Skip to Content

BOOK REVIEWS: “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand (1957 - part 2 of the review)

Republibot 3.0's picture

Yesterday I gave an introduction and synopsis, today we'll get to what it all means. Tomorrow we'll discuss "Objectivism" a bit, and that'll wrap things up for us on this novel.

OBSERVATIONS

I’ve got a thing for Russian Novels. I haven’t read as many of them as I’d like to have, but I really enjoy them for their singleminded lack of brevity. I love how they’ll take a concept or story and just keep on hammering at it until every possible permutation is driven home. I admire that level of completion, and I really have a thing for American-Written Russian Novels. That is, Novels written by Russian expatriates in America in the 20th century. I’ve read everything that Nabokov ever wrote in English, for instance. It’s important to remember, then, that Ayn Rand’s real name was Alisa Zonov’yevna Rosenbaum, from St. Petersburg in Tsarist Russia. This, therefore, is a Russian-American novel.

So what can I say about it that hasn’t been said a thousand times over in a half-century of obsessive scholarly study? Not much, I’m sure, especially since the book goes out of its way to be a res ipsa loquitor kind of proposition: It deliberately says all it feels there is to say about itself. Even still, it’s worth talking about.

First off, when Doubting Thomas referred to this thing as his bible, I assumed he was talking about the profound effect it had on guiding his life, not on it’s actual size and weight. My copy is 1170 pages and weighs in at 4.6 pounds. Though I enjoyed the book, and though I enjoy sprawling Russian lit and its occasional glacial pace in general, I had to feel that this novel wasn’t a particularly effective idea-delivery system. It basically has only a handful of ideas - Objectivism is good, collectivism is bad, Static societies are bad, society is divided in to producers, moochers, and looters, and there is no fourth option, and that unbridled lasiez faire capitalism is the only hope for the world. She takes those five basic ideas and drives them home again and again and again, frequently to the point of disservice to the plot. It’s hard to accuse a book as deliberately didactic as this one of overstating their point, but at 3.28 ounces of book per idea, I’ll let you judge for yourselves.

And yet I did enjoy it. As with all Russian(ish) novels, once you get used to the pace and structure, if you just let it wash over you without screaming “Get to the point,” it becomes a fun, entertaining ride. The first half of the book, in which we watch a worm’s eye view of what is essentially the fall of Rome is pretty compelling. Indeed, Rand undoubtedly knew what she was on about here. She was twelve when the Russian Revolution hit, and watched six months of violence in her home town. Her dad’s business was confiscated by the Soviets, and the family was forced to run to the Crimea for four years before it was safe to come home again. Rand went to college in the Soviet Union, but her non-worker status and views resulted in her being purged prior to the completion of her fourth year. Eventually, however, she was let back in and graduated at age Ninteen, then went on to a technical school for film production. While visiting relatives in Chicago in 1926, she defected to the US, seeing our country as a kind of magical wonder world compared to her own, and dedicated herself to preventing Soviet Styled ‘experiments’ here and elsewhere through her development of the Objectivist philosophy.

Dagny, the protagonist, is obviously based on Rand herself, in a somewhat idealized form. She’s unbelievably good looking, but takes no notice of fashion nor girly things except when it suits her to do so. She’s unbelievably intelligent. She’s a business woman, driven to succeed in a man’s world on a man’s own terms. She’s got no kids, nor does she want them. She cares only about her work, though she does have a thing for music. She’s rich. This is a somewhat unlikely combination of attributes, but, hey, the chess pieces have to start off from somewhere, right? It didn’t bother me too much in the same way that it doesn’t bother me too much that Superman is an unlikely character with powers I can never hope to have. Dagny, likewise, is effectively superhuman, though, of course, she’s not a super heroine.

I *do* feel Rand goes

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Republibot 3.0
Republibot 3.0's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2008
Thank yew

>>>That is a hilariously succinct and apt way of putting it.<<<

Thank you. I have my moments. Sometimes I show promise....

The Artist Formerly Known As Republibot 3.0

metaphizzle
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2009
"...the Nietzschian concept

"...the Nietzschian concept that rules and morals are inherently immoral..."

That is a hilariously succinct and apt way of putting it.

Republibot 3.0
Republibot 3.0's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2008
Soon I Shall Be Invincible

My life has settled down a bit, and now I've got more time to read again. I find I'm getting pretty psyched for it. I'm halfway through "Soon I shall Be Invincible" and after that comes "Z"

The Artist Formerly Known As Republibot 3.0

Ginrummy
Ginrummy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/01/2009
World War Z

I am anticipating your review of WWZ quite strongly. That book had a totally fresh kind of style and narrative that moved me a lot and made be open to a story that is told in a way that is different than most all other books published today. Happy, sad, funny, and much more; and totally more "unfilmable" than they claimed that Watchmen would be. It really feels like it was the diaries of a hundred people, instead of a coherent story by one author, although that's exactly how it ends up.

Republibot 3.0
Republibot 3.0's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2008
If Love was a Train....

