Customer Reviews

Atlas Shrugged: (Centennial Edition)

5 star:		(680)
4 star:		(159)
3 star:		(98)
2 star:		(91)
1 star:		(135)

 

 

50 CDs ' I have postponed listening to them for the longest time. It took me three weeks. I am sorry it's over; Scott's voice had become part of my conscience, grave and calm, stamping my brain with Ayn's convictions.
Ayn wrote the book in 1946, exactly 66 years ago! I shudder thinking how little we changed, us humans. I am left with the strong feeling that not only I was allowed to see into the past through this magnificent book, but also to screen the future'
It's true: sometimes the discussions rally along, becoming discourses, circling around the same point, pounding it dry. You can definitely tell that Ayn is stating her beliefs; there is so much substance in the argument to sustain the speeches of the main characters, particularly the positive ones: it would be utterly annoying if you weren't so scared of the reality described, if it didn't pertain to the 'nowadays' to such a high extent.
No matter how you turn it, corporate world, politics, social environment, family, it's all there blatantly staring you in the eye. There is no escape, no relief, no better days coming.
There is a sort of doomsday approaching rapidly and undeniably, and having seen the signs, you know there is no escape. The situations are so similar to such an extent that you cannot help being overwhelmed with futility, who are you to change the course of the world, it's been like this forever, no one will ever change it, let alone you, insignificant bug that can be squashed by any foot'
It's so easy to associate with the increasing incompetence of nowadays' life, the lack of knowledge, will, responsibility, courage of thought and action, the disgusting laissez faire of younger generations, the chase for easily gained pleasures, undeserved rewards, effortless living, the unforgiving attitude against the competent and willing and brave' we do live in a world where altruism is considered cunning overtaking or sheer stupidity, unless it's a must, because you, the one who is able, you have more ability, therefore you are bound to help the less able, the less fortunate. And how infuriating it is when you, the one who works almost all hours of all days are expected to give to the ones who spend their lives complaining about their misfortune and lack of potential, the ones who have the time to string webs, trap you and squeeze you dry, hammer you until you get sick of their conniving plots and are ready to give it all up, because you end up seeing no escape: you want to be left alone to do what you have chosen, to create, to prosper, but you are forced to believe that you owe and you have to pay the fee. You owe to those inept creatures that suck your will by drilling you into believing that it is your fault, you are the one who enjoys working; you have to pay for their suffering, their stifling lack of quality, their laziness. They suffer because they understand as much as your superiority; they use your moral principles, your sense of honour and justice to mount you into their puddle of unending wallowing in self-pity; they gather enthusiasm only to suck up to their bosses, to become indispensable, to be there when every decision is being taken, to be rewarded for your achievement and to throw you under the bus with the first opportunity available' the art of manipulation. And you, who is busy pulling stones from the burning fire, fixing the mishaps of their unskillfulness, avoiding disasters and joggling with tasks as you are carrying two, three individuals by doing their work, you have no time to even say hello to your boss, you are frowning whilst rushing around, for your thoughts are too many and responsibilities are piling up, you are in a limbo of constantly having to choose, in a place where one decision is more important than another only in its manner, but equally damaging in fact.
Ayn takes all this globally. She picks a handful of tycoons and extrapolates the greedy cannibalistic, selfish human nature. Mere office talks and simple family disputes are taken into shaping the back fall of the industrial era, the return to horses and carriages after having invented the combustion engine. The characters are the money makers and the decision makers. They happen not to be the same, as the world's leadership, resulting from the above described undertakings, consists of the weak and stupid, the selfish and hungry, thuds who cannot bear their limited existence and who seek vengeance, trying to eliminate talent, thought, and ability; in fact, the more stupid and incompetent the individual, the more likely for him to climb the ladder and get a management position.
To see the rest of this review as well as more enticing reviews go to allwords.ca

This edition of the book is not too great. The font is too small and the pages are hard to open, so I would recommend buying another version of the book.

Extroidinary literature but may not be the place to start if you are not acquainted with Ayn Rand.

