the ideals of her philosophy.
So, I've done the Rand thing. It's time to shelve Atlas. No need to read The Fountainhead. I'll happily take with me the parts that resonated, though. My favorite is a theme from the John Galt speech...the angry ranting directed toward the masses who wreck the world. I rant too, Ayn. I understand the contempt for those who don't live up to their potential all too well, and I wish I could fix them or eliminate them. And when I get disgusted at them, I find I, too, place zero worth on their lives. Maybe the next time I'm alone in my car and a chance to rant appears, I'll try to say what John Galt would say.
Book Review: Worth the effort
Summary: 4 Stars
Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is perhaps the crowning achievement of Rand's career. The manifesto for Rand's Objectivist philosophy on life, Atlas is an elaborate tale woven through the use of rigidly developed characters who represent the two polarizing forces at play in Rand's philosophy. John Galt, Dagny Taggart, and Hank Rearden, among a handful of others, are the leaders of the productive, virtuous element of society, representing capitalism, industry, and Rand's own Selfishness. Meanwhile, Dagny's brother Jim and his cast of corrupt, spineless characters are the "looters," representing socialism, destruction, and the degradation of the self.
Through the use of symbolic characters and a bleak, industrial setting, Rand demonstrates the utter destruction that would befall the world should the "looters" take over, moving the focus of society from the individual to the collective, from excellence to equality, and from productivity to laziness. Rand constructs an intricate plot, one that is remarkably able to portray all the implications of such selfless, socialist views in an industrial society. The result is a clear case for the unhindered, capitalist state in which one acts for oneself and creative endeavors are allowed to flourish. Yet Rand does not stop by simply naming the problem and explaining what should be. She sets up a problem and presents its solution, found in the personal integrity and selfish actions of her leading characters: Dagny, Galt, and Rearden. Through these characters, Rand lays out a means by which to uphold one's virtues and stop the destruction of society, even if doing so means "stopping the motor of the world."
Atlas Shrugged is a long, detailed work that is more ideological than practical. Unlike most philosophers, Rand applies her ideas through fictional means. While others simply expound their beliefs, Rand has found a creative and original way to demonstrate them and all of their various implications. Critics of Rand's work have called it extreme and unrealistic. This assessment is in fact correct, although these are not flaws of Atlas Shrugged. The novel is not meant to be realistic. Rather, it is an allegory, told in a theoretical, idealistic manner. The characters and situations are not easy to relate to and they are not supposed to be. Each of the novel's details serves a purpose higher than that of developing a character or advancing the plot; every element connects to and demonstrates the overarching philosophy that Rand is attempting to present.
Though an impressive piece of work, Atlas does have its flaws, and some major ones at that. Rand's philosophy is driven home with a narrative that, though it contains many great ideas, is extremely long-winded and repetitive. Within this lengthy discourse, however, Rand is only able to present her ideas through extreme examples. This means that her characters are either completely good, pure, and righteous (the producers) or evil, corrupt, and destructive (the looters). There is no middle ground, no one whose intentions are good but who is just going about those intentions in a misguided way, and no room for improvement. Those who are good always have been and always will be, and those who are bad are evil to the core with no hope of reform. No one changes, for better or for worse, and change does not appear to be an option. When a character realizes the error in her judgment and tries to amend the course of her life, she winds up overwhelmed by the challenge and commits suicide. Needless to say, this is not a very motivational message to deliver to those whom Rand is trying to sway with her ideas.
One rather well-known fact about Rand is her adherence to her religious beliefs - or lack thereof. Rand was an atheist, and this is just as clear throughout Atlas as in her other works. Religion is quite obviously absent from Atlas, only mentioned for the purpose of dismissing its validity. Yet Rand's strict interpretation of right and wrong, justice and virtue, would be easier to swallow if there were a higher moral purpose attached to it.
Another glaring omission can be found in Rand's theory of sex. Rand presents sex as the physical celebration of virtue and the act of appreciating all that is worthy in oneself and another being. This is commendable, yet this is the only value she attributes to sex, justifying the act regardless of its circumstances so long as these elements are involved, which is perhaps not surprising from a woman who justified her own extra-marital affair to her husband. In doing so, Rand neglects the higher purpose of the act: procreation. Considering the importance characters such as Dagny, Rearden, and Galt place upon production, this oversight is hard to believe. Yet several elements that are essential to a healthy, productive society are lacking: marriage (healthy marriage, at least), children, and family.
Also troubling is the idea with which the reader is left at the end of Atlas Shrugged: that the only way to bring about change in such a flawed society is through destruction. The last fifty or so pages of the novel take on a violent, desperate tone that almost feels as though someone else has written them. While Atlas ends on a hopeful note, this hope is only achieved at the expense of society itself, a rather depressing prospect. Perhaps, however, that is Rand's intention: to provide a warning that will help to prevent our reaching such an extreme state.
