Scan barcode
kaciebythesea's review against another edition
1.0
I HATE THIS BOOK MORE THAN ANYTHING
Rand is preachy and repetitive throughout the whole thing. I was annoyed with every word I read and would never wish upon my worst enemy the task of reading this book.
Rand is preachy and repetitive throughout the whole thing. I was annoyed with every word I read and would never wish upon my worst enemy the task of reading this book.
merholley's review against another edition
5.0
I was visiting an old friend for the past few days, and she showed me this cover of Atlas Shrugged I made for her when we lived in Ukraine:
It was a necessary repair, but it pretty much proves I should be a cover designer.
_____________________________________________
Original review:
I think Francisco D’Aconia is absolutely a dream boat. This book’s like blah blah blah engineering, blah blah blah John Galt, blah blah blah no altruistic act, blah bla- HE-llo, Francisco D’Aconia, you growl and a half. Also, there’s a pirate. So, what’s everyone complaining about?
Okay, it’s not that I don’t get what everyone’s complaining about. I get that Rand is kind of loony tunes of the Glenn Beck variety, and some people (maybe?) use her to justify being assholes, but I just don’t like to throw the bathwater out with that baby. Warning: I think, to make my point, I have to refer to Dostoyevsky a lot, which I seem to always do because he really is some kind of touchstone to me. The point I’m trying to make with all this blabbering is that the debate over Atlas Shrugged brings out something that I might hate more than anything else (more than weddings and kitty litter even). It makes people say that ideas are dangerous. People on all sides of the spectrum do this about different stuff, and whatever the argument, I don’t like it. If an idea is wrong, say it’s wrong. But genocide doesn’t happen because people put forward too many ideas. It happens because people put forward too few ideas.
Anyway, back to the book:
First, story. The third part of this book is super weird. It’s definitely not the actual ending of the book, I’ve decided, but more of a choose-your-own-adventure suggestion. It’s kind of fun that way because any end that you, the reader, come up with will be better than the one Rand suggested. My favorite part of her ending is how John Galt gives the most boring speech possible, and it lasts for about a bazillion pages, and you have to skip it or die. Then, at the end, Rand’s like, “The entire world was listening, ears glued to the radios, because Galt’s speech was the most brilliant thing they had ever heard.” No. Nope. Nice try, liar. So, that’s super lame, I agree, and you should just skip the third part.
But people don’t get as mad about the epilogue in [b:Crime and Punishment|7144|Crime and Punishment |Fyodor Dostoyevsky|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1327881395s/7144.jpg|3393917]. Why? That’s the same situation, where it kills all fun, and you have to ignore that it happened. Is it just because it’s shorter, and it’s called “Epilogue”? Maybe that’s enough. But, on the other hand, maybe people didn’t read all the way to the end of Crime and Punishment. Maybe, because it was written by a crazy Russian man, not a crazy Russian woman, people think they’ll sound deep if they say they like it.
Second, writing. People complain about Rand’s writing, and I always think, “When was the last time you wrote a 1000 page book in a second language and pulled off a reasonably page-turning storyline?” The woman spoke Russian for crying out loud! It most certainly would have been a better choice for her to have written the books in Russian and had them translated, but, I mean, most native English speakers couldn’t be that entertaining. It’s at least A for effort. I’m not going to make excuses for the unpronounceable names she chooses for her characters, but I’ll just say Dostoyevsky again and leave it at that.
I know it made a huge difference in my reading of this book that I was living in a Soviet bloc apartment in Lozovaya, Ukraine at the time and had forgotten a little bit how to speak English. I’m sure a lot of weird phrasing didn’t sound weird to me because it makes sense in Russian. But, also, I feel like I’ve read a lot of translations of Dostoyevsky and other Russians that feel really weird in English. You know, everyone’s always having some kind of epileptic fit or whatever with Mr. D. But, we allow for the weirdness because we picture the stuff happening in Russia, where the weird stuff typically goes down anyway. I’ll tell you right now, Atlas Shrugged takes place in Russia. No joke. She might tell you they’re flying over the Rocky Mountains, or whatever, but this book is a Russian if there ever was one. Just so it’s clear, I LOVE that about it. That’s no insult, only compliment.
