Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged: Philosophical revolution or cosmic piffle?
Written: Jun 28 '01 (Updated Jul 02 '01)
Product Rating:
Pros: Interesting novel and setting; Thought provoking
Cons: 1100 pages to "flesh out" a single sentence philosophy
The Bottom Line: As a defence of capitalism and personal responsibility, Rand is spot on. However, the poor writing and lengthy rationalizations will have many flipping pages.
adjensen's Full Review: Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged: A Philosophical and Lit...
Few authors generate as much controversy as Ayn Rand. If you're not familiar with her work, that may well be a good thing...nothing can stir a conversation like two people who've read her stuff and come away with diametrically opposed attitudes about what she says.
I've had more than my share of arguments over Atlas Shrugged and some Rand's other books, probably because I've developed a set of values that fringes on, but doesn't quite mesh with what a "true Randian" believes.
If you are interested in Ayn Rand, this novel is probably the place to start. And that's kind of a bad thing, because it is so over the top, that simply the act of hefting it in the book shop will convince a lot of people to put it back. At nearly 1100 pages, this is not a "light summer reading" book.
Atlas Shrugged is two, two, two books in one! First and foremost, it is a novel about the fall of civilization. Secondly, it is a philosophical and political treatise on Objectivism, Rand's belief system.
The Novel
As a novel, it's pretty engaging, with a few caveats, listed below. It is possible to read this book as a novel alone, skipping the lengthy diatribes by some of the main characters, and have an enjoyable read.
The story is set sometime in the 1930s or 40s, when trains were the main mode of transportation. The main character, one Dagny Taggert, is the Vice President of Operations for her family's railroad. She is surrounded by people of varying levels of incompetence, and "people of worth" seem to be vanishing off the face of the planet.
As Dagny tries to keep her railroad running, she fights with the political and socioeconomic system, both supporting and raging against it. In addition, she begins to unravel the mystery of where competent people are going. Her brother, president of the railroad, is firmly entrenched with the political and economic decision makers, and is used as both an antagonist, and one who epitomizes what's wrong in Rand's world.
What's good about the novel
Well, this is an engaging story, if nothing else. If you skip over the parts that drag, you will remain interested in what's going to happen until the end. We quickly identify both with Dagny and her assistant Eddie Willers as they battle the forces of incompetence and contradictory behaviour.
The setting appeals to me, and I always get that "Art Deco" feel out of the book -- an age when industry and metal were king. The characters who side with Dagny, for the most part, are endearing and interesting.
What's bad about the novel
First off, this whole thing is written in such an overdramatic fashion that it quickly become annoying. People rarely "say" anything...they "whisper" it...they "rage" it...they...well, you get the idea.
The main characters are poorly defined pieces of humanity. The good people are exceedingly good and never do anything wrong, the bad people exceedingly bad and never do anything good. Particularly annoying are the physical descriptions of many of the players...more than one is described as "the embodiment of a classic Greek statue." Ugh.
I have a real problem with Rand's treatment of women in this novel. Although the main character is a woman, that's largely so that she can have relationships with the male characters. The only other women are either superficial, harpies, or victims of the evil ones. In other words, aside from Dagny, females in the book are irrelevant or the embodiment of evil in society (eg: Hank Reardon's wife and mother.)
The Philosophy
Rand's Objectivism is actually rather simplistic, although you can go out and read tons and tons of material related to it. Simply put, it's the acceptance of responsibility for your own life. Taken logically, I don't think that many people have a great problem with that, at least on a superficial level.
Many of us have grown tired of people who sue McDonalds for having their coffee too hot, who sue tobacco companies because they smoke, who ensure that the instructions for chain saws include "do not use hand to stop blade" to prevent someone from suing them. The first step in becoming a "real" adult is accepting that you are responsible for what you do, and the results of that action. You want to take heroin? Fine. But don't come crying to me when you find yourself addicted to the drug.
Where she runs into trouble, with me and with most people, is the extension of this -- the abrogation of responsibility towards anyone else. In other words, "I'm so busy taking care of myself, I don't have time for you."
What this means is that any sort of volunteerism or charity is a great evil in Rand's philosophy. I suppose that one can make the case the supporting someone or something simply encourages them to expect to be taken care of instead of wanting to take responsibility for themselves, but there are a fair number of people who can't take care of themselves, and the logical extension of Objectivism as presented in Atlas Shrugged would be to let them die.
It's not clear where that works as far as family goes, since the only family in the book is a collection of bad people who are sponging off of Hank Reardon, who dumps them without any regard when the opportunity presents itself. I don't know what Rand's attitude regarding children would be, although I suspect that it's okay to "take care of them."
The philosophy as presented in the novel
This is brought forth in an undercurrent throughout the book, as well as in a number of lengthy (and incredibly boring) diatribes by some of the main characters, worst being a 57 page (!) speech by John Galt, the leader of the "opposition." If you can get through that ranting in one sitting, well, you're a better person than I.
The real problem that I have with the philosophy, as placed in the novel, is this exact issue. What Rand wants to say can be summed up in a single sentence, and indeed often is -- I swear - by my life and my love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Instead of being told this straight out, and then "getting the hell out of the way" (in the words of Galt,) Rand is constantly coming back to it in endless dull speeches that can be summed up in that sentence. Maybe I'm a bit brighter than most, but I figured it out from reading the sentence...I don't need 57 pages of Galt telling me why that makes sense, and I rather doubt that anyone else would either.
Think of it this way -- if you agree with the sentence, do you need a lengthy diatribe to justify it? Probably not. And if you don't agree with it, are you going to subject yourself to 57 pages of ranting which merely supports the statement? Probably not.
Conclusion
Is this a great book? Taken as a whole, probably not. Vast passages are redundant and uninteresting, a fair share of the novel is unrealistic and ridiculous, and the writing style is distracting and annoying in places.
On the other hand, I don't consider myself a trite person, yet I've read this book probably twenty times. I like the novel in and of itself, and tend to skip over the philosophical rants during most reads. So it clearly has some appeal.
Consider the book food for thought without being the end all, be all discussion of society.
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.