Scan barcode
galidar's review against another edition
1.0
I could write a long review here, but I'll sum this up real fast:
No. Just...no.
No. Just...no.
votesforwomen's review against another edition
4.0
This was really, really thought-provoking.
I'll come right out and say it: I am, in fact, a capitalist. So this book didn't challenge my ideology so much as confirm it, although I don't agree with much of Rand's objectivism. In fact, I have a great many bones to pick with her ideology, but I don't really want to go into a ton of that here.
I think this book falls into two categories: the story and the philosophy. The story is the conductor for the philosophy, but they're still somewhat separate elements, even if the story could not exist without the philosophy. So...I'll deal with them both as separate elements xD
STORY:
The story is deeply complex and vast in scope. We've got Dagny Taggart, our heroine, a whip-smart business executive who runs a train company and has horrible taste in men. We've got Hank Rearden, the steel tycoon who's only loosely based on John D. Rockefeller and who really isn't as sympathetic as he seems at the beginning. We've got Eddie Willers, the only decent man in this story in terms of morality, who's really just trying to do his job. Then there's Jim Taggart, who's a horrible, horrible person and needs to die. Lillian Rearden was my least favorite character in the whole book--while I could have felt bad for her if she'd let herself be the victim, the way she played everyone else was infuriating and I honestly completely understood why Hank hated her. The cast of both heroes and villains was vast. I loved that.
In terms of plot: this honestly read a lot like your average YA dystopian. We've got Special Snowflake Girl Dagny, who's completely unaware that she's sort of the driving force of a revolution even as she opposes it. There's four separate guys who are in love with her; this kind of drove me crazy. Every one of those guys (except for one, who was my favorite character overall because he was just Plain Nice) is the aggressive alpha male type guy who has a creepily strong sex drive and feels the need to act on his rush of feelings long before he actually states his love. The sexuality in this novel was entirely of one nature, and I hated it, if I'm being frank, which is part of the reason for the deducted star. Faaaar too much on-screen sex and the attitude of the characters toward it...I was quite uncomfortable with that whole thing. xD So...definitely can't recommend on that count.
The story was a negative arc, honestly. It starts out with the pinnacle of big businesses and only proceeds to spiral downward from them. I hated that. I hated it more than I could say. But not in a stars-deducted way--in a fury at the characters sort of way. The emotion of this story was expertly written, especially for a story that is supposed to not deal with emotions and only be about the mind. So...points for that.
The ending was another negative point for me. I felt it was remarkably weak, but that's to be expected with a story this long and detailed. How do you land a 1,100 page novel dealing with so many social issues? I don't know, and Rand doesn't seem to either. It was an okay ending in the context of the story, but I would have liked to see a different ending. Not sure what...but I digress xD
Dagny was a very compelling heroine, even if I hated her decisions as regarded men. I started out liking Hank, very quickly learned to hate him, and then had sort-of forgiven him by the end of the story. John...oh, what to say? Who is John Galt? Much of the rest of the cast ran together, although their roles are very iconic (a philosopher pirate? A copper baron playboy? A Cinderella story that ends in utter tragedy?) It's well done and I genuinely enjoyed this purely as a novel. Was it infuriating? Was it annoying? Was it aggravating? Yes to all of that. But...I liked it at the same time. I liked it a lot. I was addicted. xD
Now for:
THE PHILOSOPHY
This book gave two sorts of cautionary tales: one regarding the state of the economy when the government takes over, and one regarding the fact that when man lives without God, man's depravity will unconditionally take over.
The anti-capitalism presented in this story was terrifying. I dislike socialism and I'm not afraid to admit that, but the view of it presented by Rand horrified me. I was especially riveted by Jeff Allen's description of the Twentieth Century Motor Factory; here the ideal of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was put into practice on a small scale, and oh, what a concept this book gave of it. After all, how can we really decide what a man's "ability" and "need" are? Rand's answer--men vote on it, and use it to throw their fellow men under the bus. It's dangerous. It's a dangerous notion and a dangerous act to put into practice.