Third, philosophy. Maybe I told you this story already, so skip it if you already know it. When I lived in Ukraine, I had the same conversation with three or four people of the older generation who grew up in the Soviet Union. They would tell me, “Things were really wonderful in the Soviet Union, much better than they are now. We had free health care, free housing, and now we have nothing. I mean, every once in a while your neighbor would disappear, but it was completely worth it.” This was really disturbing to me, because it gave me this picture of the people around me – that they were the ones who ratted out the neighbors who wanted a different life. Sure, Rand’s vision is narrow and sometimes inhuman, but I think it is because she was really terrified of this equally narrow and, as far as I’m concerned, inhuman vision. I want a public health care option real bad, and my neighbor has some really annoying Chihuahuas, but if forced to choose between them, I’d probably still pick my neighbor.
Admittedly, the problem with this argument is that it sets up a dichotomy where our only choices are the prosperity gospel and Soilent Green. From what I know of Rand, though, she had seen her neighbors and family thrown out of Russia or killed for being rich. She was fighting something extreme by being extreme. Unfortunately, in America, this rhetoric turns into the idea that having public services = killing your neighbor. To me, this comes from people taking her arguments too seriously on both sides. Dostoyevsky has ghosts and devils coming out of every corner, and people take his stories for what they’re worth. We don’t think that liking his books makes us mystics and hating them makes us inquisitors. Why is it different with Rand?
Fourth, women. I’m not going to lie and tell you that there weren’t other badass female characters when Dagney Taggert came around. All I want to say about this is that the most valuable thing I got from this book was the idea that one person being unhappy doesn’t, and shouldn’t, make other people happy. I think, in this way, it was particularly important to me that the protagonist was a woman. I see a lot of women complain about their lives and families, but say it’s all worth it because they’ve been able to devote their lives to making their husbands or children happy. I’m paraphrasing, I guess. Anyway, that kind of hegemony really creeps me out.
When I read this book, I was just realizing that I had joined Peace Corps with a similarly misguided motivation. I wanted to go to the needy and unfortunate countries of the world and sacrifice myself to save them. It might sound more nasty than it really was when I say it like that, but I think it is a really arrogant attitude to have. We might have hot running water in America (for which I am forever grateful), but if somewhere doesn’t have that, it’s probably not because of a problem a silly, 23-year-old English major is going to solve. Don’t get me wrong, I loved Peace Corps, and it was maybe the best experience of my life so far. But I love it for the things that I got out of it, and if someone else benefited from my being in Ukraine, it was dumb luck.
I don’t know about other women, but I was raised to believe that the more selfless (read: unhappy) I was, the better off everyone else would be. I think it’s a pretty typical way that women talk themselves into staying in abusive situations – that their lives are worth less than the lives around them. This would be the Hank Rearden character in the novel. I love that Rand sets up characters who destroy this cycle of abuse. I love that her female protagonist lives completely outside of it.
So, not to undercut my noble feminist apologetics, but really Francisco’s just hawt, and I think that’s the reason I like this book. There are lots of other reasons to read Rand, but most of those get into the argument about her ideas being dangerous. I just don’t think they are, or should be. I think ignorance is dangerous, but I think it should be pretty easy to fill in the gaping holes in Rand’s logic. Yes, she conveniently ignores the very old, very young, and disabled to make a specific and extreme point. I don’t think her point is entirely without merit, though (in the sense that our lives are valuable, not in the sense of “kill the weak!”). I also think that if we give a “danger” label to every book that conveniently ignores significant portions of the population to make a point, we wouldn’t be left with much.
Anyway, read, discuss, agree, disagree. I’ll be making up some “Team John,” “Team Hank,” “Team Francisco” t-shirts later. I hear in the sequel there are werewolves.
It was a necessary repair, but it pretty much proves I should be a cover designer.
