ŷ������

Admirers at 19, objecting by 25- you really nailed it; that was me, and for the same reasons. Rand is perfect for the intellectual angsty crowd that late teens tend to be (or those who see the world as black and white).

I actually read and journaled about this book at 19, and was just posting my review today at the age of 25 when I found myself compelled to add a note of explanation below the original review. Yes, you nailed it, I couldn't believe how I've changed.

You are one of the only people I've ever heard voice the opinion that Ayn Rand's characters are a**holes. I totally agree with you. I personally, cannot understand why so many people treat this book like some holy religious text. Feh. I liked The Fountainhead a wee bit more than this one, but it's full of a**holes, too.

I must say that, as a 19 year old college student, I think that, for the most part, your comment is very accurate. My good friend who recommended the book to me said that it was the second most influential book in his life, besides the Bible. I must disagree with him on that point, for me at least. The book is good, Rand does wonders with over a thousand pages. I agree with her statements about science and, to an extent, about philosophy. Also, I agree with many of the characters who believe that "words mean something." That is, for me, the most agreeable idea in the book. People say a lot of words (kind of like my comment!) that really say nothing substantial. It is something I have had to learn not to do in my college writing. But back to the point. The book is a masterpiece of fiction, and I did enjoy the story. I disagree with the "all or nothing" attitude of Objectivism, but by no means do I think that they are inherently evil. I recommend this book to anyone who wants to better understand people deemed "ruthless."I shall re-read Atlas Shrugged when I am near the end of my life and see just how I may or may not have changed.

I became an atheist after reading this book and haven't read it since. Your review has convinced me to pick it up again. I hope I don't have to start getting up early on Sundays again.

::sigh::

It's all so bittersweet for me when it comes to this book and Objectivism in general.
��Ƿɱ𱹱����
Though Rand’s heroes no longer make sense to me as a sensible adult, their heroISM still resides in my mind as something to admire.

Wow...you nailed it. I was about to write the something very similar. Although I don't totally agree with your comment "unabashed admirers at the age of 19, unabashedly horrified by 25" I read this when I was in my early-mid twenties and was an unabashed admirer. I think it has less to do with maturity than Ayn Rand's, seductive style of writing, that sucks you in and manipulates you into one of her cult like followers. Once you put the book down and reflect upon it, you then realize you've been duped, in which your admiration is replaced with horror. I too gave this book 3 stars, Rand is an excellent writer, but she lost two points out of spite and disdain of her philosophy.

Tommy wrote: "Ayn Rand's, seductive style of writing, that sucks you in and manipulates you into one of her cult like followers. Once you put the book down and reflect upon it, you then realize you've been duped, in which your admiration is replaced with horror."

Zow! You captured it!

Great review--very much to the point. I too read the book in college--at least I think I finished it: it's so long, and so long ago, I can't recall for sure. "A great work of fiction" it ain't, although the ideas are interesting for a while. I tried to read "The Fountainhead" afterward but found it just god-awful, sort of soft-porn with truly repellant characters. And am I the only one who thinks it's scary as hell that Alan Greenspan, the former head of the Federal Reserve, is an Ayn Rand devotee?

This is one of those books that I have not finished reading. I intend to read it for historical perspective only, like Mein Kampf. It's just a book. The kind of people of deem this kind of writing as revelatory, instead of as manipulative are the kind of people who would rather win a debate rather than be right. "You know; morons." - Waco Kid from Blazing Saddles.

what do you guys mean by "full of assholes?"

Are your mind's so warped that you believe that one's main goal in life should be to be a "nice" guy?

I am in process of reading this book, but so far, it doesn't seem to be implying what some of you have claimed.

I think most of you, like me, either haven't read the book completely or haven't read it at all, and only posting in here because you are all a bunch of deluded communist assholes!

i wouldn't exactly agree with your review, simply because as a work of over a thousand pages the writing never fails to sweep people away. it is beautiful writing, that unfortunately turns readers into admirers without them fully sifting through rand's massive ideals. i am nineteen now and read this when i was eighteen, a couple months ago, and i can say that in writing alone the work is beautiful. as to the philosophy, i wholly believe that objectivism is too absolutist and offers up the same either-or fallacy (the scene where dagny taggert killing a guard who could not decide himself on whether to move or stand his ground) shows that rand was more concerned with the poetics of the moment than philosophy, philosophy being a way to life and not the ending of one. objectivist may argue that the situation recalls accurately how people are fated to suffer if they do not have their own ideas and follow orders, but not allowing one to cultivate their own thoughts with time, is issuing an order by not allowing the option of choice.

