Discover new books on Goodreads
Meet your next favorite book
Jason's Reviews > Atlas Shrugged
Atlas Shrugged
by
by
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.
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.
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.
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.
3191 likes · Like
∙
flag
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Atlas Shrugged.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
April 10, 2011
– Shelved
July 7, 2011
–
35.0%
July 18, 2011
–
50.0%
July 24, 2011
–
70.0%
August 9, 2011
–
85.0%
Started Reading
August 17, 2011
–
100.0%
August 17, 2011
–
Finished Reading
September 2, 2012
– Shelved as:
for-kindle
September 2, 2012
– Shelved as:
2011
September 2, 2012
– Shelved as:
reviewed
September 2, 2012
– Shelved as:
flames-on-the-side-of-my-face
Comments Showing 1-50 of 1,064 (1064 new)
message 1:
by
Don
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Apr 09, 2012 09:13PM
I disagree that Rand's heroes can be represented by Jesus Christ. Rand was very anti-religion. You may be interested in looking at "Atlas Shrugged and Jesus Wept" on Kindle at http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-...
reply
|
flag
I only meant that she glorifies her Randian "heroes" to such an eye-rolling extent that it becomes hard to really take her seriously. I wasn't actually trying to imply that John Galt was Jesus Christ.
Although now that you mention it, she does sort of treat Galt as a sort of Savior. Hm...
Although now that you mention it, she does sort of treat Galt as a sort of Savior. Hm...
Jason wrote: "I only meant that she glorifies her Randian "heroes" to such an eye-rolling extent that it becomes hard to really take her seriously. I wasn't actually trying to imply that John Galt was Jesus Chri..."
Rand refers to Galt as the Destroyer. Those of us that are Christians know the Destroyer by another name . . .
Rand refers to Galt as the Destroyer. Those of us that are Christians know the Destroyer by another name . . .
Don wrote: "Rand refers to Galt as the Destroyer. Those of us that are Christians know the Destroyer by another name . . . "
A destroyer of socialism, Don, which is a system that Rand clearly argues against. With respect to her capitalist/objectivist/selfishivist platform, Galt is absolutely her Hero.
And yes, selfishivist is a real word.
A destroyer of socialism, Don, which is a system that Rand clearly argues against. With respect to her capitalist/objectivist/selfishivist platform, Galt is absolutely her Hero.
And yes, selfishivist is a real word.
I have found that saying "selfishivist" ten times straight sounds like wind blowing over sand dunes.
Ha, anything negative said about this book always makes me smile. I tried so hard to like it, but c'mon, I can only take so many flat characters. And then it all disolves into a B-movie shoot-'em-up climax and my brain wept.
That ending is totally absurd. It serves nothing but a convenient purpose for Rand to demonstrate the triumph of her moral heroes.
Elizabeth wrote: "have you watched this ::
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMTDaV..."
About 10 times. I think Mike Wallace is amazing as an interviewer in this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMTDaV..."
About 10 times. I think Mike Wallace is amazing as an interviewer in this...
I get your picture of Jesus. It's appropriate given that so many Christians are reading Rand upon recommendation from the likes of demagogues like Glenn Beck. I just don't understand how people that claim to follow the man who preached the Sermon on the Mount could admire the philosophy of Objectivism. It's just survival of the fittest Spencerian dogma wrapped up in a different package. I dislike this woman and her teaching with the same degree of disgust that I regard the demagogues who peddle their lies on Fox. The fact that she was an intellectual, unlike Fox personalites, makes her no less a charlatan or a rank idealogue. Good review.
Your dislike analogy makes sense, especially considering those demagogues are precisely whom her philosophy speaks to. I can see how her ideas might be appealing to some people on the surface, but once you start to understand all it entails, it basically turns out to be absolutely against everything I think and believe.
Mmm...can't wait to read me some Fountainhead!
Mmm...can't wait to read me some Fountainhead!
René wrote: "I have found that saying "selfishivist" ten times straight sounds like wind blowing over sand dunes."
Excellent word to describe her philosophy. I love it and I'm using it from now on. Nobody even knows what objectivist means but selfishivist--now that speaks volumes. Its sort of dismantles the Orwellian-speak of such a brutal philosophy.
Excellent word to describe her philosophy. I love it and I'm using it from now on. Nobody even knows what objectivist means but selfishivist--now that speaks volumes. Its sort of dismantles the Orwellian-speak of such a brutal philosophy.
Steve wrote: "I get your picture of Jesus. It's appropriate given that so many Christians are reading Rand upon recommendation from the likes of demagogues like Glenn Beck. I just don't understand how people th..."
[image error]
[image error]
It is one of the greatest ironies of history that Jesus Christ preached something very akin to communism, while organised "Christianity" has always been rooting for Big Business.
