Atlas Shrugged

Written by Ayn Rand

Narrated by Edward Herrmann

"Who is John Galt?" is the immortal question posed at the beginning of Ayn Rand's masterpiece. The answer is the astonishing story of a man who said he would stop the motor of the world-and did. As passionate as it is profound, Atlas Shrugged is one of the most influential novels of our time. In it, Rand dramatizes the main tenets of Objectivism, her philosophy of rational selfishness. She explores the ramifications of her radical thinking in a world that penalizes human intelligence and integrity. Part mystery, part thriller, part philosophical inquiry, part volatile love affair, Atlas Shrugged is the book that confirmed Ayn Rand as one of the most popular novelist and most respected thinkers of the 20th century.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Highbridge Company
• Release date: May 25, 2000
• ISBN: 9781598872606

Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand (1905–1982) wrote the bestselling novels The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957) and founded the philosophy known as objectivism. Born in St. Petersburg, Russia, Rand taught herself to read at the age of six and soon resolved to become a professional writer. In 1926, she left Communist Russia to pursue a screenwriting career in Hollywood, and she published her first novel ten years later. With her next book, the dystopian novella Anthem (1938), she introduced the theme that she would devote the rest of her life to pursuing: the inevitable triumph of the individual over the collective. 

Reviews for Atlas Shrugged

[Deborah Wilson · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

An interesting story, but with very one-dimensional characters and very little character development. The protagonists are heroically heroic, while the antagonists are evilly evilly evil. The central theme is that unfettered self-interest is the sole virtue -- particularly the making of money -- while any hint of concern for society as a whole is the root of all evil.

On the positive side, Rand expresses her values in a compelling fashion, even if in a somewhat preachy manner. And she does articulate ideas that are out of fashion at the moment but bear keeping in mind.

Overall, I would not call this book great literature, but it is well written, and I did find it to be an interesting and enjoyable audiobook.

[mrsbond_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This book has been on the shelf begging to be read since 1996. When I learned a movie based on it was about to be released, I realized it was time to start reading. A culture of insanity has taken over the world and those who manage to avoid compliance are disappearing. Those with a shred of work ethic and morality are left behind to pick up the never ending slack. The incompetents running the world don't care that their ideas and policies are causing the problems, they just want what they want at any cost.

Rand is a bit long-winded at times, but otherwise the 1100 pages went fast.

Can't help but wonder where is our John Galt?

[tanyatomato · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

All those words and it still falls short of any poignancy.

[philipcristiano · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

There are certainly enjoyable parts of the story although I fell the soliloquies are too long winded and tend to repeat themselves. This is by no means a must-read book although if you ever had even a slight desire to read it you should probably make an attempt.