there are many insights one can gain from the reading though, such that one sanctions conditions upon themselves as well as their own responses (thus the sanctioning of our own victimhood); also, the idea of selfishness as a positive emotion has been beneficial to my way of thinking.

as to jason's comment that objectivism philosophizes 'without ever taking into account the unending amount of compromise and cooperation and sometimes sheer altruism that actually makes the world work', i would simply ask, how well is the world working?

i don't believe for a minute though that ayn rand manipulates readers with her seductive style, if anything it is seductive because it draws you to it and writing as a medium can only conduce, transmit, and communicate thoughts. it is up to the reader to accept them. i do admit that this writing must be sifted through, but i believe that with all writings and philosophy.

As I remember, each of the three "hero" guys she slept with sort of raped her the first time they slept together and she loved it.

Ms. Rand was getting her kink on.

Apparently this is the only review you have written as well, as it is a complete duplicate of the one penned for The Fountainhead.

Or is that a duplicate of this one?

I liked the story, and found the characters interesting.
That's it. That's all.
No embracing a philosophy. No becoming a Rand fan, or Rand hater.
As to many of the characters being "A**holes." Yeah? So?

Mike wrote: "I liked the story, and found the characters interesting.
That's it. That's all.
No embracing a philosophy. No becoming a Rand fan, or Rand hater.
As to many of the characters being "A**holes..."

Heh, ditto.

I haven't read this daunting book. Still, I enjoyed your review of it which reminded me of why I have decided not to delve into Rand's work.

I don't entirely agree. While my thoughts on this book changed as I matured (I have read it three times), I think going from admiration to horror is a bit dramatic. My feeling is that Rand has a laser like focus on some true ideas, which is why it is easy to get enraptured. However, a few years under your belt makes you realize that her focus leaves out considerable complexity. That doesn't invalidate her ideas, but does make you realize that adherence to any one philosophy results in blindness.

unabashed admirers at the age of 19, unabashedly horrified by 25, after hanging out with some actual Objectivists and witnessing what a--holes they actually are

That quote made me smile: the first time I heard of Ayn Rand was by some guy at a party who was totally enamoured with her writing. I must have been 19 at the time. The next day, I went to the library and read the first few pages of Atlas Shrugged, then put it down when it became obvious (to me) that the writing was severely contrived: the only valid arguments and thinking are put forward by the protagonist; others just plod along through force of habit. If I'm to read a novel, I expect imagination from the author; otherwise, it's just an essay masquerading as a novel.

i totally agree with ayn rands's characters are assholes but as you look at our society today it is those characters in real life with those virtues who make it high within their own professions

Love your review. You perfectly summed up my reaction to this book (which I loved when I read it in high school, but now, not so much). I recently reread it since Rand's work is being referenced so often in the current political climate.

Judging Rand as a writer - she sucks SO bad it's a punishment to read this novel, comparable to reading a bad soap opera script.

Judging Rand as a philosopher - she's moronic.

Judging Rand as a person - she had to have Asperger's or something like it to assume only two types of people live in the world - lazy couch potatoes sleeping 24/7 or focused engineer chiefs building stuff 24/7. There are no other types of people or other interests. Sex is mechanical and unimportant. Really? How could anyone take this serious except for 12 year olds?

I don't agree that this a 'recommended'. It's like studying the comic strip Peanuts and the sayings of Charlie Brown in order to write a history of European Philosophy.

Great review, you really nailed it. I read all of Ayn Rand's books when I was 18-25, and remember well my (socialist) teacher rolling his eyes when I told him what I was reading! What I remember most about her books is there were very few women, and NO children in any of them.

How old are you now? And where do you live?
I suggest you take some time to come live in Mexico or any other latinamerican country for that matter. That hipothetical situation Rand describes is quite close to reality here.

Another 'totally nailed it' vote here. I was SO into this book when I was younger and forced it off on other people. Now I shake my head in embarrassment.

So true, except even at age 15 when I read it I couldn't help but being appalled. Must have been the commie root, ugh!

Is it possible to like the story and laugh at it at the same time? There are parts where Ayn really means something earnestly that I've actually laughed aloud at while reading. But, curiously, I don't hate the story. I certainly will never be a follower of Ayn's school of thought - I think it borders on sociopathy. Still, I find the book suspenseful and well-written. I think it might be because I'm 31 and can enjoy something without taking it to heart. I'll never be embarrassed that I like it *because* I never took it seriously. It's a guilty pleasure in the extreme. Is it total crap? Sure. But as long as I am fully aware the philosophies are shit, what's to be horrified about? The real horror for me is that others take it seriously. Now those people... I'm just embarrassed for them!

