This review will please absolutely no one. Indeed, this rating sorely tests me and tests all the standards that I set for myself when evaluating books. It is important to me to be fair and to purge my own inconsistency and hypocrisy whenever I find it. My knee-jerk reaction is to assign this one-star to proclaim my objection to objectivism. I value compassion and altruism, and I do not think "selfishness a virtue" as she famously stated. Ms. Rand’s ideas contradict the Sermon the Mount, the Jewish prophets and all the social justice traditions to which I aspire as an ethos. I side with human beings not with abstract notions of economic ideology. Moreover, I don't think her writing, her plotting, or her characterization particularly strong. Why then do I rate this with 3 stars, which is a "good" rating? As I said, it is important to me to be fair, consistent, and not hypocritical. 1. Atlas Shrugged challenged me to think differently.I say in my profile statement: "I prefer books that challenge my understanding of the world and force me to rethink my opinions." I am rather proud of that statement. How then can I penalize Ms. Rand in a snit when she does just that?2. All voices should be heard. I have said repeatedly that all voices should be heard. How then can I now say that the voices of PRODUCERS do not deserve to be heard? I do think that it would be valuable for people on the left to understand some of the intellectual arguments of the right.3. I like novels of ideas.What is “Atlas Shrugged” if not a novel of ideas? Some would say bad ideas, but why quibble about religion or politics? If the ideas are interesting and provocative, which hers most surely are, I think I can overlook flaws in writing technique because I have done so for others. 4. I believe in the market place of ideas.I am an admirer of J.S. Mill’s “On Liberty,” wherein he argues that all ideas should be tested in the marketplace of ideas. How then can I penalize Ms. Rand for placing her ideas in the marketplace? 5. I believe in empathy.I understand why Ms. Rand may have had such a fierce hatred for all forms of socialism. It is my understanding that her family's fortune was confiscated by the Soviets and her family was forced to flee their homeland. Therefore, I can understand why she might take a dim view of it--even the exceedingly minimal variety of it she found in the USA with its New Deal and social security. Why then can I not afford Ms. Rand the same empathy that I have given freely to other characters and writers, some perhaps less deserving than she? If one of my main complaints against her philosophy is that I believe it lacks empathy/compassion for others, am I not hypocritical for not extending some to her? (Let's not quibble over the semantics of empathy vs. compassion. I understand the difference.)6. I believe in the Golden Mean.I believe in social safety nets, but I also believe it is self-evident that society must reward the industrious for the fruits of their labor. I think history has proved that both principles are necessary to a successful economy. Ms. Rand has a truth, but it is only one truth, in reality, a half-truth. Regardless of how enamored Ms. Rand is of her half-truth, it must be modified to accommodate other truths against which it smashes in the real world of starvation and sickness and brutal unfairness. With Aristotle I say, “In the middle of extreme truths stands virtue.”7. I didn’t come to Goodreads to argue.I read Atlas Shrugged a long time ago, and I am not really interested in arguing about its details or merits of Objectivism. Atlas Shrugged is one of those books that people approach with the dead-ass certainty that I find uncongenial, and is almost impossible to debate constructively in this forum. In short, this is one of those books that is capable of starting but not ending wars and feuds. Thus, I give this book a middle-rating which assuredly will endear me to no one—but myself, the most important person to please as it involves my own self-respect. Yet, I give a favorable rating somewhat begrudgingly. Like Galileo I mutter, under my breath, “It still moves.” If Objectivists fear or fantasize about a revolution (or disappearance) of producers, I personally think they are looking among the wrong people for a revolution (or a disappearance). Her dire predictions are almost laughable when we examine them now, in 2013, where the rich have gotten fabulously richer, and it is the middle class which is disappearing. As to the question seen on the occasional bumper sticker, “Where is John Galt?” I respond that, in 2013, he is in a luxury penthouse sleeping very soundly on a bed made of money. I ask instead-- Where is my brother? Who is my neighbor? What does he need? August 18, 2013