[endrey-187836 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

One idea that's always bubbled under the surface of our collective worldview is that "pessimism == realism". It's upheld by a circular argument, which is that all good things are an illusion. If something good happens, it's not that good, and if it is that good, then it's happening under the wrong circumstances, if it's the right circumstances, then wrong somewhere else, and so on. The same sort of scrutiny isn't applied to surface-level bad things. So if a person breaks their leg and during recovery develops a lifelong passion for drawing, then who cares? they broke their leg. Besides the drawings suck: not even one gun / big titty. Under the belief that pessimism == realism, things in the world are either: openly bad; or secretly bad. But it's a fantasy borne from laziness: the world appears to you as all bad because you seek out the bad in all things, you're not putting any work in seeking out the good to counterbalance it. Being a pessimist doesn't make you "see the world for what it really is", it makes you a pessimist. You have a bias. If you want to see the world for what it really is, you need to keep your bias in check, just like I have to throttle my optimism. With that said, Atlas Shrugged says we should all be evil because kindness doesn't exist.In the world concocted for the novel, the "openly bad / secretly bad" dichotomy is applied to people. You can either be: evil; or secretly evil. With that premise, the end result is that the world is a better place when everyone's honest about the complete dirtbags they are. I hold the conjecture that everyone comes out better off when people choose honesty even to their own detriment, so, for the world Rand has created, I totally agree with her thesis: if everyone's a cruel monster, just be a cruel monster already, who cares?It's with the whole bit about "taking the conclusions from the book and applying them in real life" that I have a problem. I don't think Rand's world is like our own, and I think most people can just present their own experience as evidence for that. I get the sense that most people have a hard time being selfish jerks, no matter how much society drills that attitude into them. In my case, for example, it straight up physiologically feels bad to do, and I'm not exceptional in any way, so if I have that reaction, then probably most people do as well. I just don't think it's behavior that comes naturally for us, it's self-torture. I think there's a lot of (at least anecdotal) evidence that we have not evolved to be assholes, and in contrast, being kind feels kinda good: it's difficult to feel guilt or shame over having done a good deed, even when society demands that you do. Ayn Rand's "openly evil / secretly evil ppl" dichotomy relies on it being true that all people who aren't openly evil are secretly evil, and her conclusion that we should all be evil all the time depends on the dichotomy being correct, which can only be correct if kindness doesn't exist. That's why the book is so long: she spends 1100 pages "proving" that kindness doesn't exist, but the end result reveals less about the world and more about Ayn Rand herself. It's populated by cartoon villains and ... villains ... and nothing else. It's even cliché by now to list the actions of the protagonists here and say at the end "...and they're THE GOOD GUYS". That's how crazy this worldview is. If kindness doesn't exist, then why do the actions of these characters make people so uncomfortable?Picture if someone made a treatise on how it's stupid that we have two names for literally the same color and why the hell does one green light mean "stop the car" and the other mean "go"? Obviously the person's colorblind. You wouldn't say that person "sees the world for what it really is", right? The world is not all blue, yellow, and dirty yellow. Atlas Shrugged is kinda like that treatise.In conclusion, if this is your favorite book, go check your eyesight.

[dinadansfriend · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Well, both Ayn Rand and I finished this book. It was very long, and I am sincerely happy I did not write it. In that she did, Ms Rand, a desparately unhappy person, has my sympathy. I do not agree with her philosophical views and beleve them to be a harbour for sociopathy. While humans do pursue pleasure, and satisfaction, I am a firm believer in the idea of "The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number". The characters are wooden, and their motives other than the selfish, weak. Do remember, that none of the promeinent Objectivists chose, or were allowed, to reproduce, which argues a great flaw in a philosophy. Do read it, but remember that in the case of serious disease, or unease, an innoculation is a good idea.

[drt_4 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Atlas Shruggd by Ayn RandWhy I picked this book up: I read her Anthem book and liked it enough to pick up this one.Thoughts: This book is full. If touches on the concept of conflict between the haves vs have-nots labor unrest, progressive policies, natural resources, iron ore, financial investments, with the discussion about what the intended consequences are which includes crushing other people too, the company that wants things to be fair and equitable which pushes the company to failure but it is a book with variety, not just the labor, the business man, the thinkers, artists, etc. and the politicians but it is able to span time such as in the 1940/50’s to today. The free market and competition. We have interesting characters, the female, Dagney, that is running the company, she cheats with a married man), her brother is really is in charge only by name really, there is a lot of tension in this book, Rand is an atheist and there is a religious component, the role of the mind in man's existence, the economy, powerful writing and well written romantic words, the relational aspect (not all good like the owning of a wife, dominance, tolerance and indifference in this book all play into making this book a great read imo. This book in packed with complex characters like John Galt the Taggarts, Francisco Franconia just to name a few. I highly recommend reading this one. Why I finished this read: I finished as I wanted to finish this long book to complete it from start to finish even though this one took me a long time to finish. I am glad I finished it. I finally finished today. I gave this book 5 out I 5 stars even though I disagreed with her liberal, progressive idea. I am very pro capitalism and mixed economy that works.

[sarahlh-41506 · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

I have finally finished this book, finally, and I feel like I've just finished a hundred mile marathon and have just crossed the finish line - except that instead of running into a cheering crowd and the sounds of cheers and congratulations, I've fallen face down into a giant puddle of mud while a crowd of businessmen stand over me and chide me for being so god damn altruistic.

Who is John Galt? Answer: a total ass. And, regrettably, hot.

(Warning: Review contains much worse curse words after this point. Just letting you know.)

