The first book I ever read to lend a strong emotional reaction. A timely read, to say the least, and it came across as especially poignant given the current climate. Although a tough read sometimes ( a 50 page monologue can be difficult to get through ) it was worth the Months that I slaved over it. I thought it was extremely well-written and an Important read for a generation quickly moving towards Rands feared result. It strengthened my already passionate feelings against the Owe and Want t... (show more)

The first book I ever read to lend a strong emotional reaction. A timely read, to say the least, and it came across as especially poignant given the current climate. Although a tough read sometimes ( a 50 page monologue can be difficult to get through ) it was worth the Months that I slaved over it. I thought it was extremely well-written and an Important read for a generation quickly moving towards Rands feared result. It strengthened my already passionate feelings against the Owe and Want type. (and anybody who feels a sense of Entitlement to the Mind and Ability of others)
I would recommend this book to anybody who is still a free thinker, to anybody who doesn't believe in theft, to anybody who understands the concept of Independence. I would recommend this book to people who want to mind this own business, where the economy and society is concerned.
An amazing and incredibly worthwhile read. (show less)

There are a handful of significant problems with this book: some of the key plot points were laughably childish (An anti-IRS pirate? A secret city of millionaire geniuses selling milk and bread? Lulz plz); the characters never grow or change;
the entire book is preachy and contrived for political ends. But I think the most crucial problem is this: there are essentially two characters in the book; I call them SuperMan and StrawMan. SuperMan, people like Reardan, Dagny, and D'Anconia, does ev... (show more)

There are a handful of significant problems with this book: some of the key plot points were laughably childish (An anti-IRS pirate? A secret city of millionaire geniuses selling milk and bread? Lulz plz); the characters never grow or change;
the entire book is preachy and contrived for political ends. But I think the most crucial problem is this: there are essentially two characters in the book; I call them SuperMan and StrawMan. SuperMan, people like Reardan, Dagny, and D'Anconia, does everything perfectly. He works diligently; he is brilliant; he is athletic and attractive; he evens cooks hamburgers better than you. StrawMan, people like Taggert, Balph Eubank, and Orren Boyle, does everything poorly. He is immoral and incompetant; he says rediculous, illogical things ("the successful owe an apology to those that failed", etc); he leads a live obviously full of self-loathing, self-deception, and self-destruction. Every single word in the book is meant to show the triumph of SuperMan over StrawMan, if not materially at least morally. In every plot, every sub plot, every conversation, every flash back, you are bombarded with one point: worship SuperMan, despise StrawMan. Which, I suppose, is all well and good for a fairy tale; but for your 'magnum opus', it'd be nice to have something other than 1200 pages of 1-dimensional moralizing.

If you want to save yourself hours and hours of reading, I can sum this book up for you in 13 words: be nice to the rich, or they'll take their toys and go home. (show less)

I can't say enough how wretched this book is, not just for its thinly-veiled preachiness as it attempts to bring some kind of merit to objectionism (sorry folks, I cannot capitalize that word...call it a philosophy if you want, but doing that is only an attempt to legitimize being an asshole), but as a work of fiction it is nothing but a longwinded parable. All the capitalists are hale, good-looking, sharpwitted saints, and everyone who has an opinion an inch to the left of centre is ugly, oi... (show more)

I can't say enough how wretched this book is, not just for its thinly-veiled preachiness as it attempts to bring some kind of merit to objectionism (sorry folks, I cannot capitalize that word...call it a philosophy if you want, but doing that is only an attempt to legitimize being an asshole), but as a work of fiction it is nothing but a longwinded parable. All the capitalists are hale, good-looking, sharpwitted saints, and everyone who has an opinion an inch to the left of centre is ugly, oily, weakminded (you know, like Ghandi...that scumbag!). For those of you who are disillusioned into thinking of this as literature, try picking up something a little less morally certain. Ambiguity toward morality: that is one of the hallmarks of literature. Anyone with Rand's certainty should be feared.

