Just finished Atlas Shrugged

[Corcaigh]

All of the greatest libraries in the world are privately funded, after all.

By my definition, one of the world's greatest libraries wouldn't be stocking anything by Ayn Rand.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Ok, here's a so-called "liberal's" take on the book, i.e. me:

(spoilers alert)

Let me get a couple things out of the way first:

The book is horribly written, wordy, and unnecessarily long. Its actually a lot harder to get your point across in a persuasive manner in a short form than it is in long form. (Ironically, I think I'm about to write a long post). Rand makes absolutely no attempt to be concise.

Second, while I wouldn't characterize the book as a "fun" read, I would consider most of it a page-turner. At least, the portions where the rambling is not so intense that you feel compelled to turn ten pages at a time instead of one. The story is actually pretty interesing. A young, bright, successful woman who is determined to create the best railroad in the country, engages in what I can only describe as a love "trapezoid." But, ultimately this book is not about the plot, but the characters.

Which brings me to the real meat of the book, and my feelings of it: the characters. Most of the characters are extremes, but not the kind of extreme personalities that are unbelievable. Well, at least the protagonists: Dagny, Francisco, Galt, Willers seem to be pretty real people. The antagonists also seem to be real for the most part. Of course, they are set up to be extreme on purpose, but I think Rand does a good job of attaching the reader emotionally to the protagonists and creating real conflict that is believable with the antagonists.

Dagny, the central character, in particular is a very believable character. A woman who busts her ass, is smart and is a bold-risk taker is being held down by the "looters" within her company, and those in competing companies. She has big plans, but no one will listen to her. In fact, her own brother, the central antagonist, is a great foil to her as he seeks new ways to prevent her from achieving her dream of creating a beautiful successful railroad, which is frankly better than all the other railroads. Jim, of course, has no cause for being the best. He wants equality and feels a sense of his own "public duty" to ensure that he doesnt harm any other railroad.

The conflict within Dagny is the most compelling conflict of the book though. She loves her railroad and can't bear to see it crushed, but she realizes that everytime she succeeds, her success is taken from her and spread out to her competitors, who have done nothing to achieve anything. She is torn between fighting to create her railroad, and the philosophy/actions of Galt and D'Anconia, who have showed her the error of her ways. She sees the logic behind leaving the railroad to its own demise, for the sole purpose of showing that they need her and that her competitors are not worthy to share her profits, but she has an emotional connection to greatness. For most of the book she sees the industrialists who have shrugged as "quitters," or as having been stolen by the "destroyer." However, upon her arrival in Galt's Gultch she quickly sees that no one has quit; they have merely chosen to fight in a different way.

Reardon is the character whose story most parrallels, or even foreshadows, Dagny's story. He is a brilliant steel-man who creates a new metal, superior in every way to steel, only to have it stolen from him by the looters and given to his professional enemies. He is actually defeated by the losers on two occassions, but finally realizes he can leave as well and fight back.

Jim, the brother of Dagny and real antagonist, is maybe the most interesting character to me, because I see him as an ignored problem by those who choose to preach the greatness of the philosophy behind the book. Jim is the President of Taggert Transcontinental Railroad and he is a bumbling idiot. And a jerk. He is not a valuable person in and of the fact that he has risen to the top of a major corporation. In fact, much of what he does is spend time talking to politicians in Washington making sure that the public is taken care of. But regardless of those actions, he has no ability to lead a company in the first place. Which sorta takes me into the philosophy behind the book and how the book is portrayed today.

The "good characters" in this book are not exclusively the most successful. Jim is a successful industrialist. He runs the railroad. Same with most of the oil and steel tycoons. They enjoy successful companies and they run them to their own needs. However, they are not hard workers, are generally lazy, and expect someone else to make the tough decisions. When someone leaves for Galt's Gultch, the industruy generally stops because there is no one willing to step into that role as leader. No one is willing to put their ass on the line, to make hard decisions, to grow the company for its own good. In fact, they aren't willing to make much of any decision.