_____________________________________________
Original review:
I think Francisco D’Aconia is absolutely a dream boat. This book’s like blah blah blah engineering, blah blah blah John Galt, blah blah blah no altruistic act, blah bla- HE-llo, Francisco D’Aconia, you growl and a half. Also, there’s a pirate. So, what’s everyone complaining about?
Okay, it’s not that I don’t get what everyone’s complaining about. I get that Rand is kind of loony tunes of the Glenn Beck variety, and some people (maybe?) use her to justify being assholes, but I just don’t like to throw the bathwater out with that baby. Warning: I think, to make my point, I have to refer to Dostoyevsky a lot, which I seem to always do because he really is some kind of touchstone to me. The point I’m trying to make with all this blabbering is that the debate over Atlas Shrugged brings out something that I might hate more than anything else (more than weddings and kitty litter even). It makes people say that ideas are dangerous. People on all sides of the spectrum do this about different stuff, and whatever the argument, I don’t like it. If an idea is wrong, say it’s wrong. But genocide doesn’t happen because people put forward too many ideas. It happens because people put forward too few ideas.
Anyway, back to the book:
First, story. The third part of this book is super weird. It’s definitely not the actual ending of the book, I’ve decided, but more of a choose-your-own-adventure suggestion. It’s kind of fun that way because any end that you, the reader, come up with will be better than the one Rand suggested. My favorite part of her ending is how John Galt gives the most boring speech possible, and it lasts for about a bazillion pages, and you have to skip it or die. Then, at the end, Rand’s like, “The entire world was listening, ears glued to the radios, because Galt’s speech was the most brilliant thing they had ever heard.” No. Nope. Nice try, liar. So, that’s super lame, I agree, and you should just skip the third part.
But people don’t get as mad about the epilogue in [b:Crime and Punishment|7144|Crime and Punishment |Fyodor Dostoyevsky|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1327881395s/7144.jpg|3393917]. Why? That’s the same situation, where it kills all fun, and you have to ignore that it happened. Is it just because it’s shorter, and it’s called “Epilogue”? Maybe that’s enough. But, on the other hand, maybe people didn’t read all the way to the end of Crime and Punishment. Maybe, because it was written by a crazy Russian man, not a crazy Russian woman, people think they’ll sound deep if they say they like it.
Second, writing. People complain about Rand’s writing, and I always think, “When was the last time you wrote a 1000 page book in a second language and pulled off a reasonably page-turning storyline?” The woman spoke Russian for crying out loud! It most certainly would have been a better choice for her to have written the books in Russian and had them translated, but, I mean, most native English speakers couldn’t be that entertaining. It’s at least A for effort. I’m not going to make excuses for the unpronounceable names she chooses for her characters, but I’ll just say Dostoyevsky again and leave it at that.
I know it made a huge difference in my reading of this book that I was living in a Soviet bloc apartment in Lozovaya, Ukraine at the time and had forgotten a little bit how to speak English. I’m sure a lot of weird phrasing didn’t sound weird to me because it makes sense in Russian. But, also, I feel like I’ve read a lot of translations of Dostoyevsky and other Russians that feel really weird in English. You know, everyone’s always having some kind of epileptic fit or whatever with Mr. D. But, we allow for the weirdness because we picture the stuff happening in Russia, where the weird stuff typically goes down anyway. I’ll tell you right now, Atlas Shrugged takes place in Russia. No joke. She might tell you they’re flying over the Rocky Mountains, or whatever, but this book is a Russian if there ever was one. Just so it’s clear, I LOVE that about it. That’s no insult, only compliment.
Third, philosophy. Maybe I told you this story already, so skip it if you already know it. When I lived in Ukraine, I had the same conversation with three or four people of the older generation who grew up in the Soviet Union. They would tell me, “Things were really wonderful in the Soviet Union, much better than they are now. We had free health care, free housing, and now we have nothing. I mean, every once in a while your neighbor would disappear, but it was completely worth it.” This was really disturbing to me, because it gave me this picture of the people around me – that they were the ones who ratted out the neighbors who wanted a different life. Sure, Rand’s vision is narrow and sometimes inhuman, but I think it is because she was really terrified of this equally narrow and, as far as I’m concerned, inhuman vision. I want a public health care option real bad, and my neighbor has some really annoying Chihuahuas, but if forced to choose between them, I’d probably still pick my neighbor.