This was the worst fucking book I have ever read. And yes, I did read Twilight. A thousand pages about selfish rich people who believe they are so goddamn gifted that the 'robbers' of the world don't deserve their talents? Sorry, too busy gagging to care. Waah, think about the poor widdle billionaires! Let's not even discuss their precious Atlantis. Doesn't help that this book is plain boring. What little action there is is swaddled in ten feet of philosophical nonsense and men in suits standing around waxing lyrical about their feeeeeeelings about business. Also, beyond the main core of characters, I can't really say that Rand develops the secondary cast beyond the pale stereotypes expected of them so she can advance her story.

Also, she fucking kills off an entire train full of people - just before describing each passenger as selfish bastards so they must have deserved their horrific fiery fate. Oh.

The only reason this book even gets one star is Dagny goddamn Taggart, HBIC of trains. And the fact that she isn't afraid to bone every good looking dude in this book. I totally ship Dagny/John/Francisco/Hank . . . and Dagny/trains. You mad, fandom? Didn't think so. Honestly, I'm looking forward to the Atlas Shrugged fanfiction; it certainly can't be any worse than the source material.

PS: Dearest Katie, when you read this review, I want you to know YOU OWE ME ONE.

[adrian_smith-748725 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Ok as a work of fiction. Rand's philosophy on life, the world and where the balance of power should lie is admirable if not a bit fantastical. I found myself agreeing with her a lot but laughing off some of it. My main complaint is the book's length. It's far too long. She could have put her points across and told the story with much fewer words. The 80 page monologue towards the end was a real back breaker.

[octoberdad · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This was on my "to-read" list for a long time until I finally buckled down and--well, listened to it.

To be honest, I don't think I could have finished reading it. Not to say that I wouldn't have wanted to, but it is a weighty tome, and even listening to it was a daunting task.

But it was a great book for the ideas it presents. Even if you don't agree wholly with Rand's "Objectivist" outlook (which at times seems not exactly objective in the usual sense of the word), the concepts that she presents as her characters struggle through their sundry and varied persecutions are indeed fascinating.

There are two shining gems of this book which are must-reads for anyone interested in the ideas of freedom and individual responsibility. The first is d'Anconia's speech about money, which offers keen insight into the oft-stated but more often misunderstood quote "love of money is the root of all evil." The second is John Galt's radio speech, which goes on for many pages and traverses many topics.

The rest of the book is background to these two speeches. In part, that's what makes this book "really good" instead of "great" -- because it takes Rand so long to get around to saying what she really wants to say. Of course, there simply may not have been any other way to do it well.

[cuchulainn-798372 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Although I don't agree with everything, it surely gives you something to ponder over.

[leslie398 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

I am glad that I read this, even though I have problems with the book both in terms of the ideas and the writing. Rand made me think about my own beliefs.I was surprised to find that the 'bad guys' were not (just) communism and/or socialism but Christianity. I gather from passages in the book that Rand believes that communism & socialism are outgrowths of Chrisitian philosophy (a bit ironic considering communism's view of religion!). I must say that some aspects of the relationship between Dagny and Hank bother me - such as the sex (especially at first) seems almost like rape & Hank's attitude that Dagny is 'degrading' herself by what she is doing with him is disturbing. I also find the whole idea that lots of people would have this concept about working for the good of those with the most need rather than for their own needs very unconvincing. For example, the bank manager in Wisconsin who gave the loan to that guy who bought the automobile factory (and I am sure many others) & thus caused the collapse of his bank and widespread poverty in the region struck me as extremely far fetched.I think that it would be a bit more believable if the different people holding these beliefs didn't express themselves in almost identical words. Or even better, if there was more of a range in their devotion to the idea; it has been a struggle between all or none with no discussion about what different levels of welfare or state support might be and how it might be funded.The final section of the book, Book 3, was disenchanting, disappointing. First there was the problem of Dagny and her reaction to John Galt. Why does it have to be a emotional bond? Couldn't she just admire or even platonically love him? I felt this diminished Dagny & Rand's argument as well. Then there is the very long radio speech by John Galt (far too long - a good example of an author telling instead of showing), and then Dagny's incredible stupidity of falling into such an obvious trap by Thompson, especially after being warned beforehand. She is supposed to be a smart woman but she doesn't act it in this episode!I also found Dr. Robert Stadler's final disintegration unrealistic for the character who had been portrayed. I could believe that an eminant scientist could be coward enough to publically support a government and policies that he knew to be wrong but I just don't believe that he would descend into unreason, especially so quickly and in that particular way.

