Status
Call number
Call number
Genres
Collection
Publication
Description
This is the story of a man who said that he would stop the motor of the world, and did. Is he a destroyer or a liberator? Why does he have to fight his battle not against his enemys but against those who need him most? Why does he fight his hardest battle against the woman he loves? You will learn the answers to these questions when you discover the reason behind the baffling events that play havoc with the lives of the amazing men and women in this remarkable book. Tremendous in scope, breathtaking in its suspense, "Atlas shrugged" is Ayn Rand's magnum opus, which launched an ideology and a movement. With the publication of this work in 1957, Rand gained an instant following and became a phenomenon. "Atlas shrugged" emerged as a premier moral apologia for Capitalism, a defense that had an electrifying effect on millions of readers (and now listeners) who have never heard Capitalism defended in other than technical terms.… (more)
Media reviews
"shot through with hatred"
Subjects
Original publication date
Similar in this library
User reviews
A hymn to unfettered human intelligence (coz you know how fettered human intelligence is, at least, I know mine is LOL) Atlas Shrugged includes such gems as:
Learn to value yourself, which means: to fight for your happiness. Wow, eh? WOW
And this:
Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value and, like all of man’s values, it has to be earned.
All right, that one is a bit difficult. I had to think about it for a whole day before I understood it, the complexity of the language so perfectly echoes the complexity of the thought. I reckon this puts her in the company of other such great philosophers as Dale Carnegie, Warren Buffett, my mate Bill down the pub, and Lord Ron Hubbard.
Oh, and this,
The Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence.
I know I know, I cheated a bit, that one isn’t from Atlas Shrugged, but from The Virtue of Selfishness. It summarises Ayn’s entire philosophy and method of arguing it – in one sentence!!! The Ancient Greeks had a word for that, I think, something like, acronym, aphorism, arsewipe, epitaph, epigram, telegram, or something, those Greek words are kind of confusing, aren’t they? LOL
Also, there's some really great soft porn in the middle. I dropped the book several times during that section coz it's kind of hard to hold with just one hand.
Anyway, I just want to say that I’m really grateful to Ayn Rand for having made life on this planet better for all of us, and for having enriched us all with her brilliant ideas (especially her publisher LOL).
And I’m also grateful to her publisher for managing to persuade Ayn to change the name, as I don’t think the book would have sold so many copies if it had been called Atlas Farted (I think Ayn was perhaps misinformed about the meaning of ‘fart’ - she was Russian remember, and very stubborn: did you know that she hated homosexuals and wrote about them that they are so loathsome a sense of life that an accurate commentary would require the kind of language I do not like to see in print. Me too, I don’t like to see that kind of language in print either. )
p.s: the book is really big, so it’s really handy for propping open doors and jacking up cars. Galt would have approved: so useful neh!
Read this book. You will never be quite the same again.
When I contemplate the innovative, miraculous advances made in medicine over the past couple centuries, and the tens of millions of lives that have either been saved as a result of those advances, or whose quality-of-life has been dramatically improved because of the discoveries of compassionate women and men ....
When I consider the unparalled invention of the computer, the internet, even LibraryThing ....
When I consider Galileo, Einstein, and the invention of the wheel ....
That is, when I consider all these people and their visionary, singular accomplishments throughout World History, as magnificent and humane and life-affirming as they are, they still don't compare - no, they pale by comparison - to what is so obviously (and incontrovertibly), the Single Greatest Achievement in Human History: Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand.
Atlas Shrugged is about a thinly disguised, pompous, unpretty, and compassion-less Bee-otch (pardon the oh-so-egregious "ad hominems" - shame on me!), named Ayn Rand (who should've known better, considering the pompous, unpretty, and compassion-less totalitarian regime she hailed from), played by a stick-figure named Dagny Taggart, who decides, like she's Almighty Yahweh, that she's going to rule the World someday via The Railroads; and who, unfortunately, and rather awkwardly, stylistically speaking (such wooden prose) also engages in some of the worst written sex ever penned; sex so poorly written it made even Norman Mailer cringe (and Tom Pynchon cringes to this day!)
In a nutshell, John Galt can kiss my tuckus.
The entire book is, in
Rand does some amazing things throughout. First, she writes in a way that leads many readers to actually believe in Galt, and the book has spawned an enormous following among those whose moderate acuity prevents them from understanding the real gist of her work. They become part of the parody. Second, she carefully takes this well-thought out and truly ingenious scheme and crafts it as if she is at best a mediocre writer, so one does not understand the true brilliance behind it until further review. Yes, beneath that simplistic prose and those stock characters and cartoonish plots is really a profound statement about how easily conned people are by a facile utopian. In the end, the careful reader will discern in Galt nothing less than the Lamb who opens the Seventh Seal.
