Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
|
List Price: Our Price: $8.94 You Save: $16.06 (64%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $5.75 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of Atlas Shrugged
Book Review: LOVED this book, but buy it in PAPER.
Summary: 5 Stars
OK, I am going to start this review by saying that if you have never read this book before, you're going to want to buy it in physical book form. I read this on my Kindle and the editing was complete garbage. It seemed to be as if the pages from the book had been scanned in and converted to digital via a computer or something. I am not sure how that works, but as someone else has mentioned, there were many instances in which "Galt" was written as "Gait" and I don't think "D'Anconia" was ever in the text in its correct form.
Moving on the the actual substance of Rand's magnum opus, though, I have to say it is one of the most influential books I have ever read. While this is a novel, it's important to realize that this is essentially Rand's philosophy of Objectivism written in the form of a novel. A lot of people will say that the philosophy overshadows the characters and plot development. This is true in some instances, at points it is SO blatantly obvious that I just had to roll my eyes. It seems to me that the editing of this book was less than stellar. It is QUITE a long read, and I had read that there were actually entire sections of the book already left out. It could have used a bit more cutting, and I feel like an abridged version of this book might be more suiting for its needs. By the time the fourth or fifth major disaster happened and Dagny and Rearden had to save the day, I was ready for the book to just end already.
Keeping that in mind, I feel like the prose and plot of the story weren't as important as the message Rand was trying to send to her readers. The MAIN thing that readers should take away from this book is that one should NEVER live one's life for the sake of another. I won't go into that too deeply, the importance of that is for the reader to discover on their own. The second thing to take away is that communism can NEVER be a viable system for people to live under; A is A, and existence is identity. If you deny reality, you're denying existence, and if you cannot accept that, the sum of life becomes null.
This novel didn't change my life by telling me something I didn't know, but it did give me a way to put it in to words. One last thing I will touch on is that you can't use this book as the standard for living your life. This is a good foundation, but don't think that just by reading this that you are superior to everyone else. While the point of this novel is that individualism is superior to collectivism, it's important to remember that by supporting people who you value and share similar ethics and values, you are ultimately supporting yourself. I think that by reading this novel, some people take away the idea that they are superior to everyone else, and should only do things that concern themselves.
I know this review has gotten wordy, but I just wanted to get the point across that this book is DEFINITELY worth a read. It's absolutely phenomenal and I recommend it a thousand times over to anyone who wants to have a better understanding of egoism, individualism, capitalism, and rationality. Just don't let it go to your head.
Book Review: Philisophical Fiction .... What a "Novel" Idea!
Summary: 5 Stars
Yes, this is a classic work and valuable primarily as a presentation of Ayn Rand's Philosphophy of Objectivism. It's a pretty good presentation of how life might look and feel if you were to eliminate all subjective and emotional human responses to life and more importantly create a government that only minimally intrudes upon those thinkers, inventors and producers who utilize capitalism to its most efficient ends.
In fact, I think that's why it does a good job of what's it "objectively" sets out to do. As evidenced by the myriad of reviews all over the map, it achieves its goal by spurring thought and evaluation of the philosophy of objectivism and more importantly what the balance must be between individualism and the corporate needs of society and the role of government in balancing them.
As a novel, it is long, it rambles and it could use some editing. But then again, that's a "subjective evaluation" and who is to say that the philosophy itself does not render it to be as it is.
I know many come to this work as required reading and as the audience is young there tends to be a pretty strong reaction to the content of the philosophy, either setting aside all idealism or embracing the cold, hard automaton thinking of the protagonist Rand creates.
In fact, I think reality lies between those two extremes. There is much to be said in favor of Rand's conclusions coming from a totalitarian idealistic Soviet Union that causes her to react so strongly against it and advocate an austere personal capitalism. In fact, she does such a good job, that I think she creates a whiplash at the end of the book that drives people back toward the center, seeking desperately for something, anything, that offeres solace and relief from the stark world she paints with little of the milk of human kindness and care for one's fellow man beyond that which is necessary for one's own self-interest to be preserved.
