Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by midnight_lark
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
5.0
(For those who haven't read it (yet), be careful - my review contains spoilers regarding both the plot and the ideas).
In many ways, this book is absolutely awful. Here are five of them:
1. The author's world is populated with either totally hot protagonists or totally ugly antagonists. The protagonists have no imperfections whatsoever - neither in appearance nor in character, the antagonists are disgusting in any way possible. It gets the message of the book across, but repels by being unrealistic.
2. The third part is totally unreadable. When I finished reading the book, what I felt was not sadness or book hang-over as usual, but relief of the kind "Omg! I'm finally through with it!!!". The billion-page speech by John Galt is unbearable, the idyllic scenes in the valley are nauseating, the finale is a cheap teen fantasy.
3. The sex scenes - just too much. Although I can see the logic behind putting them in the book (one of the books ideas is that the body and the soul are not and should not be divided and sexual pleasure should not be considered foul because the people we choose for satisfying it mirror ourselves), there is no need in such lengthy descriptions.
4. Totally unrealistic ending in terms of Dagny Taggart's love life. She and Rearden have a great relationship where everything is perfect, but then she ends up with a guy who has just appeared on the scene just because he's the alfa of the stock. I have read in one of the reviews below that this way Taggart is like a prize female - can't put it better. And generally the fact that she seems the only woman worthy of attention is not good either.
5. The author's style leaves a lot to be desired, and her being a foreigner is no excuse. It seems to me that Rand loved the process of writing, but totally disregarded the process of editing. Thus too much of the past perfect tense, of the word 'preposterous', and of unnecessary repetitive descriptions. The book could have been shorter by half.
And now I'll go on to explain what made me give this book a five-star rating despite of the obvious shortcomings stated above. Basically, there's only one reason - the message.
1. The political message.
I guess for a person living not in an ex-USSR country the events desribed in the book might appear ridiculous at some point, but I felt as if I was reading a vivid story of how the USSR actually started and went down. You make an effort, but the benefit of your effort is divided between the loafers you feed. Only 'friendships' and 'connections', not analysis and deliberation determine who gets the best positions and the best stuff (I particularly liked the bit when the trains were assigned to transport 'experimental' soy beans instead of good old wheat just because the person behind it was a friend of the rulers). When everybody avoids taking responsibility because of the risk of being made a scapegoat. There are many bits like these. And you know, it sticks: there are a lot of people who think that they are entitled to a good standard of living, but at the same time they won't even lift a finger, and thus they vote for populists who promise them all this, but who go on and mess up the country and make it harder for those who do work hard and create value. In their head, there's just an idea of wealth as something to be received, not as something you have to make an effort to create. So yeah, read Atlas Shrug and tell me that Rand overdid it. Disclaimer: it doesn't mean that I think that all socialists are bastards, all wealthy capitalists are brainy morally sound angels, and any country would be better off without any social welfare stuff whatsoever. But that's the whole point of a dystopia, and this dystopia in particular: to warn.
2. The individualist message.
The second reason I liked this book is the message of individualism and individual happiness as the first and foremost goal of any person. Yes, people are social animals who wouldn't have survivied if they hadn't huddled together, but it shouldn't be taken to the extreme. The society as a whole is not interested in your happiness as an individual, it is interested in supporting itself. Thus it the 'general opinion' is out there to make you unhappy unless you conform and make you feel guilty if you don't. So there's a powerful message that states that a person's self-esteem should come from within himself/herself and that he/she has an absolute right to personal happiness unmarred by artifically created guilt if he/she is willing to work on being happy.
3. The work ethic message.
This is the reason why I consider the first part of the book a total page-turner and identify strongly with the protagonists despite their being unrealistic and one-dimensional. I really liked the bit when Rearden refused to hire his brother because his brother was useless, and the latter clamoured that he was entitled to getting hired despite his not being of any value. I really liked the many bits where in case of a delay or a problem, most people were just making excuses while the protagonists were doing their best to solve problems. I really liked the general spirit of doing one's job properly and getting satisfaction from a job well-done. I really liked the idea of striving for perfection and overcoming obstacles. This is the creed which everyone should approach their work with whatever their profession. In the book, the world went to hell because all the people capable of doing their job properly went on strike. And this is the most important part of Rand's warning.