Anyway, after reading many of the reviews, I have noticed that even the people who loved the book have an erroneous idea of what Ayn Rand was saying.

First of all, ethically selfishness or self-interest means you have a right to your own life, that you own it and can dispose of it as you want, without imposing force on others. It does not mean you have the right TO DO ANYTHING YOU WANT OR TO IMPOSE YOURSELF ON OTHERS. It means you own your life, and are free to live it in the manner you deem right for yourself. In a political context, it means the government is prohibited from imposing itself on your life, by for example drafting you into the military, or prohibiting you from entering a certain career field.

When Ayn Rand attacked altruism and its component part self-sacrifice SHE WAS NOT ATTACKING HELPING OTHERS, OR DOING GOOD THINGS FOR OTHERS, OR BENEVOLENTLY SPREADING GOOD WILL IN THE WORLD. What she was attacking was the fundamental principle of altruism that YOUR LIFE BELONGS TO OTHERS AND CAN BE DISPOSED OF WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT.

We see the consequences of altruism all over the world. People living without the ability to own their lives. Cuba is a prime example. The communist party and Fidel Castro are the owners of everyone's life. They control and direct it with impunity. One has little or no control.

Helping others and spreading good will is as much a part of successful living as living and breathing, but when people are FORCED to sacrifice their lives in the name of helping others, state coercion follows, and this is the evil, Ayn Rand so eloquently refers to in Atlas Shrugged and her other writing.

I don't know, maybe it's just me. I never thought of myself as an intellectual. All I'm interested in doing is reading through what are considered the 100 greatest classics and I found about 400 on the Random House site. the reader vote list looks like an attempted "run" by the scientologists to corner the market. Fro example, that stinker Dianetics is #2 on the reader list. "Fear" is #10. I hated that book, not scary or interesting at all. I lost at least four hours reading it. I'm a pragmatist and I just couldn't find much of interest here in Atlas Shrugged. What made it tough reading to stay interested was the railroad business thing. James never committed to anything, never making a single decision or ever taking responsibility, sidestepping responsibility in fact and trying to pin it on everybody else, anybody else, cynical and critical like my grandma from my dad's side was, and James' sister always made on the spot decisions and took charge. But I just couldn't find the interest in reading about a railroad business. It was like trudging trhough 1000 pages of gobblygook. I would rather read the bible or any number of real classics and have them speak to me something of core value, "As a person thinks, so they are.." rather than a specific philosophy that people can argue over, like politics, philosophy and religion.

This review is not to defend this book; Atlas Shrugged is the best book I've ever read. Instead, this review is meant to counter some of the views expressed by some of you. Because I believe they are misconceived.

First, what I will concede: 1.) Ayn Rand was not the greatest writer of fiction. She was long-winded--sometimes dry.And her characters, although beautiful, are one-dimensional and unrealistic. That, of course, is the point. Rand was presenting an IDEAL. But her character's speeches (Galt's, Rearden's, Francisco's) are breath-taking and powerfully worded.

2.)Rand, herself, was not an Objectivist. She lived a contradiction, which don't exist. She allowed her "students" to follow her, which cannot exist in a philosophy based on individualism.

3. Rand did not always do a good job of explaining things. Why is selfishness moral? She does a good job of describing the value, but why does it necessarily branch from reason? She lets the reader assume conclusions and connections, which leads to the misconception and distortion of her ideas by people who claim to be Objectivists

4. Some misguided students of hers have been turned into sheep or disciples, and she did nothing to stop them. This is being perpetuated today by the Ayn Rand Institute.

5. I am an Objectivist.

These concessions now allow me to dispute some of your remarks. Objectivism does not say that one should not feel anything for others. Instead, the opposite is true. An Objectivist society would be one in which its members really love each other in a sort of way. Love their abilities and talents and their VALUE as humans. Rand has stated on numerous occassions that much can be gained by interactions with other people--i.e., in society (division of labor), in interpersonal relationships (worthy friendships based on value), in poltics (the foundation and advocation of individual rights). Rand's world is not one of indifference and coldness. It is one of mutual respect. Listen to the words of John Galt: "I swear--by my life and my love of it--that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." That is a standard of mutual respect.