A Modest Proposal I'd give this book 10 stars, but it only gets five, because really, Ayn didn't have the courage of her convictions. She wussed out at the end and gave in to EVIL Liberal Blackmail. The problem with Atlas Shrugged is that it doesn't go far enough. And so, to correct that, here's an addendum, a modest proposal to supplement Ayn's book. We're taxing the wrong people. Why are we taxing rich people more than poor people? Rich people don't need government services. If they want a highway, they'll build it themselves. If they need electricity, they'll build a god damn dam. It's poor people that need the government to build these things for them. So, the tax structure should work this way: -- Everyone in the bottom half of income earners pays 50% tax. -- Those in the top sixth decile pay 40%. -- Those in the top seventh decile pay 30%. -- Those in the top eighth decile pay 20%. -- Those in the top ninth decile pay 10%. -- And those in the top tenth decile pay nothing. This will encourage those lazy bums at the bottom to slave for rich people. After all, it's by slaving away and working hard for them that they can eventually become rich too. It's coddling them otherwise. Why this tax structure? It's logical isn't it? It's RICH PEOPLE that create jobs. Ergo, the more money they have, the more jobs they will create. They are the Job Creators! We DEPEND on them for the jobs. Instead of taxing them we should be eternally thankful to them for even Existing. But even this, EVEN THIS, fails to FULLY recognise how brilliant and innovative and hard working Rich People are. Without them, we'd all be living in mud huts and eating each other to stay alive. Clearly, it's NOT enough to NOT tax them. No, if they are in the top 5% of income earners, we should PAY THEM to stay in our country. Why, just their very presence in a country will mean that its inhabitants will get rich. It's that Well-Documented, Scientifically Proven Trickle-Down Effect. How much should we pay? Obviously, the answer is to let the Market decide: governments should bid against each other in an open auction. Highest bidder wins. And clearly this has to be done as often as the Rich People want to change their country of residence. After all, you can't expect them to just stay in one country all their life. That would be a Fetter on Market Forces! (--booooooo!--) Countries should COMPETE to attract rich people to their shores. Cypress giving them grief? Why the UK will PAY them GBP1 million to come over. Hell, don't go to the UK! We'll pay GBP1 trillion AND sweeten it with a line of grateful poor people lying down at the landing strip for them to walk over so that they don't soil their gold Gucci shoes on our unworthy soil. And for those at the top 1%? Well, nothing's too good for them. No point offering them money since they make more than what any country can offer anyway. No, for them, we'll offer money AND a line of poor people AND control of the government. See a law they don't like? Governments will change it for them. See laws that need to be put in place? Governments had damn well vote them in if they know what's good for them. Oh, and that nonsense about power corrupting doesn't apply to Rich Job Creators. THEY are subject to the Discipline of the Market. That Invisible Hand will come down and smack them upside down if they try anything funny. We don't need governments. Governments are for those rotten horrible poor people. The Invisible Hand keeps Rich Job Creators honest, hardworking, and competitive. They wouldn't dream of selling fraudulent financial instruments, or food that poisons you, or buildings that collapse, or lie about the value of their companies. Nobody would buy their products if they did that you see. It's only when Big Brother Governments intervene that such things happen. It's only when Big Brother Governments that think they know better and force them to obey laws (--booooooo!--) that faulty, dangerous bridges or aircraft get built, or carcinogens get dumped into rivers. All hail Rich People! Without Them, life would be just shit. Civilisation Would Not Exist! Amen!Update (20 Jan 2014)You think this review is just kidding around? Fact is, we already live in an Atlas Shrugged world: In a world of 7 billion and more, 85 people (0.000001% of the world's population) own more than 50% of the rest. Think about it, if YOU became that rich and that powerful, once you got there, why WOULDN'T you do everything you could to make sure the rest would stay there and not pose a threat to your wealth? Why WOULD you let the system that allowed you to get to the top allow someone else to dethrone you? Ayn Rand would be SO proud.
What do You think about Atlas Shrugged (1999)?
I Agree and a lot of the comments to your review support that. I initially just liked it because it was a good story. (Of course I can't ever read it again because at my age my tolerance for bullshit has winked right out existence) I did have the opportunity at one time to talk to a group of people who'd read it as well thinking, "Hey we have this in common." and wow. What a bunch of arrogant douche bags. I see many of them have likely commented here already.And Kayce - we can like the book and not be douche bags so long as we don't eat drink and sleep the flawed philosophy. To me I'll think back on it as a nice story about a railroad.