As so many others have said, you nailed it. Some have criticized you for not reviewing the book on its own merits, outside of its political philosophy. I am never a fan of taking literature out of context, but even so it is impossible in this case. Most works of fiction written merely as a vehicle to prosthelytize fall victim to creating two-dimensional characters shoehorned into mere mechanical servitude as lifeless as gears in a conveyer belt. Such writing is often painfully awkward in its self consciousness and attempt to prove its import. And often, if there is a narrator, one feels as if the narrator is simply the author in disguise bashing one over the head with a constant stream of "Did you get it? Do you get it now? Have I convinced you? Huh? Huh? Huh?" Rand's work is the quintessential example of such failing with her ever present all the while trying to play The Wizard by saying "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain," or pay no attention to the author behind the page.

Bingo Jason.

I could be wrong but where in the book does it say they are all white males? The big powerful industrialists I mean.

I do agree that the characters are a but two dimensional however, I really enjoyed the book and found it to be a great story. I did not like that they left Eddie behind.

Brittany, do think the industrial age was characterized by anything BUT white males?

This is a story and in the story one of the leading industrialists was Hispanic. I'm talking about the book.

There's also Dagney

"The book depicts a dystopian United States, wherein many of society's most prominent and successful industrialists abandon their fortunes . . . -- Wiki
(for what it's worth)

lol you're totally right about the strength of her arguments deteriorating with age. I'll always like Ayn Rand, though. Nice review.

The BEST review of this book (and Ayn Rand in general) I've ever read! Bravo!

"unabashed admirers at the age of 19, unabashedly horrified by 25"

Hell yes. I was such a good little capitalist when I went to University, but by before I hit 25 my broader horizons meant I could no longer ignore the human cost of it.

I am 38 and I am not horrified. I read Atlas Shrugged when I was 25. People who like Rand's first but give up later, do so because they had to compromise in life and did not achieve their dreams. They begin phsychologically reject their earlier dreams as childish, in order to not hate themselves.

Thank God (whoops) she never had children.

Any Rand's ego-driven jungle ME ME ME capitalism is just as repressive and destructive as cod-communism and cod-socialism. Plus it rapes the planet and only serves the super-rich.

GREED is truly the most terrible challenge of our times, and capitalism is its tool, its means to power and more greed.

Greed is a (contagious) mental illness, an unfillable hole, a hunger that denies justice, a brutal expression of broken egos.

Greed is having a million times as much as the poor and still feeling you don't have enough.

Greed consumes the earth without respite, and is a cancer on humanity.

Greed destroys us and our children and their future.

Greed is death.

“unabashed admirers at the age of 19, unabashedly horrified by 25��
Perfect!

Kenneth wrote: ""unabashed admirers at the age of 19, unabashedly horrified by 25"

Hell yes. I was such a good little capitalist when I went to University, but by before I hit 25 my broader horizons meant I could..."


And you both get a "Hell yes" from me as well. (And I liked the romance part, but that was it. LOL)

Now you know why Republican politicians hate education. 😥

Terri wrote: "Kenneth wrote: ""unabashed admirers at the age of 19, unabashedly horrified by 25"

Hell yes. I was such a good little capitalist when I went to University, but by before I hit 25 my broader horizo..."

Love this, Terri!
I’ve always identified as very liberal but I was 16 when I read this book... it was *all* about the romance and I was too hormonally addle-brained to recognize the connection between John Galt - whose purity of mind and heart made him seem to teenage me like the hottest guy on the planet - and the rigid, hateful world view of the author. Kids, right?

Hell yes. I was such a good little capitalist when I went to University, but by before I hit 25 my broader horizo..."

Terri wrote: "Kenneth wrote: ""unabashed admirers at the age of 19, unabashedly horrified by 25"

Hell yes. I was such a good little capitalist when I went to University, but by before I hit 25 my broader horizo..."

What has white males have to do with this? One of the main character is a powerful white female. What exactly is your premise my dear not so powerful white man? 🤷‍♂��

@Aaron, you mean that after 25, the GREED starts to kick in.

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.��
- John Kenneth Galbraith

or, simply "I've got mine, so f'ck everyone else!"

Q: "How many Objectivists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?" A: (Pause, then disdainfully) "Uh...one!" The question should be "How many Objectivists does it take to invent, manufacture, and distribute a lightbulb?: The answer remains : (Pause, then disdainfully) "Uh...one!"