Is Jesus only a Poster Boy for the Church? It makes me wonder sometimes.
Cheers, from
Is Jesus only a Poster Boy for the Church? It makes me wonder sometimes.
Cheers, from
Jason wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "have you watched this ::
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMTDaV..."
About 10 times. I think Mike Wallace is amazing as an interviewer in this..."
!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMTDaV..."
About 10 times. I think Mike Wallace is amazing as an interviewer in this..."
!!!!!!
Don't wonder any longer, Nandakishore. Even the most hysterical screaming christians are unable to quote the few reported words alleged to have been spoken by the Buddhist missionary conflated with some guy called Joshua bar Joseph without giving the lie to the religion's acceptance of ol' Jeez as a leader.
Nandakishore wrote: "It is one of the greatest ironies of history that Jesus Christ preached something very akin to communism, while organised "Christianity" has always been rooting for Big Business.
Is Jesus only a P..."
Oh yeah, the irony of organized Christianity has not been lost on me and has been duly noted. Its track record re being on the right side of history has been ... shall we be gentle... very mixed.
Is Jesus only a P..."
Oh yeah, the irony of organized Christianity has not been lost on me and has been duly noted. Its track record re being on the right side of history has been ... shall we be gentle... very mixed.
Mixed.
When has institutional christianity, in the whole sweep of time from 325CE to this good day, been on the non-heinous side of any possible issue?
When has institutional christianity, in the whole sweep of time from 325CE to this good day, been on the non-heinous side of any possible issue?
Jason, thank you so much for posting your review. I saw Atlas Shrugged at Barnes & Noble under "summer reading" and knowing that it was a famous title I contemplated buying it but shrugged it off for 3 other books. Now that I read your review I'm glad I didn't buy the big paper weight. I lean libertarian but it sounds like Ayn is a purist. I am pro-union and a building rep for my union (Libertarians are opposed to unions and public education, oh well) but I am just never a purist when it comes to philosophies. It sounds like it was a painful read, you should get a ribbon for enduring the marathon!
@Richard, I believe there was a period of about 5 minutes on a Tuesday in 1975 when institutional christianity was, well, non-heinous.
I was reading above, yep, it is ironic that Jesus - as portrayed in the New Testament - seemed to lean socialist yet Xtians tend to demonize socialism.
I mean, what's the business about giving away the fish & loaves? You mean give food to folks who didn't earn it? Scandalous!
I mean, what's the business about giving away the fish & loaves? You mean give food to folks who didn't earn it? Scandalous!
Thanks for the comments, Nato. I think even though I did not like this book and do not agree with Ayn Rand's philosophy, I'm still sort of glad I read this book. I wanted to see what all the "fuss" is about (I know people who swoon over her). I wanted to read her attempts at brainwash and see for myself whether I'd be influenced and whether I'd start to accept her theories. As it turns out, I was not and I did not. But I'm still glad for the experience and at least it has earned me the right to bash the bitch.
Nato wrote: "@Richard, I believe there was a period of about 5 minutes on a Tuesday in 1975 when institutional christianity was, well, non-heinous."
Evidence! Citations! Film footage! I refuse to believe it! Man may have walked on the moon, but THAT is simply incredible.
Evidence! Citations! Film footage! I refuse to believe it! Man may have walked on the moon, but THAT is simply incredible.
@ Jason, well I am somewhat interesting in reading her book now that you say she attempts to brainwash, would like to put myself to the challenge. :] but the length of that book is so, well, it's as thick as an encyclopedia! Given that I have a stack of 6 books in from of me that I have vowed to read this summer and about 54 marked to-read on goodreads, I'll probably, alas, pass up her tome.
@ Richard, LOL, okay I lied it wasn't 5 minutes, it was 1 and 1/2 minutes. BTW, my son is getting married on August 4th to a Catholic girl and he's getting married Catholic to please her (woe is me) and he has had to go to pre-marital counseling with the Priest and talk about sex, marital relations, birth control ... ALL THESE INTIMATE ISSUES THAT THE PRIEST HAS NEVER EXPERIENCED. What a topsy-turvy world!
@ Richard, LOL, okay I lied it wasn't 5 minutes, it was 1 and 1/2 minutes. BTW, my son is getting married on August 4th to a Catholic girl and he's getting married Catholic to please her (woe is me) and he has had to go to pre-marital counseling with the Priest and talk about sex, marital relations, birth control ... ALL THESE INTIMATE ISSUES THAT THE PRIEST HAS NEVER EXPERIENCED. What a topsy-turvy world!
You poor man! *there there, pat pat*
Counseling about sex from a celibate...aaah, the familiar seasick feeling of trying to reconcile religion and good sense.