Admittedly, the problem with this argument is that it sets up a dichotomy where our only choices are the prosperity gospel and Soilent Green. From what I know of Rand, though, she had seen her neighbors and family thrown out of Russia or killed for being rich. She was fighting something extreme by being extreme. Unfortunately, in America, this rhetoric turns into the idea that having public services = killing your neighbor. To me, this comes from people taking her arguments too seriously on both sides. Dostoyevsky has ghosts and devils coming out of every corner, and people take his stories for what they’re worth. We don’t think that liking his books makes us mystics and hating them makes us inquisitors. Why is it different with Rand?
Fourth, women. I’m not going to lie and tell you that there weren’t other badass female characters when Dagney Taggert came around. All I want to say about this is that the most valuable thing I got from this book was the idea that one person being unhappy doesn’t, and shouldn’t, make other people happy. I think, in this way, it was particularly important to me that the protagonist was a woman. I see a lot of women complain about their lives and families, but say it’s all worth it because they’ve been able to devote their lives to making their husbands or children happy. I’m paraphrasing, I guess. Anyway, that kind of hegemony really creeps me out.
When I read this book, I was just realizing that I had joined Peace Corps with a similarly misguided motivation. I wanted to go to the needy and unfortunate countries of the world and sacrifice myself to save them. It might sound more nasty than it really was when I say it like that, but I think it is a really arrogant attitude to have. We might have hot running water in America (for which I am forever grateful), but if somewhere doesn’t have that, it’s probably not because of a problem a silly, 23-year-old English major is going to solve. Don’t get me wrong, I loved Peace Corps, and it was maybe the best experience of my life so far. But I love it for the things that I got out of it, and if someone else benefited from my being in Ukraine, it was dumb luck.
I don’t know about other women, but I was raised to believe that the more selfless (read: unhappy) I was, the better off everyone else would be. I think it’s a pretty typical way that women talk themselves into staying in abusive situations – that their lives are worth less than the lives around them. This would be the Hank Rearden character in the novel. I love that Rand sets up characters who destroy this cycle of abuse. I love that her female protagonist lives completely outside of it.
So, not to undercut my noble feminist apologetics, but really Francisco’s just hawt, and I think that’s the reason I like this book. There are lots of other reasons to read Rand, but most of those get into the argument about her ideas being dangerous. I just don’t think they are, or should be. I think ignorance is dangerous, but I think it should be pretty easy to fill in the gaping holes in Rand’s logic. Yes, she conveniently ignores the very old, very young, and disabled to make a specific and extreme point. I don’t think her point is entirely without merit, though (in the sense that our lives are valuable, not in the sense of “kill the weak!”). I also think that if we give a “danger” label to every book that conveniently ignores significant portions of the population to make a point, we wouldn’t be left with much.
Anyway, read, discuss, agree, disagree. I’ll be making up some “Team John,” “Team Hank,” “Team Francisco” t-shirts later. I hear in the sequel there are werewolves.
allisonla's review against another edition
4.0
After reading parts of this book piecemeal since college, I finally powered through the entire thing and finished it in a couple months. As an object lesson in extremes, it was a good reminder to solidify my foundational philosophy of government. It made me reflect on how my view of government and the political system has changed (and in some respects, stayed the same) over the past 10 years of my military service and life experience. I really enjoyed the character of Dagny Taggard, and even though in my mind's eye she resembles Ron Paul, I think she must have been revolutionary for the 50's, and I loved the way her character was developed and portrayed.
rlaviole's review against another edition
1.0
I tried and tried and tried. This book just didn't grab me.
sabs3501's review against another edition
4.0
3.5
But I’m feeling generous so I rounded up to 4, plus I did enjoy it.
The entire time I was reading this all I could think about was how this must be what Colson Whitehead was thinking he was doing when he wrote “The Intuitionst” only I enjoyed this book and The Intuitionist haunts me everyday as precious time in this fleeting life that I’ll NEVER get back
But I’m feeling generous so I rounded up to 4, plus I did enjoy it.
