ecl@mtgzz.UUCP (e.c.leeper) (06/20/85)
ATLAS SHRUGGED by Ayn Rand
Signet, 1957, $1.75.
A book review by Evelyn C. Leeper
In spite of its over a thousand pages, I can't find much to say about
this book. The premise is that the technical and managerial geniuses, who
have been all that has stood between the masses and ruin, have decided (with
the encouragement of one John Galt) no longer to let their talents and
abilities be comandeered by those less able than themselves, but instead to
drop out of society and form their own society based on their desires. (I
bet you hadn't realized that Ayn Rand invented the hippie!) Of course,
things quickly go to hell in a handbasket because of this, starting with the
collapse of the railroads, which Rand sees as the foundation of American
society, trade, and culture. The result is predictable to any one who has
read any Rand before (though I refuse to believe that even as their are food
and fuel shortages because of collapsing (in some cases literally)
railroads, a post card can get from Colorado to New York in four days. It
can't do that now!).
Rand's obvious happiness in killing off all the "worthless" characters
in this book (which includes over 90% of the general public) makes it
somewhat difficult for most people to buy into the good points that she is
making. While her methods of making her points are not the most subtle in
the world, Rand's questions of ability and the responsibility of an
individual to "donate" his or her ability to the general good because others
have decided so is well worth considering. Unfortunately, eleven hundred
pages is more considering that you may want to do. The best way to read
this book is to skip all the long speeches (particularly in the second half)
and read it as a science fiction "end of the world" story. Then do your
philosophizing on your own.
Evelyn C. Leeper
...ihnp4!mtgzz!eclnaiman@pegasus.UUCP (Ephrayim J. Naiman) (06/20/85)
<I BRAKE FOR TAILGATERS> > Rand's obvious happiness in killing off all the "worthless" characters > in this book (which includes over 90% of the general public) makes it > somewhat difficult for most people to buy into the good points that she is > making. While her methods of making her points are not the most subtle in > the world, Rand's questions of ability and the responsibility of an > individual to "donate" his or her ability to the general good because others > have decided so is well worth considering. Unfortunately, eleven hundred > pages is more considering that you may want to do. The best way to read > this book is to skip all the long speeches (particularly in the second half) > and read it as a science fiction "end of the world" story. Then do your > philosophizing on your own. > > Evelyn C. Leeper > ...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl I disagree. Although I am an avid science fiction fan, I enjoyed the story not for its link to science fiction. Her style of writing has got me totally hooked (although her philosophies I tend disagree with). I even got through two-thirds of her 56-page speech the second time around. > Of course, things quickly go to hell in a handbasket because of this, > starting with the collapse of the railroads, which Rand sees as the > foundation of American society, trade, and culture. I allso felt that Ayn Rand was pushing things a bit to assume that the railroads would pull the rest of the country and world down. -- ==> Ephrayim J. Naiman @ AT&T Information Systems Laboratories (201) 576-6259 Paths: [ihnp4, allegra, mtuxo, maxvax, cbosgd, lzmi, ...]!pegasus!naiman
michaelk@azure.UUCP (Michael Kersenbrock) (06/21/85)
> > ATLAS SHRUGGED by Ayn Rand > Signet, 1957, $1.75. > A book review by Evelyn C. Leeper My paper back copy was $4.95. > > In spite of its over a thousand pages, I can't find much to say about > this book. The premise is that the technical and managerial geniuses, who > have been all that has stood between the masses and ruin, have decided (with > the encouragement of one John Galt) no longer to let their talents and > abilities be comandeered by those less able than themselves, but instead to > drop out of society and form their own society based on their desires. (I > bet you hadn't realized that Ayn Rand invented the hippie!) Of course, > things quickly go to hell in a handbasket because of this, starting with the > collapse of the railroads, which Rand sees as the foundation of American > society, trade, and culture. The result is predictable to any one who has > read any Rand before (though I refuse to believe that even as their are food > and fuel shortages because of collapsing (in some cases literally) > railroads, a post card can get from Colorado to New York in four days. It > can't do that now!). > Remember that this book was published in 1957, so I suspect that the train system was of greater importance up until that time than it is now. Remember how just the slight (probably faked) oil shortage we had ten or so years ago affected us? What if the oil industry collapsed? (no gas,oil, etc) Society as we know it would collapse instantly. But then, that really isn't an important factor in Rand's book. It could have been anything, railroads were just handy. The book is about individualism and capitalism. When a person is born into a system where everybody else ("society") controls how you do things it can be difficult to know what has been done to you ("brainwashing"). Atlas shrugged goes to great length to convince you of what is going on, that is, how you are being controlled. This is taken both on an