Despite these flaws, Atlas Shrugged is an admirable work. If you begin this book expecting a typical work of fiction, you will be disappointed. But if you go into it looking for solid, thought-provoking ideas and a carefully crafted philosophical analysis, you will be glad you made the effort.
Book Review: Yummy food for thought but portions waaaaay too large
Summary: 3 Stars
Ayn Rand escaped from poverty and authoritatarian rule in Communist Russia to finally settle in America. Her background would have had a great deal of influence on her philosophy of 'objectivism'. In objectivism a man does what makes him happy and if he contributes to others his reward is commensurate with his contribution. He is not responsible for supporting other people financially or emotionally and should not be punished or made to feel guilty for not giving away all his money, time, effort if he decides not to do so. Ayn Rand believes that in socialism (ethos - each man contributes as per his ability and receives as per his need) encourages parasitism as people realise that they can receive more by proving that they are pathetic and needy. In time they lose self respect and transfer the burden of their well being onto the remaining people who want to work and contribute. These people of ability shoulder a greater and greater burden till eventually they reach the point of snapping and decide either to conform or to rebel against the system that systematically victimises them.
Atlas was of course the Greek god who held up the heavens to prevent them falling on the people below. It was a physically exhausting, thankless task and Ayn Rand in this novel explores what would happen to the world if Atlas got fed up. What would happen if Atlas shrugged?
The beginning of the novel starts with a nice touch of mystery as people are becoming aware of an ominous nameless darkness that is enveloping America. Good hard working capable people are becoming harder and harder to find. Famous inventors, businessmen, musicians are vanishing. Getting things done has become an uphill struggle and increasing government interference and increasing nepotism and socialism in the upper class and a sense of entitlement and unionism in the lower classes is putting a break on progress as well as a degradation in moral values. Nobody wants to work and yet everyone feels entitled to rewards. People are beginning to ask "Who is John Galt?" a frightening phrase that has become common parlance and that everybody feels holds the answer to the problems that they are facing but nobody really knows how they know this or even where the phrase comes from. The way this builds up initially is quite suspenseful and pretty well done.
Dagny (VP of a rail company) and Rearden (inventor of Rearden steel) are the capable no nonsense people who are trying to get things done but find themselves increasingly unable to as America falls apart at the seams. Finally the riddle is solved - the most capable people in America are going on strike. Led by a man named John Galt they have decided that they are no longer going to support everyone else and have built a Utopian village where they are waiting for the world to fall apart without them. They plan to go back to 'real life' only once the world realises that it has a morally bankrupt system of ethics that cannot work and they cannot endlessly victimise the rich, the talented and the capable and force them to support everyone else endlesly.
Dagny then has to make the choice - does she give up on her railroad and join the ranks of the John Galt brigade or does it mean too much for her to watch disintegrating as incompetents run it into the ground.
That then is the basic outline of the book which is promising. However it is way too long (a little like this review perhaps) and worse repetitive to a degree that you can skip a hundred pages and not really miss anything you haven't already read. There is a 60 page soliloquoy at the end which could have been summarised to half a page with no loss of content (no exaggeration).
The characters are deliberately (hopefully) exaggerated to caricature levels to make the point so if it's Vikram Seth realism that you're looking for then this is not the book for you.
And as for the philosophy - it makes an eloquent and passionate appeal for not being guilty about being successful or for being who you are. It also starkly highlights a reality that I've become more and more aware of after working for a big company - the number of people who are parasitic, who believe that the world owes them a living and who will dodge responsibility and accountability in order to just get by doing the minimum they can.
Obviously the philosophy is taken to the extreme - I don't believe it takes into account things like market failures like pollution, inequitable access to education, the starving debt ridden poor who don't have the tools to drag themselves out even through hard work, etc. Also from a community point of view the philosophy that 'I am not responible for anyone who believes they are dependent on me' doesn't take into account that children are financially and emotionally dependent and arguably should be supported on a 'need based' system of morality rather than the amount they 'contribute' to society. Neither Ayn Rand nor any of the characters in her stories have children. None of the 'heroes' in her stories would help out a friend in need unless they were certain their 'investment' would be paid back with interest because they would believe that charity disables.
Overall this is a passionately written book (to the point of fundamentalism) and is pretty thought provoking whether you agree with the points or not. (The writing style is not the point in this book. The point is the ideology).
Overall I would have given this book 5 stars if if had been 200 pages because it would have been a smashing read. However ultimately I'm giving it 3 stars because it stretches the point to 1087 pages.
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.