The entire time I was reading this all I could think about was how this must be what Colson Whitehead was thinking he was doing when he wrote “The Intuitionst” only I enjoyed this book and The Intuitionist haunts me everyday as precious time in this fleeting life that I’ll NEVER get back
byale2242's review against another edition
3.0
Excellent in theory. Terrible in practice. An enjoyable read which, while overly idealistic skewed towards "makers" and "takers" or "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps", makes you think about the human condition and how society should be/could be/actually is operated.
jthunter24's review against another edition
5.0
Probably my favourite book of all time! Though Miss Rand has some interesting ideals, she writes with a passion and fervor that grabs the reader and assaults their complacency with everyday life. Thought provoking and fun.
thomas_edmund's review against another edition
5.0
Superlative.
Ok, so if anyone is interested I'll do a more thorough analysis of Atlas Shrugged on my Lonely Power Poles Blog - I feel like its needed, but also probably a bit much for a 'review' for this Review I think I'll just focus on the Fiction. As this is a 'classic' (and also long AF) I'll provide a bit of a plot summary (to save others) too so SPOILERS.
For anyone wondering what I'm on about Ayn Rand was and a significant writer and philosopher who had a huge influence on political ideals effectively promoting selfish capitalism as moral - her influence can be seen today on much political rhetoric, other fiction and even video games like BioShock.
While Atlas Shrugged is a work of fiction it was intended by Rand to demonstrate her philosophy and acts a a sort of core thesis. I felt it was important for me to read, mostly to understand what everyone was talking about and of course to consider Rand's views first-hand.
Anyways - so plot summary - The Story of Atlas Shrugged is largely focussed on our MC Dagny Taggart. Dagny is the vice-president and effective boss of the Taggart railway, the most productive rail service across the U.S. The first act largely deals with Dagny solving a few problems that have arisen with the railroad - mostly through a new business arrangement (nudge nudge) with Steel Magnate Hank Rearden. There are a few hints of things to come, where many character talk about delays in services and material delivery, a surprise 'Nationalisation' of their Mexico rail and the general whinging of inferior men.
I forgot to mention the almighty length of this novel is not really generated through complex plot points or variety of scenes - although every scene of Atlas Shrugs is a dialectical argument - either one of the MCs encounters and inferior type and we get a snivelling ridiculous argument about the "public good" (a bad thing in Atlas Shrugged) or other various anti-capitalist comments. How do you know these are bad arguments? Well the folk that espouse them are all fat, sweaty or prematurely aged, dead-eyed sometimes all of the above. Our MCs however are all slim, good posture, never explicitly described as good looking but always implied. so the OR is the MCs talk with each other or encounter another "Woke" (to capitalism) people and they jerk-each other other the brilliance of competition or supremely awkwardly perform the mental gymnastics required to compliment each other without disobeying the rules of "the virtue of selfishness"
I did promise not to dive into the politics for this review but is important to state just HOW MANY words of this book are devoted to the above, I don't think there is a single scene which doesn't have some sort of diatribe and yes, you guess it, it is pretty repetitive.
Hilariously even in one of the final scene when the MCs stage a rescue mission with guns and everything they STILL are going on about it - like they're not like "hands up" they're like "I am going to give you the opportunity to engage in selfish virtue by putting your hands up and allowing me to rescue X"
And so it goes - Act I largely focusses on a rise in fortunes as Dagny repairs and improves her rail - the only hints of tension are a former lover who seems to have gone off the rails (so to speak) once "woke" Francisco seems to be going the path of loafing Playboy and letting his business go to waste.
Act II we really start to see the beginning of the end - new rules and legislation start to hamper Dagny and Hank - rules such as the "no dog-eat-dog" rule and limits of productivity to give other people a chance basically various insults to Rand's philosophy. There are brief moments of light - Hank goes to court for violating these rules and gives a decent defence and the public cheers - nonetheless the impact of these rules starts to take place and it becomes increasingly impossible to run any business well. Competent men are quitting their work in droves, but there is something odd about it, these men seems to have something lined up but refuse to disclose where they have picked up work.