—Seth
After working on this book for several months, I finally finished it and loved it. I've learned that I rate a book highly when it forces me to think and broadens my perspective. Rand definitely accomplishes this in Atlas Shrugged and earns five stars. I am amazed at the depth of her philosophy, her intelligence, and her ability to write and communicate her ideas through strong, entertaining fictional characters. In Atlas Shrugged, she shares her philosophy which she calls Objectivism, which in a word is a system of justice. Before reading this book, I always viewed justice as cold, distant, and inferior to mercy, but Rand helps me view the essentiality and virtues of justice. In a few other words, Rand is an advocate of reason, logic, accountability, production, capitalism, agency, human ability, and she believes that working for one's happiness is essential and each person's personal responsilibity. She is against pity, mediocrity, taxation, seizing wealth and production from those who produce to redistribute to those who are unwilling to work hard. In the story, she illustrates what would happen to the world if incentive to produce is removed from the intelligent and able - the motor of the world would stop.I love how Rand's character Dagny Taggart is such an example of intelligence and ability. She will move heaven and earth to accomplish her purposes and she approaches life with such passion. She runs the leading transcontinental railroad in the country, and Rand created this character in the 1950's! Despite my love of the book, there were a few drawbacks for me. Rand believes that one's professional work, what he is able to produce, is THE purpose of life, definitely a "live to work" approach. Also, I didn't find any thread of mercy in her philosophy, which makes me wonder her view on caring for those who cannot care for themselves. Rand also has a sexual theme that emerges several times in the book which I didn't know I was in for when I began the book. Be forewarned that it's there, and she has a strong theory on sexuality that you'll be exposed to in reading the book.Reading Atlas Shrugged reminded and empowered me to work hard for what I want in life, to stop making excuses, and to hold myself accountable and responsible for what I do or don't acoomplish.
—Amy
Ayn Rand makes my eyes hurt. She does this, not by the length of her six hundred thousand word diatribe, but rather by the frequency with which she causes me to roll them. Do you want to know what I’ve learned after spending nearly two months reading Ayn Rand’s crap? Here’s a brief rundown, Breakfast of Champions style.Socialists are scary. Socialists are frightening creatures who lurk in corners, waiting to pounce on you. They are unpredictable, they have curvature of the spine, and they often foam at the mouth.This is a socialist: Capitalists, on the other hand, are calm and rational beings who never lose their tempers. You can always trust a capitalist. And they are super easy to spot, too—just look for the hummingbirds who sew their clothes for them.This is a capitalist: Ayn Rand’s characters come in only two flavors, and which kind you get depends solely on the extent to which they embody her philosophical ideals. The capitalists (the “good guys”) are the moral heroes of the story, the ones who fight back against economic regulation. This regulation is seen as unwanted intervention, the government essentially trespassing on one’s property rights by means of unfair (unfair to the capitalists, I might point out) legislation. The “bad guys” are, of course, represented by the socialists—the ones passing the legislation, although Rand does a good job of throwing anyone else into this category who, while not active participants in passing these laws, may not be totally opposed to them, either.The problem with all of this is the fact that her characters are not at all believable. They are robots who mechanically spew forth her inane drivel or, if they are of the other flavor, behave in a manner so utterly ridiculous as to demonstrate the rationality of the capitalist over the vicious, gun-toting socialist who’s come to rob your house, rape your Ma, and shoot your Pa. Rand is so egregious in the maltreatment of her antithetic characters that it’s almost laughable. Beyond that, the narrative itself is monotonous and repetitive. This is not exactly a beach read.But even if I were to put all of that aside, I still wouldn’t be able to get over the fact that Rand’s argument here is to put an end to social collectivism of every form. That means: no social security, no unemployment insurance, no federally funded health care, no public roads, no public housing, no public education, no income taxes, no property taxes—does this not sound insane?! I get the whole “ooh” and “aah” aspect of libertarian freedoms, but I’m betting there wouldn’t be a lot of volunteers willing to relinquish their adequately funded public services on the basis of a free market economy. And ultimately, this is the fundamental principle on which Rand and I disagree. Although I do believe, and strongly, that the government should have no authority to interfere in the private lives of its citizens, do I think the government should also abstain from interfering in the regulation of the economy? Hellz, no! I want those corporate mother fuckers taxed and if that means Ima start foaming at the mouth, then so be it.Ultimately, this novel is more absurdist fiction than dystopian fiction. Rand takes an all-in-or-all-out approach to problem solving; there can be no moral ambiguity—either you’re with her or you’re not, and I’m not. But what does she care? Rand is an unabashed admirer of the wealthy industrialist and it is for him that she bats her eyes and licks her lips, not for me.
—Jason