Yeah, I'm a capitalist, and I'm proud to admit it xD
But in terms of the depravity...oh, such depravity.
That's why I'm not going to embrace objectivism. Rand is unapologetically an atheist and her characters are too, and there is no kindness or love in their hearts. "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" is the mantra of the man characters...and I have a problem with that. Kindness is not weakness. Selflessness is not weakness. Giving to others does not reduce you in esteem. And oh, what horrific things were done by even the good characters. They don't need God, for they are their own gods...and that is a terrible thing for man to embrace.
Who is John Galt? That is the question this massive tome undertakes to answer, and while it takes forever to get there, it does answer it. In detail, great detail. It's fascinating. It's riveting. It's addicting. And oh, it's troubling.
4 stars.
I'll come right out and say it: I am, in fact, a capitalist. So this book didn't challenge my ideology so much as confirm it, although I don't agree with much of Rand's objectivism. In fact, I have a great many bones to pick with her ideology, but I don't really want to go into a ton of that here.
I think this book falls into two categories: the story and the philosophy. The story is the conductor for the philosophy, but they're still somewhat separate elements, even if the story could not exist without the philosophy. So...I'll deal with them both as separate elements xD
STORY:
The story is deeply complex and vast in scope. We've got Dagny Taggart, our heroine, a whip-smart business executive who runs a train company and has horrible taste in men. We've got Hank Rearden, the steel tycoon who's only loosely based on John D. Rockefeller and who really isn't as sympathetic as he seems at the beginning. We've got Eddie Willers, the only decent man in this story in terms of morality, who's really just trying to do his job. Then there's Jim Taggart, who's a horrible, horrible person and needs to die. Lillian Rearden was my least favorite character in the whole book--while I could have felt bad for her if she'd let herself be the victim, the way she played everyone else was infuriating and I honestly completely understood why Hank hated her. The cast of both heroes and villains was vast. I loved that.
In terms of plot: this honestly read a lot like your average YA dystopian. We've got Special Snowflake Girl Dagny, who's completely unaware that she's sort of the driving force of a revolution even as she opposes it. There's four separate guys who are in love with her; this kind of drove me crazy. Every one of those guys (except for one, who was my favorite character overall because he was just Plain Nice) is the aggressive alpha male type guy who has a creepily strong sex drive and feels the need to act on his rush of feelings long before he actually states his love. The sexuality in this novel was entirely of one nature, and I hated it, if I'm being frank, which is part of the reason for the deducted star. Faaaar too much on-screen sex and the attitude of the characters toward it...I was quite uncomfortable with that whole thing. xD So...definitely can't recommend on that count.
The story was a negative arc, honestly. It starts out with the pinnacle of big businesses and only proceeds to spiral downward from them. I hated that. I hated it more than I could say. But not in a stars-deducted way--in a fury at the characters sort of way. The emotion of this story was expertly written, especially for a story that is supposed to not deal with emotions and only be about the mind. So...points for that.
The ending was another negative point for me. I felt it was remarkably weak, but that's to be expected with a story this long and detailed. How do you land a 1,100 page novel dealing with so many social issues? I don't know, and Rand doesn't seem to either. It was an okay ending in the context of the story, but I would have liked to see a different ending. Not sure what...but I digress xD
Dagny was a very compelling heroine, even if I hated her decisions as regarded men. I started out liking Hank, very quickly learned to hate him, and then had sort-of forgiven him by the end of the story. John...oh, what to say? Who is John Galt? Much of the rest of the cast ran together, although their roles are very iconic (a philosopher pirate? A copper baron playboy? A Cinderella story that ends in utter tragedy?) It's well done and I genuinely enjoyed this purely as a novel. Was it infuriating? Was it annoying? Was it aggravating? Yes to all of that. But...I liked it at the same time. I liked it a lot. I was addicted. xD
Now for:
THE PHILOSOPHY
This book gave two sorts of cautionary tales: one regarding the state of the economy when the government takes over, and one regarding the fact that when man lives without God, man's depravity will unconditionally take over.