One cannot cease admiring Rand. Indeed, she herself should be lauded as a vritual demigod, and worshipped by her readers. I am proud to have stood on her shoulders.
Rand's prose is as striking as ever, but she uses it to
Many elements of the plot are as compelling as any suspense novel, but it is rare to make it through more than a few chapters without crashing into yet another pages-long soliloquy on the evils of the collective—something which could be, and is, much more handily demonstrated through the plot. These speeches—the longest lurches through a jarring 60 pages, and summarizes the theme clear into the grave—cannot help but be interpreted by the reader in the most smugly condescending tone imaginable—not because of the nature of the characters, but because of the assumption on the author's part that the reader wouldn't be able to work out the point on their own.
In spite of its frustrations, Atlas Shrugged is rewarding, and even enjoyable, if interpreted as a fable on individualism. If the reader is unfamiliar with the author's background, and ignores the period in which the book was written, it is too easy to read it as a blueprint for a sort of hyperbolic capitalist dreamland—or to heed the many facile and dishonest critiques of the work.
Perhaps this is its greatest failing: Atlas Shrugged requires too much distillation in order to reveal its truth. Fables are supposed to be truth, distilled. The labor involved in pruning the excess from the story filters too much joy out of the reading.
For a more satisfying read on the very same theme, The Fountainhead, Rand's "overture to Atlas Shrugged," may in fact be as good as it got.
Although the rant thinly disguised as a novel is so binary in nature that it is rendered totally unconvincing, I must say that it deserves two stars because:
a)
b) whether or not you agree with rand's rampant capitalist leanings, it does give you pause for thought and you will emerge with a strong opinion on her theories. Indeed, I did also emerge a little changed by it (but probably not in the way that she would have liked); and
c) it does not get more stars because, at base, the writing is dire.
I don't want my time back but it is a strain to call this good fiction or a decent philosophy (although I now know she has many supporters who would vehemently disagree).
But it is also a product of its time, espousing a philosophy that is only
For anyone seeking rich characterizations, realistic interactions, or a sense of place in the narrative, you will be disappointed in this novel. The novel is merely the platform for Rand’s polemic, and jumps from unbelievable to the preposterous without apology.
This being said, it was still a jolly good read. The conflict in the novel is engrossing and draws you in quickly. The first time someone defeats a “looter government”, you want to applaud. When Dagny (the protaganist) completes a railway line against all the odds you can feel her exhilieration - even if you wonder how she managed it! The concept of the plot is refreshingly original, and readers will want to finish the novel.
Given its length though, finishing can be tricky - especially where it comes to a 90 page speech espousing Rand’s epistemology. Some aspects of the plot were also tiring, and one wonders whether the book could have achieved its purpose whilst being edited a little. Ok, the 90 page speech was probably why she wrote the book - but perhaps Rand forgets the maxim here: “show don’t tell”
Ultimately though, the book’s philosophy suffers for being the product of an age that does not exist any longer. Marxism is a target of Rand’s polemic, but also social programmes that have clearly worked and brought tremendous benefit to the world (including the US), such as the Marshal plan. At the same time, she defends a world of producer industrialists that largely no longer exist now, and rather misses the point that invention in our modern world is hardly the preserve of big business (even if only businesses have the resources to patent their inventions). I could say more on this, but this is a review - not a critique, so I will stop!
All in all I enjoyed this book, I thought about it, I disagree with a good deal of it and a very fundamental level, but I do not regret it. Neither will you.
It is also the most
So I took it out of the library, all 1200 pages of it and started in. I finished about 100
I think Dorothy Parker might have been thinking of just this kind of book when she famously said, "This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force."
I don't agree with all of Rands philosophy - many times my christian friends have asked me how I could think this book was so great because she was obviously not a believer. But I believe that you should take from what you read the things that will help you grow and be a stronger person, and this book certainly did that for me. this book, and reading it every few years, saved my life.