This really plays out when Galt is eventually captured and held by the government. What do they want him to do? Not bring back the industrialists. They want him to "tell us what to do" to fix the economy. He refuses and tells them to figure it for themselves eventually. But the real fault of the antagonists in this book is that they do not make the decisions that need to be made. Decisions which may hurt some, at least in the short term and potentially in the long term, for their own personal good. Rand also shows that doing for your own good can actually lead to a "greater good." The public is certainly better when people are acting in their own interest compared to when their is profit/steel/railroad-sharing endeavors. This only leads to the collapse of the whole.

Again though, the "bad" characters are not characters who have not found success. Bad characters are often the heads of major corporations. Good characters include Dagny's assistant (Eddie Willers), and even Jim's young wife who was a waitress who wanted more for herself. Most of the workers on the railroad and in the other industries end up leaving their jobs because they are fed up. They "shrug" as well. Its not simply the heads of a few corporations. Rand apparently is saying that even those who work lower positions are important to the good of the company and the economy, so long as they are act in their own interest in making more for themselves.

Which finally leads me to my ultimate conclusion about this book: 90% of those who refer to this book, or its principles, have not read it. Most of them, probably won't take the time to ever read it either. But it is, in my view severely misunderstood. There is very little having to do with raising taxes in this book. The antagonists are literally taking the products away from the industrialites who mine, or even invent, those products and nationalizing them. No one is complaining about what they pay in taxes. They are complaining that there is no incentive for them to do their work if their work is going to be taken away. Furthermore, there is nothing in this book to say that workers are not a vital part of the economy that should be taken care of. Those workers who actually work hard and provide an asset should be exalted. Those who do not should be fired. Finally, being the head of a major corporation does not equal value to Rand.

The biggest comparison to real life in this book is the influence the corporations have over the government. Let's not forget, the government is engaging in all this profit sharing/product sharing because some within each industry have gone to Washington and compelled them to pass such laws for their companies' benefit. That is, the companies that are not doing as good a job go to Washington and get the "anti dog-eat-dog law" passed so that they can survive. That, I agree, is a problem.

Much of this book is fundamentally liberal as well: 1) human beings should not be ashamed of their nature; 2) success is a good thing; 3) government should not engage in our own personal lives. This is not "liberal" in the sense of how the term is often used today, but in the manner in which the term was created by Kant and others. Especailly the first point above, which is really the pillar of the book. Dagny is not ashamed of her lustful desires, he desires to destroy the competition, nor her superior determination.

Again, I find that this book is severely misrepresented by popular media and in blogospheres, etc. I could be wrong, but I feel like since the election of Obama this book has become a "bible" of a cause, or at least a rallying point for those on the right side of the political spectrum. They don't understand the book or what its saying. However, there is one thing that is really fascinating about the misrepresentation of this book.

While the "goodness of human nature" is a pillar of the book, it is obvious that the other single biggest theme in this book is that Rand values intellectual curiosity and decision making. At no point does Rand indicate that people should read this book, or read her philosophy/politics and accept them. To the contrary, it is undeniable that Rand indicates that people should do the opposite: they should read this book, and others, and THINK about them; then come up with their own intelligent and rational thoughts on topics. Today, this book is often refferred to, or maybe moreso Rand is refferred to, as a principle to follow. The only "principle" I see in this book is that there are no principles to live by. I don't see Rand saying government should never ever do anything that effects business, that government should never raise taxes, that government should never provide for the indigent. I see Rand as saying that people need to think about problems and be intelligent and practical. Practicality, often means making decisions that affect others in a negative way, but that seems to be the only way Rand thinks is appropriate to live by. Those preaching Rand's pronunciation of small government have, in my view, completely missed the point.

I wouldn't say everyone should read this book. But I would say if you think this book is important, you should read it.

[SnyderShrugged]

Yeah, I wouldnt expect anyone who is in favor of Big Gov to be a fan of this book.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Yeah, I wouldnt expect anyone who is in favor of Big Gov to be a fan of this book.

Hmm. Does that account for me. Because I am a fan of the book.

