Discount and Reviews

I’ve never seen any point in all the “read this! buy this!” stuff of customer reviews, but I felt compelled to respond after stumbling across all of the tripe posted here by the vehemently Anti-Rand. I noticed that one of the major complaints is the length of the book. This amuses me; I would hope that anyone who thinks themselves intelligent enough to argue the psychological premises of this book would be past the childlike complaint of “It’s too long!”…when did reading become “work”? I thought we’d outgrown that, children… I am seventeen years old and I just finished reading this book for the third time. I wouldn’t say that it changed my life so much as it reaffirmed my existing view of life as I always knew it should be. when reading this, or any of rand’s other work, I am always tempted to underline, to highlight the countless passages in which she has described all of the vague notions that I could never quite put into words. I am baffled by those who call her characters “shallow” and “one-dimensional”; I have never encountered any characters in literature who are as deeply affected by the world around them as Dagny, Rearden, Galt, etc. (Their actions alone should be sufficient proof of this…did you people actually read the novel? How can you overlook an entire plot?). Others complain that the novel’s premises are “too black-and-white”, saying that no one could actually go to such emotional extremes “in real life”. Is it any wonder, then, that such people completely miss the point of this novel? This is probably the most important book I have ever read. My only regret is that I did not purchase the hardcover copy (my paperback has become quite tattered). Pay no attention to the outbursts of one-star reviewers…I seriously doubt that they have any idea what they’re talking about.

One more thing: when did passion become a sexual offense? All of these “rape” comparisons annoy me. The term “rape” refers to consent, and the characters in this book are obviously willing. They are intense, yes, but violence and rape are not necessarily the same thing. I didn’t know people could be so easily confused…such are the times, I suppose.
Rating: 5 / 5

An earlier reviewer struck an important vein when mentioning that academia and media have left this novel largely untouched, while it has continued to be read via word-of-mouth recommendations. Why? Rand is provocative; the novel engenders both deep respect and vitriolic opposition. Why?

To begin with, this is not an ordinarily structured novel; it is an overt statement of a philosophy. The plot, like many of those employed by Shakespeare, is not wholly original. (See an older book entitled “Secret of the League”). In any event, Rand uses the complex plot allegorically as a vehicle for describing her own unique philosophy and its consequences. Rand’s philosophy, and it is clear enough upon reading, is a synthesis of Aristotelianism with more modern “humanistic” concerns, in the greatest and original sense of the term. Rand ties Aristotle’s basic conceptions of logic to the workings of egoism and capitalism. She rejects Nietzschean irrationalism, Kantian ethics, and the kind of Pragmatism championed by Dewey. Her suggested replacement for these constructs is a body of thought which recognizes and responds to human needs and values, economic conditions, political necessities, and logical imperatives, even if incompletely at times. Oddly, her critics continue to tout her as little more than a “pop-philosopher”. On to her book.

Atlas Shrugged is a fountainhead of skilled dialogue and monologue. Francisco’s speech on “money” is insightful, and honest. Some prosaic passages, like Galt’s enormous speech near the novel’s end, could have used some editing. Nonetheless, such passages are meant to (and succeed in) conveying a rather thorough philosophy. Also adept at employing dialogue, Rand leaves cutting snippets and short verbal gems throughout the book. She distinguishes perceptively between ‘what people commonly say’ and ‘what those words often covertly are intended to mean.’ This making-bare is done through the frankness of her protagonists, some of which mere foils to reveal more probing insights. Those who would call her characters “shallow” may be correct if judging by contemporary literary standards which praise personal texture and ambiguity. Rand seems more interested in the kind of moral tale woven by the great Greek dramatists, in which characters are primarily vehicles of ideas.

It was once said that the purpose of philosophy is to start with something that everyone takes for granted, and to end with that which noone will believe. Rand uses Atlas Shrugged to achieve this kind of ideational journey. No shallow fanatic, her novel is a work is also a great psychological study of the motives of several common ideas, values, and ethical standards. She constructs in Atlas Shrugged a powerful critique of collectivism, that thought which says “We are our brother’s keepers.”

I suppose one reason for the novel’s continued popularity is that most readers are far too intelligent to be comforted by other kinds of books whose authors want them to think they are profound because they are difficult to grasp. Zservedah once called “clear prose the conceptual tool of conservativism.” Readers are probably tired of being asked to find beauty in the Emperor’s clothes, in works of art which are ugly, and in books which are pessimistic. Atlas Shrugged is unabashedly lucid and candid; it is refreshing to find such confident and clear writing in this age of self-doubt, relativism, and academic obscurity.

You will be a richer person for having read it.

Are some of Rand’s adherents sycophantic? Certainly. Yet if her philosophy were the kind of “cheap trash” critics claim it to be, why the vehemence of her opposition?
Rating: 5 / 5