A lot of people look at this book and see the big picture of industrialists vs everyone else. but it is really not that. Because it is a very moral book, and it teaches a morality that is fast disappearing from our society. As I have grown older, I have seen a strong work ethic disappear, to be replaced by a society of people who think the world owes them something. I have never believed that. I have had members of my family steal from me, and then defend what they did by reasoning that I should not mind, if I really was a christian and really lived by all I said I believed, then I should be willing to work for the benefit of my family so they could just live off of me - without thanks, even to the point of draining me so badly that I lost my business. After the 9 - 10th read, I finally got it, just like Hank Reardon did. that there are people who will hold you to your moral values, without having any of their own - and will bleed you to death and expect you to be willing to let them do it. My brother is a lot like Phillip Reardon. It took me a long time to figure out what he was doing, and how he was doing it. the subtle words he would use to turn my parents against me - (She has a business, if she cared about me, if she believed all that stuff they teach at her church, she would hire me. I need a job, I need to be respected...) sound familiar? that pressure from my family led to two years of embezzlement, which destroyed my business. did I press charges? I wanted to, but my parents talked me out of it - how could you want to do that? he is your BROTHER! but I should have. It would have saved all the people he later ripped off a lot of grief. I should have learned the lesson from Rand sooner.
I have had bosses that harvested the products of my mind - my work, my effort, and then put it out as their own, and received the rewards, the pay that my work gave them, without a thank you, without an acknowledgment, without reward. When that happens, year after year, you die a little. No matter how self-sacrificing a person you are, there comes a day when enough is enough. Atlas Shrugged taught me that. In my current job, I have a button I made on the wall behind my computer, with the dollar sign as the only symbol on it. It is not there as a symbol that I worship money. it is there as a reminder that the product of my mind is mine alone. when my new boss saw it, he knew what it meant. He asked me if I would go on strike (a strike of the mind) against him. I told him not as long as he acknowledged my ideas as mine. and he has for the last 7 years.
Reading this book has taught me so much. it is one of those books that can change your life. I have on my bookshelf by my bed just a few books - the Bible, Thoreau's Walden, Several of Elizabeth Goudges novels, and Atlas Shrugged. I dip into these books to remind myself who I choose to be, and to gain strength.
to me this book is not about socialism vs capitalism, rich vs poor, or those who produce vs those who don't. it is a book about morals, and it can change your life. If you read it early enough in life. If you wait too long, you will be tainted by the philosophy and morality of the looters. And you would have to read the book to understand what that means.
I checked out this book because I have heard Ayn Rand's philosophy referenced several times during the
First, the basic message in Ayn Rand's words:
"If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labour. Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as ''the right to enslave.""
That sentiment is being used as a justification for reducing taxes on the wealthy and even increasing taxes on the poorest Americans.
I agree with it in an abstract way, but in the real world, it's not feasible because it assumes that:
1. everyone is healthy, able-bodied, mentally stable and smart enough to work
2. everyone has the same general starting point - grows up with enough to eat, shelter, healthy and strong relationships, role models who teach them to respect themselves and others, etc.
3. the "smart" and "wealthy" producers respect the workers, pay a fair and livable wage for all positions, provide good working conditions, decent hours, etc.
4. there are enough jobs for everyone who wants to work
5. taxes only go to lazy, incompetent people who choose not to work or do anything meaningful except scavenge and steal what they can from others so they don't have to produce
6. any gift is charity and an insult (even general hospitality like a friend staying over)
7. racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. don't exist or are insignificant
With those assumptions, Rand's premise is perfect and the whole world can function perfectly. However, in real life, some people are:
1. old, weak, unhealthy, mentally retarded or unstable, physically or mentally disabled
2. take care of themselves and then get struck by disaster
3. prepare for the future and then have a disabled child (or some other statistical anomaly that saps all their preparedness)
4. have an accident that permanently changes their physical or mental abilities
5. get laid off and can't find work that pays a livable wage
6. don't grow up with enough food, shelter, love or role models to know how to live a positive, productive life
7. and a ton of other possibilities that lead to the need for assistance
So what then? Kill them all and start over? (I would be in that group because I got laid off and was out of work for 15 months. I had decent savings, but still needed unemployment assistance which I had paid into for more than 20 years.)
The elite "minds" complained that the non-minds would strike and claim that the rich wouldn't be rich without their work. So the "minds" went on strike to prove that the workers needed them in order to earn their salaries and live. Duh, it's a symbiotic relationship. The only way the "minds" could strike permanently was to give up the lifestyles they were used to. So both sides had valid points, but like any author, Rand wrote the characters' personalities so that the more favorable ones shared her philosophy.
Francisco d'Anconia says that his grandfather's descendants paid for his acceptance that what he built was his by permission and not by right. That's all well and good, but how come none of the elite "minds" acknowledge that all their ideas were useless without the hundreds or thousands of people it took to implement them? What good is Rearden metal if there's no one to pour it? What good is a railroad idea if there's no one to lay the track or operate the train? Everyone has a place in society and just because some people are smarter or are better leaders doesn't negate the value of others.
Some of the claims in the novel were pretty bold and wrong. I think it was John Galt who said, "America is the only country born as a national product of man's mind and the supremacy of reason." Really? I could have sworn there were some guns and fighting involved.