[christopherswann · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

As I didn't finish this book (after trying twice), I feel a bit guilty for rating it. But only a bit. Here's what happens when a talented writer (and I think Rand was talented) writes a novel based on a narrow philosophical belief. In other words, she started with a theory and formed characters based solely on that theory. I have never met people like the main characters portrayed in this novel. Thankfully.

[scottcholstad · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

Utter crap. Lightweight pseudo-philosopher given too much credit by those who don't understand philosophy or even the near-universal lack of acceptance of this author as a so-called philosopher by both former and current philosophers and academics. I can't tell you how many philosophy professors, as well as various authors of currently accepted "philosophy" in various forms have laughed at me over the years for daring to ask if Rand is a legitimate philosopher and why she's not taught in most philosophy courses at any level. Ironic that so many leading US politicians of a particular bent seem to think she's a damn genius and quote her at every opportunity.

[antao-3 · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

Well, I couldn't resist (re-reading this after I read so many enlightened reviews on GRs and elsewhere).The idea that people will work if they receive some benefit is true. The expectation that others should do the same is perfectly normal. I don't expect to be enslaved and neither do I expect others to be enslaved to me. Also, government from the beginning of time, had to ensure that collectively certain work was done for the good of the collective. That 'service' was often a respected duty in a small community - whether it be defending the territory or being responsible in the use of shared resources. In a larger community those responsibilities and duties had to be enforced by law. Every great society had to manage a precarious balance between laws and individual autonomy that enables both collective prosperity and individual freedom. We may have never had it exactly right but we work towards a balance of ideals so there should be no room for single- minded self-righteous preachers in a practical policy debate.The real debate should focus on our collective cultural transformation to one that rewards immediate gratification and spin versus real value. The Bernie Madoff culture (just invest with me b/c of my reputation culture), the Enron culture (quarterly earnings are the only thing that matters), the Batchelor/Match.com culture (find your soulmate between commercial breaks), the Pharma culture (all your problems can be fixed with this pill), the fast food culture (eat it – it’s cheap and it tastes good), the Dow Ticker culture (immediate market fluctuations are the best policy measurement). These are the things that make it harder and harder for America to be truly productive. More and more in our nation have forgotten about the discipline and the creative ingenuity it took to build the institutions that are crumbling around us today. Of course we may work long hours but that is no measure of 'Productivity'. Of course, it is more honorable to earn than to beg or steal. We're a nation with a historically low savings rate, an over-dependence on credit, a receding lead in technology yet we spend more time on our reality game shows, or political score-keeping than identifying the root causes of this new reality.Back to Ayn, whose repulsive aura, if only she'd been a better writer, would be the least important thing about her? If she'd been as good as Henry Miller was on slightly off days, she'd be remembered as the female Henry Miller, since the female analog of Henry's satyriasis isn't nymphomania (it's just too rare a condition to be that, innit?), it's... some Greek word combining the concepts for material security and status with "mania" stuck on the end. We know men think about sex every seven seconds (my friends assure me this is true)... what do women think about every seven seconds? And if men who think about sex seven times every seven seconds write books like Henry Miller, women who think about the Other Thing as frequently write books like Ayn Rand.If only the books were better-written; weren't such utter trex! Then it wouldn't matter that Rand, whose life was bent by an event that was the 19th century's dying grab at the 20th century's shapely leg, was such an opportunistic shaman-creep-refugee (that was the era for them: Gurdjieff, anyone?). What is it about refugees who scurry up the ladder from the lifeboat and want to pull the ladder right up after themselves?I guess the aspect which irritates is the overly romantic way in which some of the characters are discussed, the convolution of beauty and talent, the brazen discussion of human perfection. But why not? If you want to believe those kind of people exist, good for you.Final question: how popular would this stuff be if "Rand" hadn't been smart enough to change her name before going to work? "Ayn" isn't even that far from "Aryan". Will ironies never cease?(I was going to put an Atlas Shrugged excerpt here and let hilarity ensue from my fellow book reviewers but I fear being excommunicated for reasons of “decency” (wait until you see what I wrote after I re-read “The Fountainhead”…). The Randiose would also have accused me of "cherry-picking", of course... to which I would have replied, "What else would I do in an orchard?")