The anti-capitalism presented in this story was terrifying. I dislike socialism and I'm not afraid to admit that, but the view of it presented by Rand horrified me. I was especially riveted by Jeff Allen's description of the Twentieth Century Motor Factory; here the ideal of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was put into practice on a small scale, and oh, what a concept this book gave of it. After all, how can we really decide what a man's "ability" and "need" are? Rand's answer--men vote on it, and use it to throw their fellow men under the bus. It's dangerous. It's a dangerous notion and a dangerous act to put into practice.
Yeah, I'm a capitalist, and I'm proud to admit it xD
But in terms of the depravity...oh, such depravity.
That's why I'm not going to embrace objectivism. Rand is unapologetically an atheist and her characters are too, and there is no kindness or love in their hearts. "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" is the mantra of the man characters...and I have a problem with that. Kindness is not weakness. Selflessness is not weakness. Giving to others does not reduce you in esteem. And oh, what horrific things were done by even the good characters. They don't need God, for they are their own gods...and that is a terrible thing for man to embrace.
Who is John Galt? That is the question this massive tome undertakes to answer, and while it takes forever to get there, it does answer it. In detail, great detail. It's fascinating. It's riveting. It's addicting. And oh, it's troubling.
4 stars.
besiktas's review against another edition
3.0
took me awhile to finish this and the end was a slog. the book was definitely not something i would normally read but seemed like i should given its cultural impact
ur_best_dream_girl's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
hopeful
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
leo_glz's review against another edition
1.0
“Yes, at first, I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical! But then I read this—Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of shit, I’m never reading again!”
First of all, Rand makes her protagonists and good guys (the non-looters from now on) seem like absolutely perfect people that can do whatever they need whenever it is needed. As an example, Dagny flies a plane despite this having never been set up, and John Galt, basically Objectivism and Rand's ideals personified, is described as being essentially the hottest man alive.
Meanwhile, Rand makes literally everyone else in the novel public enemy #1 (the looters from now on), and literally kills hundreds of them throughout the course of the book because they don't agree with her ideas.
However, every single one of these people range from bad at best to absolutely terrible at worst.
One of the heroes of this story, Hank Rearden, completely hates his family because they are looters who depend on him for money. He especially hates his wife, Lillian Rearden, for the same reas0ns.
Since Hank actually secretly loves Dagny Taggart, they have an affair (such a hero).
Dagny is just a selfish person. She literally couldn't care less about anyone. Her only interests are money, Taggart Transcontinental, Francisco d'Anconia, Hank Rearden, and John Galt.
Dagny's brother Jim, a looter, is also completely terrible. He marries a convenience store clerk named Cherryl because he wants to destroy her goodness, and when he eventually succeeds by taunting and making fun of her, saying that she will never be able to divorce Jim, and that she's stuck with Taggart, she goes completely insane and kills herself.
The novel as a whole was completely inflated. There is no clear focus for the entire story. At first, it's just Dagny trying to manage Taggart Transcontinental for the first 200 pages, then, it's Dagny and Hank Rearden trying to find the maker of a static electricity motor, and then it's Dagny and Hank trying to find out who "the destroyer" is and why so many non-looter rich people are disappearing. Then it's about John Galt's fixing of the entire United States economy.
The first of the part of the novel is the most unfocused part, as Dagny and Hank just completely forget about the motor, and the first 200 pages are just railroad things that set up our main characters 50 pages in. It could've been so much shorter, but Rand had to inflate it to 1168 pages.
This novel took her 14 years to write.
She had so many good ideas, like Dagny. Dagny could've been a representation of an artist's undying will to keep working at all costs, but instead, anything that could've been a representation or moral for something more profound than "Objectivism good" isn't actually a representation or moral. Rand thinks that these completely insane characters and situations are how people should act in her perfect view of the world.
If you want to see a video that recaps all of Atlas Shrugged, and shares most of my opinions on Rand, the novel, and Objectivism, then watch this video by the Radical Reviewer: https://youtu.be/Xa_7XwpH5NA
Hurray for Barbrady!