Secondly, the foundatation of her philosophy is largely Aristotelian, which is actually legitimate. And parts of her ethics are derived from or similar to other creditable philosophers, namely Aristotle, John Locke. Therefore, her ideas do carry some weight, and I've never understood why Objectivism is not taken seriously.

Objectivism works only if you uphold its values. Too many young Objectivists treat Rand's works like a Bible, they follow mindlessly. Or worse,they use Objectivism to justify narcissistic behavior, delusions of grandeur, anti-social behavior, and anarchism.

If you wish to read Rand correctly, please approach it with objectivity and a degree of judgment filtration. Do not take anything anyone says at face value (even Rand!). Evaluate it yourself. This goes for the dissenters as well. Rand is one of the most brilliant minds of the 20 century.

If you wish to discuss these issues further, please feel free to e-mail me.

Thank you,

and yours in reason,

Johnny

Where do I begin? I'll skip a detailed literary criticism as many others have already covered that. Too long, one-dimensional characters, and contrived plot that comes off as a combination of the movie Idiocracy and a James Bond evil organization, except the organization here is made out to be the "good guys".

Some Rand followers suggest it shouldn't be evaluated by literary criteria because it is a work of political philosophy. I find that even more problematic because it is philosophically vapid. It is the least philosophically dense book with a single argument in 1368 pages. It's inconcievable that this could try to fit into a field made up of the likes of Hobbes, Hume, Descartes, Rousseau, de Tocqueville, and the Federalist Papers.

Furthermore, it fails to make the point it is trying to make by compounding errors. It portrays the world as simplistically binary with incompetent, bumbling pseudo-communistic collectivists and omniscient, super-human, techologically advanced (yet humble) individualists. Even if this were truely representative, the fact that pure collectivism is bad in no way provides support for pure individualism. Yet this is what the book does. It directly says to do away with regulations and taxes and get out of the producers way. Yet there is no support for that conclusion anywhere. It's like writing a book where the world is filled with the obese and anorexic, showing how obesity is bad, and therefore concluding that anorexia is the correct dietary approach. It's a false dichotomy, and somewhat child-like argumentation. I take that back. Aesop's fables contain more philosophical content because their principles are scalable to real world situations.

What is missing from this "philosophy" is the other story not told, that of pure self-interest. We don't even have to make it up. That story is seen much in history. It is one where all of the wealth slides to a few and the economy collapses. It's a story of feudalism, of warlords, of the emergence of monarchy, and the wealty elites ruling over the enslaved and exploited poor who actually generate the excess weath that the elites take, exactly following the Ultimatum Game in economic game theory. (This is the game where two players have an opportunity to earn $100 dollars. The Bidder gets to offer a split and the Decider gets to accept it or reject it, in which case they both get nothing. It's in the Decider's rational self-interest (a la Rand's Objectivism) to accept any offer, even $1, and so Bidders get $99 richer by exploiting the structure of the game, not by earning or deserving it in any sense.)

Application of reality-representing, strategic scenarios is where Atlas Shrugged is most absent. Where are the greedy, self-interested business leaders who will lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want (once regulations are removed)? If Rand's philosophy is correct, this is exactly what they should be doing because it is in their self-interest to do so. But her business characters are driven by moral honesty and are heroic. They're not rational self-interested to maximize their payoffs. They don't bully others to get what they want. They don't cut corners or exploit freely available public resources. What happens to Rand's stories when you insert real, self-interested business owners?

Where are the Prisoner Dilemma problems from which laws and regulations derive in the first place? (This is the game theory problem in which the best individual outcome is worse than the collective best outcome, which can only be achieved by changing the payoffs, such as laws, regulations, subsidies, fines, and taxes.) It is disingenuous to attack a position but completely ignore the arguments for that position by creating a story that never involves them. Rand might as well have written a novel on how to get rich by buying lottery tickets where all the people who buy lottery tickets win. It's philosophically and economically useless in the real world.