individual level and on an economic level. Rand's basic premise is that: you as an individual are important, and that "society" isn't a GOD-like creature that "knows" better than you what you should do in life -- because "society" is simply a large number of folk who know only as much as you do. She believes strongly in personal freedom. Further, she basically pushes the idea of capitalism in it's purest sense. She puts it up as the ideal that society should organize and strive for. This is a book about ideas and ideals. This is particularly interesting because as I understand, Ayn Rand was born and raised in Russia. She is more "American" than Americans (you know what I mean!). Rand greatly simplifies how the world works as to minimize the number of variables in the story. This is like doing a scientific experiment where you keep all the variables fixed except the one you are studying. Rand does this same thing to make her points. Further, she speeds up the effects (like having everything economically collapse in a year or two, where it really would take 20 years) as to speed up the story. These methods distort the story away from daily-life paced action, but then not nearly so much as television where the entire world is constantly saved within an hour (even with commercials). > Rand's obvious happiness in killing off all the "worthless" characters > in this book (which includes over 90% of the general public) makes it > somewhat difficult for most people to buy into the good points that she is > making. While her methods of making her points are not the most subtle in > the world, Rand's questions of ability and the responsibility of an Indeed, she isn't the least bit subtle, but the concepts are difficult to emotionally accept even though they are very simple logically. Rand takes things to extremes to make her point even clearer, to try and puncture through your emotional resistance to the ideas presented. > individual to "donate" his or her ability to the general good because others > have decided so is well worth considering. Unfortunately, eleven hundred > pages is more considering that you may want to do. The best way to read > this book is to skip all the long speeches (particularly in the second half) > and read it as a science fiction "end of the world" story. Then do your > philosophizing on your own. > > Evelyn C. Leeper > ...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl Upon the books first reading, I would recommend reading the long speeches (maybe skimming here and there) and to skip them in later readings. This a book I like a very great deal. I would like to get hold of a hard-bound copy. It affected me greatly in terms of "energizing" me in my battle against the world for my livelyhood. I think someone can tell whether (s)he will like it in the first couple chapters, because the rest of the book will be the same only intensified. I strongly recommend this book. I regret not one penny of the $4.95 that I traded for the book. Mike Kersenbrock Tektronix Microcomputer Development Products Aloha, Oregon Disclamer: All opinions above are either E.C. Leeper's, mine, or Ayn Rand's. None are necessarily anywhere like that of anybody else at this company.
barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Lee Gold) (06/22/85)
For consistency with Leeper beleifs on spoilers, this review should have been marked "spoiler." The reason why all those people were gradually evaporating is the book's Maguffin (Hitchcock's term for the thing the plot/hero(ine) focused on chasing down). You don't find out until halfway through. I find the book's preachiness somewhat easier to tolerate (i.e. skim over) than its sex scenes. Rand's heroines find true love in what looks altogether too much like rape to an outside reader. (This is true not only of this book but also of THE FOUNTAINHEAD, Rand's SF novella, and her play. It may be a giveaway that she adored reading Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer. Sometimes I wonder if she would have also liked Norman's Tarl Cabot had she lived long enough to read him.) Of Dagny's three lovers, the first shows his love by slapping her (when she suggests she could be more popular if she got poorer grades); the second tells her he despises her because she is willing to fall in with his lusts; and the third has her without asking her consent on the railroad track. I am also somewhat annoyed by the romanticization of smoking. On the other hand, the idea of a "Robin Hood" who robs from the governments and gives to the should-be rich whose money has been taxe away is truly delightful. And a lot of the plot is very interesting and well written. If you like preachy predictions of doom with SF overtones, I also recommend Taylor Caldwell's THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE, Sinclair Lewis's IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE,...In fact, a lot of mainstream writers have written one. --Lee Gold
rs@mirror.UUCP (06/22/85)
>I allso felt that Ayn Rand was pushing things a bit to assume that the >railroads would pull the rest of the country and world down. But consider when the book was written, 1957. Weren't the railroads really the lifeblood of the nation at that time? I found the book interesting, and managed to read all the speeches but the one at the end (Galt's radio broadcast). It's a pretty good way for people to be able to say they know part of what Rand's philosophies are. (I don't want to fan any flames, I just want to say the book is a pretty good read and contains a lot of philosophy in it.)