First of all, Rand makes her protagonists and good guys (the non-looters from now on) seem like absolutely perfect people that can do whatever they need whenever it is needed. As an example, Dagny flies a plane despite this having never been set up, and John Galt, basically Objectivism and Rand's ideals personified, is described as being essentially the hottest man alive.
Meanwhile, Rand makes literally everyone else in the novel public enemy #1 (the looters from now on), and literally kills hundreds of them throughout the course of the book because they don't agree with her ideas.
However, every single one of these people range from bad at best to absolutely terrible at worst.
One of the heroes of this story, Hank Rearden, completely hates his family because they are looters who depend on him for money. He especially hates his wife, Lillian Rearden, for the same reas0ns.
Since Hank actually secretly loves Dagny Taggart, they have an affair (such a hero).
Dagny is just a selfish person. She literally couldn't care less about anyone. Her only interests are money, Taggart Transcontinental, Francisco d'Anconia, Hank Rearden, and John Galt.
Dagny's brother Jim, a looter, is also completely terrible. He marries a convenience store clerk named Cherryl because he wants to destroy her goodness, and when he eventually succeeds by taunting and making fun of her, saying that she will never be able to divorce Jim, and that she's stuck with Taggart, she goes completely insane and kills herself.
The novel as a whole was completely inflated. There is no clear focus for the entire story. At first, it's just Dagny trying to manage Taggart Transcontinental for the first 200 pages, then, it's Dagny and Hank Rearden trying to find the maker of a static electricity motor, and then it's Dagny and Hank trying to find out who "the destroyer" is and why so many non-looter rich people are disappearing. Then it's about John Galt's fixing of the entire United States economy.
The first of the part of the novel is the most unfocused part, as Dagny and Hank just completely forget about the motor, and the first 200 pages are just railroad things that set up our main characters 50 pages in. It could've been so much shorter, but Rand had to inflate it to 1168 pages.
This novel took her 14 years to write.
She had so many good ideas, like Dagny. Dagny could've been a representation of an artist's undying will to keep working at all costs, but instead, anything that could've been a representation or moral for something more profound than "Objectivism good" isn't actually a representation or moral. Rand thinks that these completely insane characters and situations are how people should act in her perfect view of the world.
If you want to see a video that recaps all of Atlas Shrugged, and shares most of my opinions on Rand, the novel, and Objectivism, then watch this video by the Radical Reviewer: https://youtu.be/Xa_7XwpH5NA
Hurray for Barbrady!
halynah's review against another edition
5.0
This book is so above any 5 stars or ratings! Definitely the best book I've ever read - in all aspects! To rate it one star, as many reviewers did, is a crime. The book is a masterpiece, and if someone didn't understand it, or got bored with it - the blame is that reader's. No matter, what your taste in books, not to appreciate this one is beyond any reason. Doubtless a must-read!!!
18/10 2018
I happened to see two negative reviews of Atlas Shrugged by two writers - John Scalzi and Mercedes Lackey. Imagine that - two authors, whose books are so crappy, that it's been a real torture to try to finish them. Two authors, whose characters are bland and unlikeable, and yet they claim, that Ayn Rand's characters are cardboard and flat. Those authors have below average writing styles, but instead of improving their styles, they dare to criticize the author to whom they can't hold a candle. That's what happens, when mediocrities prevail.
18/10 2018
I happened to see two negative reviews of Atlas Shrugged by two writers - John Scalzi and Mercedes Lackey. Imagine that - two authors, whose books are so crappy, that it's been a real torture to try to finish them. Two authors, whose characters are bland and unlikeable, and yet they claim, that Ayn Rand's characters are cardboard and flat. Those authors have below average writing styles, but instead of improving their styles, they dare to criticize the author to whom they can't hold a candle. That's what happens, when mediocrities prevail.
starfleeting's review against another edition
1.0
The only book I've ever wanted to burn. Had to read for school and hated every minute of it.
haveyouseentron's review against another edition
challenging
dark
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
Conflicted over rooting for the capitalists. Cottagecore free market is heaven?
moshalala's review
challenging
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
0.5