Act II culminates into the discovery of 'Atlantis' a hidden commune where all the competent men (and at least 1 women - obviously a wife of one of the men) have gone on "strike" (I don't think Rand understands Strikes or more likely simply hates them). Led by the Legendary John Galt the group live the way of virtuous selfishness and includes Franscisco who had revealed that his playboy lifestyle was to intentionally ruin his own business to prevent the looters claiming it.
We also meet Ragnar - a self proclaimed "reserve Robin Hood" because he steals from the poor to give to the rich (usually returning taxes to millionaries). Hilariously Rand also doesn't undertand Robin Hood who in fact also took unfair taxes to give to the 'poor'. Possibly again Rand does understand Robin Hood but doesn't find poor people acceptable in any case.
In an interesting twist Dagny decides not to join the commune, despite agreeing with everything and commune stands for (and immediately forgetting both Fransicso and Hank to go after John G) Dagny still wants to do her best by her own railroad.
Act III essentially shows us the painful decline of society and Dagny and Hank's attempts to maintain their businesses. This eventually comes to a climax with John Galt hijacking and radio announcement and give a 3 hour (in book - a lifetime for the reader) speech about why the ultra-rich are all G. Unexpectedly this doesn't really effect much other than convince people that John Galt is amazing - and not really listen to his actually message - so the next sequence is a fever dream of bizarre ethics where the politicians capture John Galt and torture him demanding that HE BECOMES THEIR DICTATOR. (even if you disagree with Rand's message there is much kudos for creating such a bizarro sequence)
Afore-mentioned the other "Woke" men rescue John and take off back to the commune, as they fly over the country it literally falls to pieces, explosions power cuts, everything. They get back to the commune and John Galt discusses that its time to start the country as it should be - curtain closes in the image of John Galt tracing a money sign into a starry sky.
Um just to emphasize - I'm not kidding on the final scene (I guess Rand read that Writing advice about closing images.)
In terms of the book its actually not too bad as a fictional tale in the sense of you're probably not going to find a plot like it. Probably the most similar classics would be the likes of 1984 - there is even a reference to 2+2=4 - I honest thought Atlas Shrugged was published first but 1984 was first! So Rand likely referencing Orwell.
I've already mentioned the endless political diatribes which are honestly the worse part - its not actually that I find the politics disagreeable its the ENDLESS number of words devoted to them. Ironically if the story had been tightened and the arguments condenses it probably would have been pretty convincing. Without the arguments thought the action is very stilted and unusual - there are a lot of scenes of characters travelling, meeting, and attending parties its a very cerebral experience.
The prose is very concrete and visual - characters are often described by their physical qualities and the rest left to be inferred. The emotional experience of characters is honestly weird - most of the MCs are emotionally repressed and tend to show weird reactions in relation to the political arguments rather than interactions. For a very odd example there is one scene where Hank and Dagny decide to explore an old car factory and Dagny finds the remains of a potential electric motor and some plans - her emotional reaction is of "terror" and she screams like its a dead body. At first I thought this was because the electric motor would potentially undermine her business - but it turn out she's that into the potential of the thing she's freaking OUT. There are frequent similar but not as intense lamentations and frustrations when characters are confronted with inferior policies and arguments.
Finally there is a very interest sub-plot which doesn't got anywhere but does raise interesting questions. Obviously in the 50s a woman being as rich and powerful as Dagny would have been unheard of, although little is made of her success in an apparent man's world. There are brief mentions of her achievements and some strange observations - Dagny thinks to herself how appropriate a 'Chain' is used as women's jewellery, she also riffs on how cooking for her love interest seems to be women's purpose - but not in a "stay in the kitchen way" Rand seems to be trying to say that there is some sort of higher purpose almost like Rand's belief is "choose the kitchen." There is also a sequence where Dagny's brother marries a lower class lady which eventually ends terribly for the lady - but its hard to say what Rand means by it all, none of the characters mention the events afterwards at all.