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/25/85)
>/* michaelk@azure.UUCP (Michael Kersenbrock) / 3:23 am Jun 21, 1985 */ >Further, she basically pushes the idea of capitalism in it's purest >sense. She puts it up as the ideal that society should organize >and strive for. This appears to be in contradiction with her contention that society knows what's best for one, i.e., by the same reasoning, neither does Rand. >She is more "American" than Americans (you know what I mean!). Do you mean she is anti-intellectual, as Americans seem to be in comparison with Europeans. I doubt it. I don't know why Rand was always harping on that AMERICAN nonsense (perhaps because she was an immigrant). I think it only served to confuse and disillusion readers. >I would like to get hold of a hard-bound copy. Laizzez Faire Books in New York has it in a special edition (collector's item or some such ...). I'm sure they have a plain hardcover (and less costly) edition as well. If you want more info, let me know. >Mike Kersenbrock Mike Sykora
mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A) (06/25/85)
> I find the book's preachiness somewhat easier to tolerate (i.e. skim over) > than its sex scenes. Rand's heroines find true love in what looks altogether > too much like rape to an outside reader. (This is true not only of this > > Of Dagny's three lovers, the first shows his love by slapping her (when > she suggests she could be more popular if she got poorer grades); the > second tells her he despises her because she is willing to fall in with his > lusts; and the third has her without asking her consent on the railroad > track. > This comment I couldn't let pass -- it is a distortion of what Rand wrote. The first love's slapping is indeed an act of love. One of Rand's special talents is to cleverly show that good acts taken out of context (as above) can look very odd. The second lover had a psychological problem at the time he told her he despised her. Rnad makes this very clear. In addition, Dagny knows at the time that he really doesn't mean it, laughs at it, and straightens him out. True, the third does not say, "Will you allow me to have sexual intercourse with you?" They simply exchange 200 pages of smoldering glances, then HE walks into a railroad tunnel, SHE follows him, and they make love, which they both clearly enjoy. Hardly what is suggested above. Mike Gray
jeand@ihlpg.UUCP (AMBAR @ Hmmmm...I'm not sure) (06/25/85)
> book but also of THE FOUNTAINHEAD, Rand's SF novella, and her play. It may
^^^^^^^^^^
I thought I'd read every piece of fiction she ever wrote, but perhaps
I'm wrong. Are you referring to ANTHEM?
Also, her point in the rough love-making is her creed that 'I live my life
for no one and ask no one to live for me.' (not an exact quote). I see
this as excluding tenderness and giving of pleasure to the other person;
rather, it's taking--exactly what is seen in THE FOUNTAINHEAD.
Jean Marie Diaz
"When the going gets weird...
the weird turn pro."mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/25/85)
>/* mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A) / 9:44 pm Jun 24, 1985 */ >This comment I couldn't let pass -- it is a distortion of what Rand wrote. > . . . I never finished ATLAS SHRUGGED (great title isn't it), but I did THE FOUNTAINHEAD. There seemed to be the same type of connection between sex and violence. I never understood this part. I believe Nathaniel Branden has discussed this problem recently. >Mike Gray Mike Sykora
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (06/25/85)
> > Also, her point in the rough love-making is her creed that 'I live my life > for no one and ask no one to live for me.' (not an exact quote). I see > this as excluding tenderness and giving of pleasure to the other person; > rather, it's taking--exactly what is seen in THE FOUNTAINHEAD. Her creed (above) *doesn't* exclude tenderness and the giving of pleasure to the other person. People have been known to trade pleasure for pleasure or to find pleasure *in* giving pleasure. (to use a trivial example: while I don't live my life for my SO, I *do* enjoy rubbing her back, simply because I know she enjoys it so much.) This is certainly seen in 'Atlas Shrugged' and in 'The Fountainhead' (except for the first time the protagonists got together, of course.) One last thing: I really wouldn't call *any* of Ayn Rand's works SF, even 'Anthym'. Maybe something more like 'speculative social fiction'. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Well I've been burned before, and I know the score, so you won't hear me complain. Are you willing to risk it all, or is your love in vain?"-Dylan
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/27/85)
>/* js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) / 4:58 pm Jun 25, 1985 */ > Her creed (above) *doesn't* exclude tenderness and the giving of >pleasure to the other person. Why the almost violent sex then? Any ideas? Mike Sykora