[nx74defiant · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I did scum through some of John Gault's speech.

[stevenjohntait · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

While reading the first 500 pages, I thought this was the best book I had ever read.

The story became a bit epic for me after that, but I understand she is probably exaggerating the characters to represent the highest order of her philosophy.

I think everyone, regardless of political leanings should read this. I think it shows the best of what capitalism could produce, and the worst of communism.

The inspiration I take away from this book is that I value my life as an individual with hope and ambition, working towards my goals for my own pleasure and sense of achievement, all the while acting with integrity and compassion.

[ygifford-1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

A must-read for everyone. Objectivism is the philosophy of rational individualism founded by Ayn Rand (1905-1982). In novels such as The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, Rand dramatized her ideal man, the producer who lives by his own effort and does not give or receive the underserved, who honors achievement and rejects envy.

[bricker-1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I had this on my tbr pile for years, but mostly just because I felt like it was one of those books you're supposed to read...also, 1069 pgs of very tiny print was intimidating. Well, I finally read it and actually really enjoyed it. Definitely wordy and soap boxy, but really interesting and thought provoking.

[neverstopreading-1 · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

If you want the story, read a good synopsis and save yourself a 1000 dry pages. If you want the philosophy and to be befuddled as to why any Catholic would embrace Ayn Rand (there are many, especially in DC), read John Galt's speech and skip the rest.

[mitchell_bergeson_jr · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

Garbage, but had to see what the hoopla was about.

[fips-4 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Perhaps the most significant book in post-war American literature, one which has regained popularity since the start of the economic crisis, Altas Shrugged is the embodiment of an ideal society, the ultimate vehicle for Ayn Rand's philosophy of objectivism. Weighing in at over 1,000 pages of tightly-packed print, it's also one of the longest novels in English literature. Is it any good?

Well, as a novel, Atlas Shrugged unfortunately falls flat, in ways that Rand's first novel, We the Living, didn't. There is foremost no humanity in the novel, the characters are dismembered, dessicated mouthpieces to Rand's philosophical diatribes, with everyone fitting neatly into 'good' and 'bad' camps. Rand herself claimed that using characters as symbols was never her intention: "My characters are persons in whom certain human attributes are focused more sharply and consistently than in average human beings." But what we are left with are flimsy apparitions, lobotomised automatons fulfilling the roles required of them to extol the virtues of her philosophy. Even this is taken to extremes, with one of the proponents delivering a 60-page long theoretical speech around which the rest of the novel might well be seen as scaffolding.

To complement this set of lifeless characters is a plot which similarly confounds understanding. In an America which technologically resembles the period in which Rand was writing, yet industrially feels set in an earlier period, and borrows heavily from the Great Depression, the main events and the decisions of the characters jar heavily with what the reader knows and expects from society. As another reviewer pointed out, what's missing is the overt understanding that the story takes place in a parallel world or a different timeframe, to create a genuine sense of credibility. True, there are some hints that push this novel into the realms of science fiction – a super metal alloy, power derived from static electricity, weapons based on sound waves etc. – but the world is definitely our own, even if the people and their decisions are alien. Key to the story is the gradual collapse of the economic system, and the disappearance of the champions of industry. What happens in Rand's universe when the creative minds of the world go on strike? Apparently, they settle down on the frontier and, working one month a year, create a fully-fledged miniature utopia. Personally, I imagine they'd starve.

A bad book can still be a good delivery vehicle for an interesting message. Yet this unwieldy book fails even to achieve the latter. For its mammoth length, Rand's message could have been relatively concise, but for the plot's repetitiveness. If you are interested in Rand's philosophy, there are plenty of other places to turn which will provide a far more succinct and detailed explanation, without the repetition or padding necessary for its delivery in novel form. Whether you find place for Rand's philosophy in your own, or like Gore Vidal consider it "nearly perfect in its immorality", there are simply better summaries available. For the converted, this is probably a wonderful book, but for anyone else it simply isn't worth risking the investment of time and energy.

No one can deny this book's enduring popularity. That alone gives rise to curiosity strong enough to keep it fresh in the public consciousness. But it is a far cry from a great piece of literature, and as an allegory, a philosophical harbinger, its ponderous and verbose nature should have the curious turn elsewhere. The novel opens with the question: "Who is John Galt?" A thousand pages of largely disappointing text will reveal the answer, but you'd be better served just reading the appendix.