[SnyderShrugged]

Hmm. Does that account for me. Because I am a fan of the book.

I actually took it that you didnt, but in re-reading, I can see that you could be a fan. sorry for the misinterpretation

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Great book. Very prophetic of current events in some parts.

Philosophy aside, it was well written and enjoyable. Certainly not for everyone though.

You honestly think the book was well-written.

I hate to sound like an *******, but I assumed you had read it, even when I just wrote my write up. Either you didn't read this book, or you've never read any other books.

[SnyderShrugged]

You honestly think the book was well-written.

I hate to sound like an *******, but I assumed you had read it, even when I just wrote my write up. Either you didn't read this book, or you've never read any other books.

yeah, you do sound like an ... (j/k)

Yes, I do think it was well written, especially given the time period it was written in and in the authors second language.

sorry, that's my opinion (one that a lot of people share btw)

edit: just so I am clear, you are saying that you are a fan of a poorly written book in your personal opinion?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

yeah, you do sound like an ... (j/k)

Yes, I do think it was well written, especially given the time period it was written in and in the authors second language.

sorry, that's my opinion (one that a lot of people share btw)

edit: just so I am clear, you are saying that you are a fan of a poorly written book in your personal opinion?

First, I am a fan of the book. I found it intellectually enlightening and thought-provoking. That is usually the prime criterion for my like/dislike.

The book is way too wordy. It should have been half as long. I didn't need Galt's speech for 30 pages where he basically said the same thing over and over again. I got it. It was probably the worst written book I've ever read. But the ideas/plot/characters are interesting.

[SnyderShrugged]

First, I am a fan of the book. I found it intellectually enlightening and thought-provoking. That is usually the prime criterion for my like/dislike.

The book is way too wordy. It should have been half as long. I didn't need Galt's speech for 30 pages where he basically said the same thing over and over again. I got it. It was probably the worst written book I've ever read. But the ideas/plot/characters are interesting.

I understand your opinion, I just dont share it.

(Not sure why the fact I have a different opinion caused you to accuse me of either not reading this book or never read any books though?)

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I understand your opinion, I just dont share it.

(Not sure why the fact I have a different opinion caused you to accuse me of either not reading this book or never read any books though?)

Yea, I was just being a dick. But, I honestly feel like people who cite to this book today have a 90% chance of having not read it.

Unless you assume that every big company with money is run by a Dagny Taggert, which isn't even true in the book, then this book does not support the arguments made in politics today by those who lean on it.

[SnyderShrugged]

Yea, I was just being a dick. But, I honestly feel like people who cite to this book today have a 90% chance of having not read it.

Unless you assume that every big company with money is run by a Dagny Taggert, which isn't even true in the book, then this book does not support the arguments made in politics today by those who lean on it.

I've read it about 3 times now, plan to again someday.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I've read it about 3 times now, plan to again someday.

Don't you think Rand would frown on accepting her ideas as truths instead of coming up with your own? I ask because reading this book three times seems like you're somewhat reliant upon it for direction.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Ayn Rand would hate Jesus.

Ayn: "Do for yourself and forget everyone else"

Jesus: "Do for other and forget yourself."

[Destino]

Ayn Rand would hate Jesus.

Ayn: "Do for yourself and forget everyone else"

Jesus: "Do for other and forget yourself."

Just listen to her own words. She created objectivism to challenge altruism. In her damaged mind she sees every dictatorship and all evil as a result of altruism. Her philosophy really couldn't be more directly at odds with the message of Jesus.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Thanks for that video Destino. I haven't seen that before, but now that I have heard her own words I can say most assuredly now that her philosophy of Objectivism is anti-Christian, and anyone who says they are a follower of Christ and thinks that Ayn Rand's philosophy is correct needs to figure out which of these two masters they are going to follow, because they cannot follow both.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Ugliest woman ever. SS, if you come in here and tell me that she was hot, I'm going to ask you to see a pychiatrist.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Ugliest woman ever. SS, if you come in here and tell me that she was hot, I'm going to ask you to see a pychiatrist.