This is a very important book and a very influential one. I read it later in life to see what all the fuss was about. I walked away from it changed and better able to use my mind to evaluate the value of well intentioned social engineering and what it does to the opposite end of the spectrum. In the end, I tend to hear the warning against tipping too far in this direction, but I also appreciate the perhaps unintentional opposite warning of neglecting this area. The question that must be answered is how much is enough and by what means, especially by means of a coersive government, must this be accomplished.
Regardless of what perspective you come to this book already holding, chances are you'll be brought face to face with the harsh reality that Rand and her objectivism paints and you'll walk away with some modified views and possibly even some new values and a foundation to build further your own views.
I think we can agree that that experience is a worthwhile one, even if the panoply of differing opinions attached to the book gives evidence of the controversial nature of the core message.
Book Review: Prescient
Summary: 5 Stars
This book was first written in 1957. Dwight Eisenhower was President of the U.S., and the country was locked in an ideological Cold War with Communism. The future looked bright with General Motors dominating world automobile production, increasing breakthroughs in the fields of medicine and electronics, and stability and consensus ruling the day. In this world, Atlas Shrugged must have seemed a very strange visitor indeed.
The author presents a dystopian near-future where the U.S. economy is daily slipping deeper into chaos. The ruling regime seems intent on controlling business, interfering more and more in the economy in an attempt to swing more wealth away from the successful and to those who cannot or will not succeed, often with punitive regulations on one hand and government loans and grants on the other. But while preaching love for the common man, these leaders, often appointed czars rather than elected politicians, use their positions to profit by doing "favors" for friends and those who can pay for them. Taxes rise and regulations proliferate, corruption spreads while the government takes a stronger grip on the economy, leaders proclaim that prosperity is right around the corner and the press downplays or simply ignores reality, and all the while the economy gets worse and worse.
I first read this book in 1987, and while I did find it interesting, I must say that I did think that the author went too far to an extreme. But, watching the world around me I am astounded to find that Ms. Rand's dystopia is quickly becoming my reality. I reread the book, and was surprised at just how prescient the book really was. For example, I was floored when Dr. Ferris told Hank Reardon that the government was passing so many large and incomprehensible laws. "There's no way to rule innocent men...The only power any government has is the power to crack down in criminals...But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced not objectively interpreted-and you create a nation of law-breakers-and then you cash in on guilt." In 1957 this must have seemed ridiculous; but in 2010 the government passes giant laws that the legislators refused to read, claiming that even they cannot understand them.
Now, I must admit that I did not find Ms. Rand's Objectivist philosophy to be appealing, and the author does take many pages to explain and elaborate on it. But, in spite of that, I did find most of the book to be an interesting read. And more, I found it to be eerie in how accurate the author's view of the future has proven to be.
Whether you agree with Objectivism or not, this is nonetheless a very important book, and a fascinating philosophical work. It's diagnosis of our modern world is fascinating for its prescience.
Are you appalled at the changes going on in our country? You see the economy going down and down in spite of government intervention, and governmental corruption spreading like a plague and you want to know how we got here and where we're going? Then read this book and find out!
Book Review: A celebration of human normalcy
Summary: 5 Stars
It is difficult to find a book of fiction that has caused so much controversy as this one, and its critics have a degree of zeal that is matched by its defenders. It is a gigantic philosophical tome, with characters that many have scoffed at as being larger than life, as representing a sterile view of the human psyche, and as being naïve and sophomoric in its world view. Hated in general by both conservatives and liberals, those who love the book envy those who are approaching it for the first time. It is a book for optimists; a book for those who love and celebrate life. But above all it is a book for normal people, because in the final analysis, even though its author may have viewed its characters as representing statistical outliers, as rare and distinctive visionaries who epitomize high intelligence and creativity, it represents what it means for a human to be normal.