[jennysbookbag.com · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I'm so thrilled that I finally read this! I have sort of a love-hate relationship with this book. There were momentns when I thought I was crazy for reading it and other times when I loved it. It's very heavy reading. She could have chopped 400 pages off and it would have been a better novel, but I think the narcissist in her just wouldn't shut up. Perfect title and I loved discovering the meaning behind it.

[highlander6022 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Certainly there is a message, much stronger today under the current government philosophy than in years past. I had heard much about the book and wanted to read it - but chose instead to listen to it on CD. I am glad I did so - if I'd have tried to read it I never would have finished it. Although the majority of the book kept my interest, eventually I thought it just dissolved into a bunch of blather and lost its core message in the latter part of the book.

[karin7-11 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

I read this many years ago before I knew much about the author, but it had made such a powerful impression that I still remember my response to it. It was the first time I ever skipped part of a book ever (part of Joh Galt's radio broadcast). While she could certainly write, I found her philosophy on the extreme side--as though she was reacting against communism (something my grandparents fled to escape, so I'm no fan of that, either) by going too far another way. I don't think her writing (I read another of her books before this one) was worth a 5.

[jenniferrobb · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

When two unrelated people mention the same book to you on the same day, I figure it's worth a shot. I read an anniversary version and, being unfamiliar with the author's work, appreciated the introductory part that explained a little about how she approached her novels.

I found the pacing a bit too slow for my taste, but she did create memorable main characters that I cared about enough to stay tuned in to see what happened. It's a bit odd in modern literature to have one of the main characters not show up in person until the last part of the book.

[belles007-1 · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

Ayn Rand is so beyond obnoxious. John Gault can stick it!

[willszal-1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

In the beginning of February I finished “Atlas Shrugged" [AS]. I’d been listening to the audio edition for the past four months while driving [it’s about 64 hours long]. I’ve been hearing about this book for years, but as far as I can tell, it’s been seriously misinterpreted [unlike most things I read].

I decided to read it because I was hearing a lot about it during the Romney campaign. Apparently it’s been an inspirational book for some of today’s Republicans. As I don’t identify with the Republican platform, and I’d like to better understand those who perceive the world from a drastically different viewpoint me, I thought I should try out this book.

During this time, I also finished “Deep Green Resistance" and have been reading "The Rolling Stone’s Book of the Beats." Interestingly enough all three of these books are more or less about the same thing.

From my perspective, AS is a radical piece of literature, and Ayn Rand is a beatnik [a countercultural artist from the ’50s who’s medium was the written word].

My experience with the overlap of these three books reminds me just how out-of-touch our two-party system is today. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have much at all to do with democracy and representation of the people. I think that this is something both libertarians [the far right] and radicals [the far left] have agreed on for a long time now, and increasingly “moderates” are backing this opinion.

-

So why is AS so widely branded as a conservative piece?

First, let’s look at the “widely” piece. Why is it so popular?

Like “Cloud Atlas,” I’d say that AS is of those rare true works of art in our media. Meaning, that the artist created a stand-alone atmosphere that reflects certain facets of our world. Most media is only powerful because of the conscious insights of its creator, and the conscious perceptions of its audience. But AS is a world of it’s own, created by the meticulous observations and influences of Rand. Although she might have had a thesis, AS can be interpreted many ways and still hold up. The unconscious additions of both our author and our readership has been a positive rather than a negative influence on it’s power.

Now, let’s look at it’s interpretation. This words steps out of unity and back into dualism, but that’s how reviews usually work. To highlight my perspective, I’ll take a side.

If Paul Ryan found AS influential, he must be taking it literally. And just like the Bible, in no way is it a piece of realism. None of the context has anything to do with the “real” world. Let’s investigate this.

Is the US government socialist, or could it become socialist? No, it’s more of a police state. According to the Economist, the US could do a lot more for their citizens [our level of social services is much lower than most of Europe]. I consider libertarianism and socialism to be quite similar, but this might be because of my systems perspective and definition of the self as vertically integrated.