Counseling about sex from a celibate...aaah, the familiar seasick feeling of trying to reconcile religion and good sense.
ALL THESE INTIMATE ISSUES THAT THE PRIEST HAS NEVER EXPERIENCED
Hypothetically never experienced :)
Also, plenty of priests have some experience in these areas before entering the seminary. You're not required to be a virgin to enter the clergy!
Hypothetically never experienced :)
Also, plenty of priests have some experience in these areas before entering the seminary. You're not required to be a virgin to enter the clergy!
I keep missing comments!
janine, this is the Internet. You are allowed to be wrong on my thread. Comment away!
janine, this is the Internet. You are allowed to be wrong on my thread. Comment away!
lol...okay... *she said tentatively* I adhere to most of her ideals. Being a conservative republican I don't believe everything is just rhetoric and I can see how this country is heading towards this very same end. We think things like this are extreme and can't happen, but look at the Co. shootings. This world is changing fast, and with some of the mandates put into place by Obama's administration, it's not too far off to see our economy and ultimately, our way of living coming to an end. Jason, you made the comment earlier that said Rand believed in getting rid of all govt help, and while that is extreme, and I haven't read enough of her other works (yet - i'm starting to collect them), I'm not sure that's completely what she meant, even tho that's a big part of it. And even tho I have friends who are single parents and living off the govt - welfare, food stamps - after hearing their story, it is still, always, a choice. for example, this one friend, got into a relationship, decided to keep the child after getting pregnant, but the man ended up being an alcoholic, and so they never got married. She's trying to work her way through school, and while commendable, she insists that the child needs to know his father, even tho the dad has no interest whatsoever and is behind on child support. so she spends thousands of $ on a lawyer trying to get her money. then she uses food stamps and other govt programs to raise her child. why should I pay for her choices? To say all govt programs across the board should be erased, is a bit elitist, but I'm one of the first to say that they should be scrutinized and many eliminated.
As for taxing the "corporate mother fuckers", well, I don't mean to offend, but many ppl feel that way, only because those ppl have money. I quit my job to be a stay at home mom so we're barely scraping by, but my husband sometimes also has a bitter sentiment to ppl who have money. But if someone works hard and starts their own business and it becomes a useful and productive to society, why should he have to give more? I'm very much against progressive taxes. Ppl come from all over the world to this great country for the freedoms and opportunities this country gives. Anyone can be rich, you need only work at it. It's all about choices. At least, in my humble opinion. :)
As for taxing the "corporate mother fuckers", well, I don't mean to offend, but many ppl feel that way, only because those ppl have money. I quit my job to be a stay at home mom so we're barely scraping by, but my husband sometimes also has a bitter sentiment to ppl who have money. But if someone works hard and starts their own business and it becomes a useful and productive to society, why should he have to give more? I'm very much against progressive taxes. Ppl come from all over the world to this great country for the freedoms and opportunities this country gives. Anyone can be rich, you need only work at it. It's all about choices. At least, in my humble opinion. :)
janineJ9midnightfaerie ::
no need to be tentative! this thread leaves me wondering- when does fiction become propaganda?
after you have finished with rand will you read up on the other side? chomsky? zinn? naomi klein? margaret atwood?
no need to be tentative! this thread leaves me wondering- when does fiction become propaganda?
after you have finished with rand will you read up on the other side? chomsky? zinn? naomi klein? margaret atwood?
It's always interesting to me when someone who isn't among the wealthiest 1% of Americans argues against a progressive tax structure and for smaller government in general, because it is exactly this group of people that have the most to lose. And when you're talking about an overwhelming majority of people being benefited by something, whether it is a progressive tax structure or the existence of social programs that keeps their kids fed when they are unable to find a job, then it's hard for me to understand the argument against it.
I've heard this whole "rich people work for everything they've got and should be entitled to keep it" argument many times before and I just think it's a tired argument. In most cases, rich people pay fewer taxes through corporate and other loopholes that exist because they fund lobbyists who have an influence on legislation that they should not have. The unfairness of this should make you want to scream!
It is my opinion that if government is too small (and this is what Ayn Rand wanted; she was not shy about it), then you'd have fewer checks on the wealthy which I think would lead to a larger divide between classes and it would expose the poor to more flagrant abuses. Government's job should be to protect those who cannot protect themselves. And there are more people involved in this assistance-dependent class than the lazy and the ones who've made poor choices. There are the elderly, the disabled, the unemployed through no fault of their own and perhaps even by the fault of wealthy CEOs who are guilty of negligent abuses.