It is abnormal and an aberration for humans to want to organize themselves in a socialist state with no personal rights and no freedom to make their own way. It is abnormal and an aberration for humans to wage war and destruction against themselves and others. It is abnormal and an aberration for humans to avoid responsibility for their actions and blame others for their failures. It is abnormal and an aberration for humans to hypothesize an imaginary deity and prostrate themselves in contemplation of it. It is abnormal and an aberration for humans to serve others without question and with no mutual respect. It is abnormal and an aberration for humans to sit still, to lose their kinetic energy, both physical and mental, and not overcome seemingly insurmountable odds.
Humans are in a state of normalcy when they create, build, think, and prosper, and unashamed when they are doing so. This novel, now appearing in print for fifty years, asks the reader to contemplate what would happen if the most creative and industrious of humans were to withdraw from society and leave it to those who took on the grotesqueness of inaction, envy, and sterile diatribes of socialist thought. It asks the reader to contemplate what it takes to have a productive, healthy, comfortable, technological society. Whose intelligence and entrepreneurial alertness are in full operation in such a society and what are the consequences if these are extinguished by the voluntary withdrawal of those who possess them?
The philosophical dialog one can find in this book has drawn the ire of many an academic philosopher and politician. The reviews of the book when it was first published fifty years were probably the most vituperative of all in print. But vehemence towards the book has not extinguished its relevance or its power to instigate critical reflection. It is an alternative view of ethics, one that dignifies human individuality and self-interest. It is an ethic that abhors the initiation of force and worships human ingenuity. The philosophical dialog inked on its pages is a testament to the center of human optimism, and it is a perfect reflection and celebration of human normalcy.
Book Review: Understandably a classic that everyone should try to make time for
Summary: 5 Stars
Once you make time for this novel, you won't be sorry. It is as pertinent today as it was in its initial writing. For Americans in particular, who in an election year face an unprecedented deficit, a deteriorating infrastructure system (bridges, electric grid, damns, roads, trains, subways), and rising commodity costs (grains, soy, cotton, metals, oil, gas, coal), this book is particularly thoughtful.
Before getting into the details, I would first address those that find it "too extreme". While it is true, that Capitalism in its extreme is ugly and selfish; its roots lie in an attempt to inspire innovation and to advance society in toward being able to provide for the needs of all. In that regard, the setting of the early part of the century is necessary as it is difficult to see the importance of the argument she makes if one starts from the vantage of living in a modern economy where scarcity of resources is nearly non-existent and mobility is not an issue.
However, what I find particularly interesting is that she separates the accumulation of wealth as a means to accomplish something from the accumulation of wealth for no purpose. This is often the part of Capitalism that is misunderstood by those that would go the other extreme. Indeed, for proponents of socialism, one should understand exactly what the dangers are that she so eloquently shows through her narrative. Any construct of socialism, which does not address the fallacies which she indicates would be subject to that she describes in the novel. In particular, she does an excellent job and showing exactly why that which is good for the "greater good" is often confused with "justice" or "right".
There are so many takeaways; I leave it to the reader of her novel to discover them. Here are a few of my favorites.
1. Equality must be equality. While many laws, organization/unions have arisen to protect against the "exploitation of the worker", the inverse is as bad. Systems which exploit the talent of a few without compensation or recognition are doomed to failure.
2. The "greater good" when left to an uneducated, purposeless government, often resorts to fulfilling "immediate need", without consideration for long term growth, sustainability, or long horizon "greater good". I find this particularly interesting as we enter this new century in the United States where we see markedly failing infrastructure and a massive deficit.
3. Most people are sheep. Regardless of how much wealth they or their families might have accrued, most blindly follow the lead/manipulation of others. As such, it is important that each individual make their own decisions and do their own research. Further, each person is accountable for their own actions and decisions.
4. When you are focused on who is accountable, nothing gets accomplished. True leadership is taking ownership. However, that does not make you popular. Your desire to be a leader can not be driven by a desire for people to like you.