In the book, money is seen to be something that’s unnecessary None of the main characters are influenced by money; they act on the inherent worth of their actions - not to achieve money. Money is just a token. In our world today, money is a “necessity.” It’s forces people into “wage slavery.” Most people don’t perceive themselves to have the luxury of only pursuing their passions, because their sustenance depends on their attention towards “earning a living.”Rand’s representation of money is a polar opposite to this, so money needs to be taken symbolically in AS.

Corporations, and corporate leaders, are seen to create real value in AS. They’re oriented around production and creativity. Corporations in the US today, overall, are destroyers of value. They thrive in the suppression of new ideas. They rapidly increase entropy, by turning infinitely valuable ecosystems and communities and cultures into homogeneous, worthless dollars. Again, Rand’s portrait of corporations is the antonym of what they are in todays world, so again, their role in her story must stay exclusively in the realm of symbolism.

The one thing she does get very right, and paints accurately, is people’s inability to change. Or, more precisely people’s inability to bring their actions into alignment with their values before their unaligned actions kill them. Most people never make it - in AS and in real life.

Now, finally, we can get onto its misinterpretation. From my perspective, AS holds up in either of these two scenarios:

1) As a metaphor for the psyche of the individual, with each character representing a certain aspect of the individual [physical, emotional, intellectual, and subsets of each of these] and money representing attention.

2) A myth of the American Dream [which is a dying myth in today’s world].
-

My perspective of Rand’s thesis changed as I moved through the book. In the beginning, I thought I knew what she was talking about, but by the end I knew I didn’t. In other words, in the beginning, I thought she was trying to assert that the world works well if you’re a conservative. But by the end, I saw that wasn’t the case, because the world failed for the conservatives.

-

I find it interesting to look at some of Rand’s possible influences.

Firstly, reading her biography, Rand couldn’t really have written any other book. She was born as bourgeoisie in Russia. And then it turned Communist [very different than socialist - centralized rather than decentralized power]. Her wealth was taken away, and her family’s business destroyed. So she moved to the US, and “lived the American Dream.”

Secondly, she seems to have drawn on some interesting sources. She talks both about harnessing static energy, and a sound device of death - both likely inspired by the work of Tesla. She also talks about government experiments with soy - very possibly inspired by the Third Reich’s interest with soy.

-

Okay, let’s get back to the heart of things here. Is AS an important piece of literature today? Absolutely!

In my view, it’s a book about values, quality, resistance, community, creativity, and abundance. These things are all deeply powerful in my life.

I think that Transition Towns, Occupy Wall Street, permaculture and spiritual communities, and new economic projects will all find Rand an invaluable ally if they look closely.

-

I’m still reading “The Rolling Stone’s Book of the Beats,” so I’ll get back to everybody with an update of more on why Rand was a beatnik, and what that means. I just finished Jonah Sach’s “Winning the Story Wars.” It’s a piece about myth, and I think that his work shows why it’s time to revive AS as a champion of alternative culture today.

-

To be clear, I don’t mean to propose that Rand was politically correct, or sane. I don’t endorse her explicit world views. But I do think that she accidentally and unconsciously tapped into some really deep human motivations.

How can we hope to move forward if we can’t find common ground with our enemies? There’s something in us all that runs deeper than our political, economics, and scientific discourse might suggest.

-

If you’re a grad student reading this and want an independent study, maybe you could help me come up with like 30 quotes from the book to substantiate my above claims :)

[benuathanasia · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

First impression: from a technical and lyrical standpoint, Rand is pretty talented writer. She's also exemplary at building characters. It's too bad the vast majority of her characters are as whiny and egotistical and heartless as spoiled little toddlers who were never taught to share or otherwise view every other child as inherent competition for mommy's love. Update: Goddamn. Is Rand capable of writing any characters who aren't a political mouthpiece? Characters seem incapable of speaking unless it is to make a speech of some kind.This book serves as a cautionary tale of the slippery-slope fallacy we are most certainly going to face if the government is allowed to regulate industry and labor. The slippery slope of what happens when you don't regulate industry and labor at all isn't even a possibility in Rand's world because the capitalists of the world are all stern caretakers of human civilization, while the workers are parasitic leeches any time they are given the opportunity.

[wholenoted · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

Yup. I've been reading this since 1996. Not really. Everyone says this is such a great book, but I just can't get into it. I still have it on my shelf, if I get desperate