I've heard this whole "rich people work for everything they've got and should be entitled to keep it" argument many times before and I just think it's a tired argument. In most cases, rich people pay fewer taxes through corporate and other loopholes that exist because they fund lobbyists who have an influence on legislation that they should not have. The unfairness of this should make you want to scream!
It is my opinion that if government is too small (and this is what Ayn Rand wanted; she was not shy about it), then you'd have fewer checks on the wealthy which I think would lead to a larger divide between classes and it would expose the poor to more flagrant abuses. Government's job should be to protect those who cannot protect themselves. And there are more people involved in this assistance-dependent class than the lazy and the ones who've made poor choices. There are the elderly, the disabled, the unemployed through no fault of their own and perhaps even by the fault of wealthy CEOs who are guilty of negligent abuses.
Also, I didn't comment on the part about the shootings in Colorado because I don't really understand how that's related to any of these other issues. But if you're interested in a really optimistic point of view about tragedy in general (because I disagree that any isolated tragedy points to our way of life coming to an end), I'd recommend you read the following. It was written by the author of message #5 and it is great: http://obscenechewing.blogspot.com/20...
The Hobbesian in me is way too nervous about letting a free market be left to its own devices, unregulated. This is pure conjecture, but from my limited experience with most people, when the opportunity to exploit presents itself, people pounce on it. And if a Rand-type situation existed, the few who wouldn't pounce on the easiest opportunity to exploit—those with a bit more moral integrity—would be selected against in the marketplace. I have stopped believing that the majority of those who get ahead are hard-working and noble people (even though my grandfather was one of them—a true rags to richest story). In a Rand situation I only see those who cheat, lie, coerce and exploit as those who would succeed in the market.
On the other hand, I see governments as these huge, slow and inefficient bureaucratic machines. Without the fire of competition that fuels private businesses, most government-run businesses can get away with gross inefficiency and lower-quality goods and services without any recourse to punishment.
These two almost opposed positions is what wedges me towards a very moderate fiscal position. I admit that both sides are fueled by cynicism. But I have almost no faith in people and even less in governments to run economies. For me, it's always about weighing the lesser of two evils. I usually abstain from political discussions because I don't feel terribly unqualified in the matters, and also the fact that I don't believe in economics and politics. There's serious problems on both sides of the conservative, liberal dichotomy.
On the other hand, I see governments as these huge, slow and inefficient bureaucratic machines. Without the fire of competition that fuels private businesses, most government-run businesses can get away with gross inefficiency and lower-quality goods and services without any recourse to punishment.
These two almost opposed positions is what wedges me towards a very moderate fiscal position. I admit that both sides are fueled by cynicism. But I have almost no faith in people and even less in governments to run economies. For me, it's always about weighing the lesser of two evils. I usually abstain from political discussions because I don't feel terribly unqualified in the matters, and also the fact that I don't believe in economics and politics. There's serious problems on both sides of the conservative, liberal dichotomy.
I guess also what I'm saying is that I don't think big government leads to a stifling of competitive fire, big government meaning economic regulation. Rand's world in Atlas Shrugged is one in which capitalism is essentially snuffed out as a direct result of government legislation over the market and I just see this premise as one huge fallacy. The government's job should be to prevent abuses—you do not leave this responsibility to the ones making the money; they will naturally do what is in their own best interest as corporate morality takes back seat. As far as inefficiencies, one could point out a bunch of government programs that operating inefficiently, but I still think the government has the potential to operate more efficiently than a corporation in some cases.
http://www.governmentisgood.com/artic...
So yeah, I think you can have both existing simultaneously, big government and entrepreneurial capitalism, although the extent of government "interference" in the markets is always going to sway back and forth in response to the political tides of which party is in charge of Congress, and I think this might be what Stephen was saying, too. But let it be known that the collapse of the financial system in 2008 was a result of deregulation of the banking industry, not the other way around. You just swallowed a mouth full of Rand's utopia right there and I'll bet it didn't taste too good.
janineJ9midnightfaerie, Elizabeth mentioned some authors that argue for the other side of Rand's ideal system. I'll propose another. I think The Grapes of Wrath posits a nice anti-thesis to that if you're interested.
http://www.governmentisgood.com/artic...
So yeah, I think you can have both existing simultaneously, big government and entrepreneurial capitalism, although the extent of government "interference" in the markets is always going to sway back and forth in response to the political tides of which party is in charge of Congress, and I think this might be what Stephen was saying, too. But let it be known that the collapse of the financial system in 2008 was a result of deregulation of the banking industry, not the other way around. You just swallowed a mouth full of Rand's utopia right there and I'll bet it didn't taste too good.
janineJ9midnightfaerie, Elizabeth mentioned some authors that argue for the other side of Rand's ideal system. I'll propose another. I think The Grapes of Wrath posits a nice anti-thesis to that if you're interested.