There are some slurs and pretty offense statements within this tome, I will state that they aren't actually a huge part of Rand's work and the work isn't an offense fest - but its more a reminder of Rand's philosophy not being so noble after all.
So all in all I've finally read this monster of a book - despite the criticisms I'm actually glad I did. There isn't really much else I've read like it - and only Rand I think could create such a bizarre sequence of events that encompass this story. It reads like if Gulliver decided to stay on one of his islands and do 1000+ pages on it.
Ok, so if anyone is interested I'll do a more thorough analysis of Atlas Shrugged on my Lonely Power Poles Blog - I feel like its needed, but also probably a bit much for a 'review' for this Review I think I'll just focus on the Fiction. As this is a 'classic' (and also long AF) I'll provide a bit of a plot summary (to save others) too so SPOILERS.
For anyone wondering what I'm on about Ayn Rand was and a significant writer and philosopher who had a huge influence on political ideals effectively promoting selfish capitalism as moral - her influence can be seen today on much political rhetoric, other fiction and even video games like BioShock.
While Atlas Shrugged is a work of fiction it was intended by Rand to demonstrate her philosophy and acts a a sort of core thesis. I felt it was important for me to read, mostly to understand what everyone was talking about and of course to consider Rand's views first-hand.
Anyways - so plot summary - The Story of Atlas Shrugged is largely focussed on our MC Dagny Taggart. Dagny is the vice-president and effective boss of the Taggart railway, the most productive rail service across the U.S. The first act largely deals with Dagny solving a few problems that have arisen with the railroad - mostly through a new business arrangement (nudge nudge) with Steel Magnate Hank Rearden. There are a few hints of things to come, where many character talk about delays in services and material delivery, a surprise 'Nationalisation' of their Mexico rail and the general whinging of inferior men.
I forgot to mention the almighty length of this novel is not really generated through complex plot points or variety of scenes - although every scene of Atlas Shrugs is a dialectical argument - either one of the MCs encounters and inferior type and we get a snivelling ridiculous argument about the "public good" (a bad thing in Atlas Shrugged) or other various anti-capitalist comments. How do you know these are bad arguments? Well the folk that espouse them are all fat, sweaty or prematurely aged, dead-eyed sometimes all of the above. Our MCs however are all slim, good posture, never explicitly described as good looking but always implied. so the OR is the MCs talk with each other or encounter another "Woke" (to capitalism) people and they jerk-each other other the brilliance of competition or supremely awkwardly perform the mental gymnastics required to compliment each other without disobeying the rules of "the virtue of selfishness"
I did promise not to dive into the politics for this review but is important to state just HOW MANY words of this book are devoted to the above, I don't think there is a single scene which doesn't have some sort of diatribe and yes, you guess it, it is pretty repetitive.
Hilariously even in one of the final scene when the MCs stage a rescue mission with guns and everything they STILL are going on about it - like they're not like "hands up" they're like "I am going to give you the opportunity to engage in selfish virtue by putting your hands up and allowing me to rescue X"
And so it goes - Act I largely focusses on a rise in fortunes as Dagny repairs and improves her rail - the only hints of tension are a former lover who seems to have gone off the rails (so to speak) once "woke" Francisco seems to be going the path of loafing Playboy and letting his business go to waste.
Act II we really start to see the beginning of the end - new rules and legislation start to hamper Dagny and Hank - rules such as the "no dog-eat-dog" rule and limits of productivity to give other people a chance basically various insults to Rand's philosophy. There are brief moments of light - Hank goes to court for violating these rules and gives a decent defence and the public cheers - nonetheless the impact of these rules starts to take place and it becomes increasingly impossible to run any business well. Competent men are quitting their work in droves, but there is something odd about it, these men seems to have something lined up but refuse to disclose where they have picked up work.
Act II culminates into the discovery of 'Atlantis' a hidden commune where all the competent men (and at least 1 women - obviously a wife of one of the men) have gone on "strike" (I don't think Rand understands Strikes or more likely simply hates them). Led by the Legendary John Galt the group live the way of virtuous selfishness and includes Franscisco who had revealed that his playboy lifestyle was to intentionally ruin his own business to prevent the looters claiming it.