In this context, a far better "philosophical" book is Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. It actually describes how self-interest can be maximized by a mix of individualism and collectivism, where the right mix depends on the circumstances. It tends to do so in a biological sense, but wealth and prosperity are directly equivalent to biological prosperity. The instinct to seek them is itself a result of trying to maximize resources towards survival, health, and reproductive success. Robert Axelrod's The Evolution of Cooperation is perhaps even more appropriate in directly applying these principles to socioeconomics.

Fine, Atlas Shrugged pre-dates many of the things we've learned about optimizing game theory. But the principles themselves exist in Hobbes' Leviathan and Rousseau's The Social Contract. Plus nowadays there are still many followers of Rand's vapid philosophy, particularly becoming popular with the Tea Party crowd and even resulting in an Atlas Shrugged movie recently. People should know better if they bothered learn the whole of political philosophy before deciding that one grossly oversimplified and logically false story does it for them.

In summary, I can't find much in the way of redeeming qualities in this book. It has little literary value and less philosophical value, and is far too long.

I found this book in my university's library; on the first page, someone had written "The most amazing book I have ever read."

How can you not read a book with an endorsement like that?

In the off-chance anybody reads this review (I see there are over 1,000 already), this review is of the actual physical book, not the story. I purchased the "hardcover" version only to receive a small paperback version glued in a hard cover. I was expecting higher quality paper and larger print normally associated with hardcover editions, but this was literally the same paperback version that's in my local library, but with a hard cover. It's outrageous to call that a "hardcover" in my opinion. If you're looking for a traditional hardcover edition, don't bother with this one, unless you want to spend $3.99 in return shipping for the pleasure of seeing the worst "hardcover" ever.

Ayn Rand grew up in Russia, and emigrated to the United States. Her book Atlas Shrugged (1957) sketches a Marxist Russian type state emerging in America: incompetent government politicos who plunder the work of productive people using various lofty slogans for a pretext. Orwell's 1984 depicts a similar dictatorship, but unlike Rand, Orwell was lucid enough to warn the reader: this is not just a sketch of the Soviet Union, it can happen anywhere in the West too.

And by golly, it sure did. Have you heard about the Patriot Acts 1 and 2? Read of Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Adelphia and their Washington friends? Ayn Rand's oppressive nincompoop government politicos are here with a vengeance, plundering the productive people as badly as any fictitous Wesley Mouch could. The effective U.S. tax rate with all hidden charges visible is what, 50% of the average income?. To add insult to the injury, they are plundering us in the name of free market capitalism, the credo of Rand's book.

In Atlas Shrugged, Marxist ideology is depicted as the pretext to loot productive citizens. Ideology is always just a smoke screen. Looting governments emerge because ripping off taxpayers from a sheltered government position is such a lucrative and easy racket (since Babylon), that it inevitably attracts the most unscrupulous and the laziest elements of any society like a shining lamp attracts flies. Call it Darwinian governmental anti-selection. Even in John Galt's utopian commune of super-thinkers, if they had a civil office post, who would apply for it, the brightest and the busiest of all, or the least bright and hence the most idle? In 1100 pages, Ayn Rand depicted us a government running out of control like a broken car. Next, she suggested that if we switch the little logo on the hood from a sickle and hammer to a dollar sign, the deep engine problems will cease. Well, I think the problem is elsewhere. And it didn't take 1100 pages to point it out where, either.

I spent two days reading the book (enjoyed its dialogs, and a lot of the character situations) and a third day reading people's reflections about it on Amazon. Without reading the wisdom of the vox populi online, it would not have been a full experience. I hope my review and occassional thoughts will add to the enjoyment of others as much as their posts added to mine.

The repetition is mind numbing. The characters are abhorrent. And if you don't tire of the way they are always described as having "a hint of a smile" you will breakdown midway through the zillionth repetition of her dogma. But you can look forward to the 100 page John Galt diatribe....