This review turned out to be far longer than I intended, but at the same time I've left a lot of things unsaid. I'd be glad to discuss the book with other readers who care to comment :)
In many ways, this book is absolutely awful. Here are five of them:
1. The author's world is populated with either totally hot protagonists or totally ugly antagonists. The protagonists have no imperfections whatsoever - neither in appearance nor in character, the antagonists are disgusting in any way possible. It gets the message of the book across, but repels by being unrealistic.
2. The third part is totally unreadable. When I finished reading the book, what I felt was not sadness or book hang-over as usual, but relief of the kind "Omg! I'm finally through with it!!!". The billion-page speech by John Galt is unbearable, the idyllic scenes in the valley are nauseating, the finale is a cheap teen fantasy.
3. The sex scenes - just too much. Although I can see the logic behind putting them in the book (one of the books ideas is that the body and the soul are not and should not be divided and sexual pleasure should not be considered foul because the people we choose for satisfying it mirror ourselves), there is no need in such lengthy descriptions.
4. Totally unrealistic ending in terms of Dagny Taggart's love life. She and Rearden have a great relationship where everything is perfect, but then she ends up with a guy who has just appeared on the scene just because he's the alfa of the stock. I have read in one of the reviews below that this way Taggart is like a prize female - can't put it better. And generally the fact that she seems the only woman worthy of attention is not good either.
5. The author's style leaves a lot to be desired, and her being a foreigner is no excuse. It seems to me that Rand loved the process of writing, but totally disregarded the process of editing. Thus too much of the past perfect tense, of the word 'preposterous', and of unnecessary repetitive descriptions. The book could have been shorter by half.
And now I'll go on to explain what made me give this book a five-star rating despite of the obvious shortcomings stated above. Basically, there's only one reason - the message.
1. The political message.
I guess for a person living not in an ex-USSR country the events desribed in the book might appear ridiculous at some point, but I felt as if I was reading a vivid story of how the USSR actually started and went down. You make an effort, but the benefit of your effort is divided between the loafers you feed. Only 'friendships' and 'connections', not analysis and deliberation determine who gets the best positions and the best stuff (I particularly liked the bit when the trains were assigned to transport 'experimental' soy beans instead of good old wheat just because the person behind it was a friend of the rulers). When everybody avoids taking responsibility because of the risk of being made a scapegoat. There are many bits like these. And you know, it sticks: there are a lot of people who think that they are entitled to a good standard of living, but at the same time they won't even lift a finger, and thus they vote for populists who promise them all this, but who go on and mess up the country and make it harder for those who do work hard and create value. In their head, there's just an idea of wealth as something to be received, not as something you have to make an effort to create. So yeah, read Atlas Shrug and tell me that Rand overdid it. Disclaimer: it doesn't mean that I think that all socialists are bastards, all wealthy capitalists are brainy morally sound angels, and any country would be better off without any social welfare stuff whatsoever. But that's the whole point of a dystopia, and this dystopia in particular: to warn.
2. The individualist message.
The second reason I liked this book is the message of individualism and individual happiness as the first and foremost goal of any person. Yes, people are social animals who wouldn't have survivied if they hadn't huddled together, but it shouldn't be taken to the extreme. The society as a whole is not interested in your happiness as an individual, it is interested in supporting itself. Thus it the 'general opinion' is out there to make you unhappy unless you conform and make you feel guilty if you don't. So there's a powerful message that states that a person's self-esteem should come from within himself/herself and that he/she has an absolute right to personal happiness unmarred by artifically created guilt if he/she is willing to work on being happy.
3. The work ethic message.
This is the reason why I consider the first part of the book a total page-turner and identify strongly with the protagonists despite their being unrealistic and one-dimensional. I really liked the bit when Rearden refused to hire his brother because his brother was useless, and the latter clamoured that he was entitled to getting hired despite his not being of any value. I really liked the many bits where in case of a delay or a problem, most people were just making excuses while the protagonists were doing their best to solve problems. I really liked the general spirit of doing one's job properly and getting satisfaction from a job well-done. I really liked the idea of striving for perfection and overcoming obstacles. This is the creed which everyone should approach their work with whatever their profession. In the book, the world went to hell because all the people capable of doing their job properly went on strike. And this is the most important part of Rand's warning.
This review turned out to be far longer than I intended, but at the same time I've left a lot of things unsaid. I'd be glad to discuss the book with other readers who care to comment :)