We also meet Ragnar - a self proclaimed "reserve Robin Hood" because he steals from the poor to give to the rich (usually returning taxes to millionaries). Hilariously Rand also doesn't undertand Robin Hood who in fact also took unfair taxes to give to the 'poor'. Possibly again Rand does understand Robin Hood but doesn't find poor people acceptable in any case.
In an interesting twist Dagny decides not to join the commune, despite agreeing with everything and commune stands for (and immediately forgetting both Fransicso and Hank to go after John G) Dagny still wants to do her best by her own railroad.
Act III essentially shows us the painful decline of society and Dagny and Hank's attempts to maintain their businesses. This eventually comes to a climax with John Galt hijacking and radio announcement and give a 3 hour (in book - a lifetime for the reader) speech about why the ultra-rich are all G. Unexpectedly this doesn't really effect much other than convince people that John Galt is amazing - and not really listen to his actually message - so the next sequence is a fever dream of bizarre ethics where the politicians capture John Galt and torture him demanding that HE BECOMES THEIR DICTATOR. (even if you disagree with Rand's message there is much kudos for creating such a bizarro sequence)
Afore-mentioned the other "Woke" men rescue John and take off back to the commune, as they fly over the country it literally falls to pieces, explosions power cuts, everything. They get back to the commune and John Galt discusses that its time to start the country as it should be - curtain closes in the image of John Galt tracing a money sign into a starry sky.
Um just to emphasize - I'm not kidding on the final scene (I guess Rand read that Writing advice about closing images.)
In terms of the book its actually not too bad as a fictional tale in the sense of you're probably not going to find a plot like it. Probably the most similar classics would be the likes of 1984 - there is even a reference to 2+2=4 - I honest thought Atlas Shrugged was published first but 1984 was first! So Rand likely referencing Orwell.
I've already mentioned the endless political diatribes which are honestly the worse part - its not actually that I find the politics disagreeable its the ENDLESS number of words devoted to them. Ironically if the story had been tightened and the arguments condenses it probably would have been pretty convincing. Without the arguments thought the action is very stilted and unusual - there are a lot of scenes of characters travelling, meeting, and attending parties its a very cerebral experience.
The prose is very concrete and visual - characters are often described by their physical qualities and the rest left to be inferred. The emotional experience of characters is honestly weird - most of the MCs are emotionally repressed and tend to show weird reactions in relation to the political arguments rather than interactions. For a very odd example there is one scene where Hank and Dagny decide to explore an old car factory and Dagny finds the remains of a potential electric motor and some plans - her emotional reaction is of "terror" and she screams like its a dead body. At first I thought this was because the electric motor would potentially undermine her business - but it turn out she's that into the potential of the thing she's freaking OUT. There are frequent similar but not as intense lamentations and frustrations when characters are confronted with inferior policies and arguments.
Finally there is a very interest sub-plot which doesn't got anywhere but does raise interesting questions. Obviously in the 50s a woman being as rich and powerful as Dagny would have been unheard of, although little is made of her success in an apparent man's world. There are brief mentions of her achievements and some strange observations - Dagny thinks to herself how appropriate a 'Chain' is used as women's jewellery, she also riffs on how cooking for her love interest seems to be women's purpose - but not in a "stay in the kitchen way" Rand seems to be trying to say that there is some sort of higher purpose almost like Rand's belief is "choose the kitchen." There is also a sequence where Dagny's brother marries a lower class lady which eventually ends terribly for the lady - but its hard to say what Rand means by it all, none of the characters mention the events afterwards at all.
There are some slurs and pretty offense statements within this tome, I will state that they aren't actually a huge part of Rand's work and the work isn't an offense fest - but its more a reminder of Rand's philosophy not being so noble after all.
So all in all I've finally read this monster of a book - despite the criticisms I'm actually glad I did. There isn't really much else I've read like it - and only Rand I think could create such a bizarre sequence of events that encompass this story. It reads like if Gulliver decided to stay on one of his islands and do 1000+ pages on it.