"What's the most depraved type of human being? The man without a purpose."

Oh. You mean that panhandler on the corner.

Hitler had a purpose.

Stalin had a purpose.

Rand was writing in the shadow of the greatest atrocities of human history, committed by men with absolute purpose.

Osama bin Laden has a purpose.

But that panhandler with his palm out...he is truly evil. Right.

Read this book if you're trying to decide between a bigscreen TV and a donation to UNICEF...and you have already decided on the TV. Damn poor starving kids in wartorn countries. Get a purpose! (show less)

What bugged me the most about Atlas Shrugged was the redundant, recycled interactions between the "Egoist" and the "Looter." The following exchange basically sums up every one of said interactions:

"What's your OPINION?" Jim Taggart/Mr Thompson/Chick Morrison/Balph Eubank asked in a shrill voice, his distorted features conveying nothing but panic and despair.

"I have no opinion," Dagny/Hank/Fransisco/John Galt answered evenly and without emotion... (show more)

What bugged me the most about Atlas Shrugged was the redundant, recycled interactions between the "Egoist" and the "Looter." The following exchange basically sums up every one of said interactions:

"What's your OPINION?" Jim Taggart/Mr Thompson/Chick Morrison/Balph Eubank asked in a shrill voice, his distorted features conveying nothing but panic and despair.

"I have no opinion," Dagny/Hank/Fransisco/John Galt answered evenly and without emotion.

"But I want to know what you think we should DO! How are WE to know???" Jim Taggart/Mr Thompson/Chick Morrison/Balph Eubank shrieked.

"How am I to know? I will do whatever you tell me to do," Dagny/Hank/Fransisco/John Galt responded quietly, the angular planes of her/his face frozen with indifference.

"For goodness sake!" Jim Taggart/Mr Thompson/Chick Morrison/Balph Eubank screamed "Can't you ever just go with your HEART? Why do you always have to be so logical, can't you just FEEL? Have you no FEELINGS?"

"Get out." Dagny/Hank/Fransisco/John Galt said flatly.

Also on page 1066 Eddie Willers is referred to as Eddie Wipers. There were some typos in The Fountainhead too. Does nobody proofread these books? (show less)

one of the most important books

of course, one almost has to be ashamed of calling himself an objectivist or even for just liking this book. to be fair, the plot is weak, it's too long and the characters are too mechanic, too perfect.

but it does not aim to entertain with a thrilling story, it's a view on several archetypes. there is no dagny in this world, but the world would be a better place if more people would aim to be one instead of following myths, gods or even other people bli... (show more)

one of the most important books

of course, one almost has to be ashamed of calling himself an objectivist or even for just liking this book. to be fair, the plot is weak, it's too long and the characters are too mechanic, too perfect.

but it does not aim to entertain with a thrilling story, it's a view on several archetypes. there is no dagny in this world, but the world would be a better place if more people would aim to be one instead of following myths, gods or even other people blindly.

on the other hand the biggest critics don't actually try to understand the underlying concepts. it's not a bible telling people to exploit others and justifying exuberances on wall street. it aims to empower people to think for themselves, put their own interests over altruistic ideas. (show less)

This is a life changing book, certainly...but not necessarily toward following the philosophy of objectivism. For one, it is a fantastic story, told in a way that is unforgettable. I love the grandness of the over-simplified caricatures, and the fairytale-like feel used for the purposes of driving home a conviction.

But beyond that, one sees that, if this book has such a widespread influence, why pure capitalism is so strong--yet so flawed. Rand completely neglects externalities, such as p... (show more)

This is a life changing book, certainly...but not necessarily toward following the philosophy of objectivism. For one, it is a fantastic story, told in a way that is unforgettable. I love the grandness of the over-simplified caricatures, and the fairytale-like feel used for the purposes of driving home a conviction.