And that's how Shallow Hal sees her, because on the inside she rotted.

[SnyderShrugged]

Don't you think Rand would frown on accepting her ideas as truths instead of coming up with your own? I ask because reading this book three times seems like you're somewhat reliant upon it for direction.

Why would you beleive that? I actually totally reject objectivism while appreciate the fictional story of what a world with rampant federal control could be like. Please explain how I could be perceived as "reliant" upon a fictional novel for my personal beliefs

---------- Post added January-18th-2012 at 12:54 PM ----------

Ayn Rand would hate Jesus.

Ayn: "Do for yourself and forget everyone else"

Jesus: "Do for other and forget yourself."

She's an avowed atheist, so she would neither love nor hate him as she wouldn't believe in his spiritual existence

---------- Post added January-18th-2012 at 12:54 PM ----------

Ugliest woman ever. SS, if you come in here and tell me that she was hot, I'm going to ask you to see a pychiatrist.

agreed

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Why would you beleive that? I actually totally reject objectivism while appreciate the fictional story of what a world with rampant federal control could be like. Please explain how I could be perceived as "reliant" upon a fictional novel for my personal beliefs

Ok, that was me unintentionally sounding like a dick. What I am getting at though is that it doesn't make sense to read this book 3 or 4 times. I don't think even Ayn Rand would say it does. She expects people to use their own reason. To take knowledge and deduce more knowledge. At least, that's what I get from her book. I don't see her calling anyone to ask her for help in understanding. I see her telling people to think for herself. Reading a 1400 book 4 times for some sort of philosophical answer doesn't seem to be consistent with Rand's own philosophy of you finding your own answers. :mytwocents:

[SnyderShrugged]

Ok, that was me unintentionally sounding like a dick. What I am getting at though is that it doesn't make sense to read this book 3 or 4 times. I don't think even Ayn Rand would say it does. She expects people to use their own reason. To take knowledge and deduce more knowledge. At least, that's what I get from her book. I don't see her calling anyone to ask her for help in understanding. I see her telling people to think for herself. Reading a 1400 book 4 times for some sort of philosophical answer doesn't seem to be consistent with Rand's own philosophy of you finding your own answers. :mytwocents:

There are lots of good books that I have read even more than 3-4 times, I enjoy a good tale, I'm a reading freak (rarely turn on the TV and usually finish a book per week at least, more when on vacation. The things you just cited are actually some of the reasons why I enjoy re-reading the book as well.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

There are lots of good books that I have read even more than 3-4 times, I enjoy a good tale, I'm a reading freak (rarely turn on the TV and usually finish a book per week at least, more when on vacation. The things you just cited are actually some of the reasons why I enjoy re-reading the book as well.

I find that ironic.

[SnyderShrugged]

I find that ironic.

I dont understand, whats ironic about my post?

[AsburySkinsFan]

She was an avowed atheist, so she would neither love nor hate him as she wouldn't believe in his spiritual existence

And yet so many Christians flock to her message blind to the fact that she stood against the very good news that Jesus preached.

Ayn: People should only be loved if they have earned love thus making them worthy of love.

Jesus: Love even the least of these, for when you do then you love me.

Ayn wouldn't know love if it hit her in the head.

[SnyderShrugged]

And yet so many Christians flock to her message blind to the fact that she stood against the very good news that Jesus preached.

Ayn: People should only be loved if they have earned love thus making them worthy of love.

Jesus: Love even the least of these, for when you do then you love me.

Ayn wouldn't know love if it hit her in the head.

One can still be a good, practicing Christian and enjoy her fictional writing, and even appreciate the nuances of the politics within as well.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I dont understand, whats ironic about my post?

Ok, I didn't say the post was wrong or dumb, first off.

But what I find ironic about it is that I think Rand would say to come up with your own ideas and inspire yourself through your own logic and reason. Don't take everything she says as truth. And I'm not saying you're doing that, but you said that you liked to read her book for its own thought-provoking philosophy and story. I think its ironic because I think - based only on my reading of A.S. - she would say not to do that.