Even though I am giving Rand a hard time, I am impressed that she published such radical ideas in 1957.
That said, Atlas Shrugged was one super long, super sappy, super super repetitive, melodramatic, soap opera-like love/morality story with some seriously unimaginative dialogue. This book was the looooongest 55 hours of my life in recent years. I felt like I was being forced to watch months of soap opera episodes back to back with no commercial breaks.
All the descriptions were the same! I was sick of "smart" people feeling feelings they would not name, acting "as a somnambulist" would and asking stupid questions. If you're smart, infer some facts. For example, Dagny crashes into the "mental utopia." John Galt explains how no one has found it before. What you see from above is a reflection of the mountaintops, so you don't know there is a valley below. They built and installed reflectors. Dagny asks why they built the reflectors. Really, Dagny? You've been searching all over. You know they're hiding. You find them by accident and then you ask why they built the reflectors? And MOST of the conversations in the book are like this! Even the arguments!
This was not on my list of classics that I had ever planned to read, but I can now add it and then cross it off my bucket list. Ha ha. And I really think it should count twice towards my 75 books for the year. I may torture myself even more by reading Fountainhead, which I didn't know I should have read first. However, I will NOT re-read Atlas Shrugged if I decide to read Fountainhead.
THE SOCIAL CONTROL OF BUSINESS: The government wants to control the sale of Rearden's innovative metal and puts him on trial with the judge saying, "Mr Rearden, the law which you are denouncing is based on the highest principle - the principle of public good." Profit is presented as evil and private business as anti-social (i.e. profits should be shared with everybody - not retained by a capitalist). She sees this as the sure route to the destruction of a dynamic wealth creating society.
DISPOSABLE DEMOCRACY: She follows a scientific elitist entrepreneurial line with Rearden building new industries that create wealth for everyone. When the socialist government tries to appropriate his business she seems to reject the idea that he can be protected by democracy. Apparently she doesn't believe that the popular vote can prevent extremism of the socialist/communist type although the evidence proves otherwise.
ELITISM: A major theme of the book is support for a scientific and business elite - with the government required to get out of their way rather than identifying them as "enemies of the people". She sees these elites generating national power and prosperity but she has little to say about the general population with no ideas about building a civil society as a whole. Also she doesn't consider that her elite could abuse power and manipulate politics, which they undoubtedly do.
RESSENTIMENT: She nicely captures this theme in for example the statement of a young scientist to Dagny Taggart, " You know Miss Taggart, I don't think that such a motor should ever be made, even if somebody did learn how to make it, it would be so superior to anything that we've got, that it would be unfair to lesser scientists, because it would leave no field for their achievements and abilities. I don't think that the strong should have the right to wound the self-esteem of the weak."
Ayn Rand herself (through Dagny Taggart) comes across as not very sympathetic, arrogant and rather silly (particularly in the sex scenes) but having said this, Karl Marx wasn't a very sympathetic character either, and Rand's ideas clearly have more to say about wealth creation than Marx's fantasy of, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
I recognize as well as anyone its shortcomings and imperfections, but see through them to a
While Ayn Rand's prose style never approaches that of another hero of mine, H. L. Mencken, it is certainly respectable enough to produce a novel of great originality and is, for many people, very difficult to put down once well started. It is well suited to her primary goal to communicate a coherent world view, an epistemology, and a derived ethic that can actually be lived. A mathematician struggling after a theorem hardly uses humor as a tool, and Rand has no room here for it either.
As for Rand's analysis of Capitalism, I find it superior to Marx's. But I know that economics is complicated, and hardly a science yet, so her appreciation of the laissez faire variety is probably a bit of an oversimplification. And a naive libertarianism, much influenced by her objectivism, while hardly sweeping the world for now, has something to contribute too. Her biggest failure to me, though, is the problem of race, which she never discusses. It is no easy task to apply her approach to such a difficult problem, and I am not aware of any. The alternative basis in a hard-headed sociobiology, though, would probably have been quite comfortable for her, had it been available then.
Rand's message is powerful and a positive contribution to the progress of the world. Take a look--I doubt you will be disappointed.
Ayn Rand was born in Russia, and escaped from that communist country as a young woman. She came to America and fell in love with capitalism. In today's world where kids are routinely taught that capitalism is the cause of society's ills, I can understand that Rand's message might be jarring to some.
I understand that they plan to make Atlas Shrugged into a movie, with a schedueled release date of 2011, and that Angelina Jolie will play the role of Dagny Taggart, the book's heroine. I predict it will be a blockbuster. Read the book now, before copies go flying off the shelves in 2011.