But beyond that, one sees that, if this book has such a widespread influence, why pure capitalism is so strong--yet so flawed. Rand completely neglects externalities, such as pollution and environmental injustice, associated with industrial capitalism. Granted, the book was written in the 1950's, when environmental considerations where fairly low on peoples' radar screens, by a communism reactionary. It would be interesting to see what such a novel would look like if it were written today. (show less)

There are so many things wrong with this book, it's hard to know where to begin.
*Rand claims gold is objectively valuable and that leaving a standard is dangerous.
*Explicitly condones the deaths of people who disagree with her philosophy; see the collapse of the Taggart tunnel.
*Shamelessly straw man's everyone who disagrees with her. If one needs examples of false dichotomies, read this book. If you aren't an Objectivist, you are Satan incarnate.
*Aesthetically boring. She uses the mos... (show more)

There are so many things wrong with this book, it's hard to know where to begin.
*Rand claims gold is objectively valuable and that leaving a standard is dangerous.
*Explicitly condones the deaths of people who disagree with her philosophy; see the collapse of the Taggart tunnel.
*Shamelessly straw man's everyone who disagrees with her. If one needs examples of false dichotomies, read this book. If you aren't an Objectivist, you are Satan incarnate.
*Aesthetically boring. She uses the most trite, cliche techniques, especially in the various speeches delivered in this book. John Galt's speech sticks out in particular. It is so formulaic, you would think a robot wrote it.
*Incredibly predictable.
*Is this book incredibly sexist and racist, or can we just blame the 50's for that?
*It is long for no goddamn reason. It would be one thing if she complicated matters at all, but within the first two hundred pages you don't get her point, goddammit she has another 800 pages to try and beat it into your dumb-ass skull!
*She asserts her beliefs (that's right, all of them!) flow directly from the laws of causality, as well as the rule "A is A". Ok kids, try to get from "A is A" to "free market capitalism is the only ethical stance"! Fuck you, naturalistic fallacy!
*One has to ask how exactly she can believe the above, and still assert the existence of free will.
*She asserts rational people don't disagree/have conflicts of interest. The only way she can maintain this is by continually asserting that you are evil if your are not objectivist, because otherwise the conflict of (capitalist) economic liberty and freedom springs to mind. (show less)

Oof. As a work of fiction, I find the book to be an entertaining, very readable potboiler, even considering the length. I would recommend it on these merits alone if it weren't for the seventy-page psychobabble diatribe thinly veiled as a soliloquy that rises up around page one-thousand and sits there like a festering boil. Not only is it annoying, but thoroughly unnecessary, as the one-dimensional black-hat antagonists and the one-dimensional white-hat protagonists preach their point of v... (show more)

Oof. As a work of fiction, I find the book to be an entertaining, very readable potboiler, even considering the length. I would recommend it on these merits alone if it weren't for the seventy-page psychobabble diatribe thinly veiled as a soliloquy that rises up around page one-thousand and sits there like a festering boil. Not only is it annoying, but thoroughly unnecessary, as the one-dimensional black-hat antagonists and the one-dimensional white-hat protagonists preach their point of views at length at every opportunity for the whole of the book.
So as to the psychobabble - this is the first (and last) book of Rand's that I plan to read, so I am hardly fully read-in on her particular brand of crazy, but I found the whole message absurd - instead of trying to present something that is the opposite of Bolshevism, she posits something identical - just instead of the rich being overthrown by a rational elite, it is the poor.
Don't get me wrong, this book should be required reading, if for no other reason than to be duly horrified at the impact that this drug-addled, self-obsessed psychopath has had on modern political thought; but I find her no more insightful than another crazed charlatan who used trashy potboilers to whip up a cult during relatively the same time period. But while he got Tom Cruise, Rand gets the likes of Alan Greenspan.
Atlas Shrugged will provide you with a little entertainment, some thoughtfood, and it will help you grok the world around you - but hopefully not in the way the author intended. (show less)