I wasn't saying that we, alone, have become trollopes on this end of the 20th century, and obviously people weren't obsessed with Marilyn Monroe for her potential parenting skills. I'm just saying there's a fashion in these things - at some points, promiscuity is more socially acceptable, at other points it's less so. Case in point, the 50s were relatively circumspect about such things, the 60s were not, and the 70s were less so. The 80s went back to a point of circumspection somewhere between the 50s and 60s, and the 90s were back to the 70s again. People are built for sex, and I think history will bear out my theory that we kinda' like it, but the rules of the game change from time to time. I mean, in my gradmother's day, nice girls from nice families weren't even told about sex - at all - and were expected to just sort of figure it out on their wedding night, amidst much fear, trauma, and recrimination. (Think the honeymoon scene in "Coal Miner's Daughter", and you'll know what I'm talking about).

My reservations with Rearden basically have to do with what I take to be a ham-fisted attempt by Rand to posit a new set of rules as an alternative to the present (1950s) set, which she clearly doesn't understand how the game was presently played. Rearden feels that sex is repugnant and wrong and base and an embarasment, and he hates himself for thinking about it. He married a woman who was his social better, and they live a nearly-sexless existence for years and years, separate bedrooms, the two of them doing it only when Hank can't control himself any longer, and then he berates himself about it afterwards, and feels bad about having to put his wife through it. This isn't normal, at all, but Rand clearly thinks this is the way "Good" men think, and she's clearly trying to liberate 'good' men from this awful existence which, I'm hear to tell you, clearly was not the way men acted. (Again: Marilyn Monroe.)

Rearden has this venerated view of Dagny as being above sex, and when the two of the, high on life, tumble in to bed, he's utterly disgusted with himself and he's shocked and apalled to find out that his goddess is mortal and likes to get naked and funky. He can't sort this out, so he places all kinds of strictures on her, treating her like a common call girl or kept woman, basically being as abusive as all hell, and kind of violent on occasion, and Dagny seems to think this is just keen. She not only puts up with this, she encourages it.

It's wierd and twisted and it kind of undercuts both characters, and if that were the point - if it's about smart people knowingly getting involved in something that's bad for them - then I wouldn't have a problem with it, but it's put forward as an example of how things should be, at least in a transitional relationship like theirs, and that's just kinda' brutish and wrongheaded and nasty.

On trains, I think you're right on the money, added to which: Trains very much symbolized everything that was good about America in the 19th century, so she's clearly using it as an extended metaphor. I do think the lack of more modern conveniences that clearly were already there is a bit distracting, however, and could have been easily fixed with just a line or two here and there.

All of which reminds me of Michelle Shocked:

If Love Was a Train
If love was a train
I think I would ride a slow one
One that would ride thru the night
Making every stop
If love was a train
I would feel no pain and I would never get off

If love was a train
I think I would ride me a long one
Hear me talking
I'm talking fifty boxcars long
Aw, what's the use?
Most trains these days
Ain't got no engine
Much less a caboose woo woo!

Look out here she comes
Look out there she goes

If love was a train
I'd throw my body on her tracks
If love was a train
I'd throw my body right down on her tracks
If love was a train
I would feel no pain
As she rolled right down my back

But love ain't no train
More like a broncing bull
And the most you get's 15 seconds
In that saddle
And even if you manage to ride
You are all shaken up inside
And it's gonna be a long time
Before you ride that bull again

If love was a train
But love ain't no train...

The Artist Formerly Known As Republibot 3.0

Rufus T. Firefly
Offline
Joined: 08/25/2009
sex and trains

"I suspect Mrs. Rand didn’t quite realize how much she was overdoing it." I fully agree with you there. A strong and talented editor would have helped the book.

I think your concept of sex in the '50's is a bit naive and puritanical. There's nothing new under the sun. Humans are humans. While it's true that public society was more puritanical, I'm sure folks were just as randy when left alone, and to their own devices. When I watch fun, romantic comedies made in the '50's and '60's there is a lot of sleeping around going on between the adult characters. It's always off screen, and never explicit, but folks in those scripts are no less active than folks today. Have you read about the religious sect in Oneida, New York, of the early Mormons? Promiscuity wasn't invented in the late, 20th century.

As I wrote yesterday, it's over two decades since I read the book, but I don't remember thinking Hank Rearden had any odd, sexual problems. I saw him as a married man of principle, who was growing to learn his wife was a b*tch and he had made a dreadful mistake, but was struggling with honoring his commitment. I think that gets into Rand's philosophy, as you write. Rand believed great men and women should pursue their desires, wherever they lead them. If they are truly great, great things will follow. Maybe she was using Rearden's reluctance to dishonor his marital vow as an example; ignore conventions and society's rules and follow where reason leads you? I don't know. Rand, herself, was certainly a free spirit.

Again, it's been a long time since I read this, but your opinions on the three sections of the book sound familiar, and I too liked Frisco a lot. I also agree that John Galt seemed rather bland when we got to know him. I appreciated Rearden more as a brilliant scientist and industrialist.

Regarding planes, trains and automobiles; Rand obviously wants to use trains as a symbol, just as she constantly uses cigarettes and matches throughout the book. I don't think she's concerned with accurately projecting modes of travel in the near future; '60's, '70's. I think she like trains because they are networks that have to be built, controlled and managed and they are the backbone that convey people, goods and raw materials about the country. Also, if you haven't lived in the '30's, '40's or '50's (and I haven't either), it's almost impossible to understand what train travel was like. What big city train stations were like. I don't think there's ever been anything like it. Commercial air travel used to have a lot of the same vibe, but it was never as broad based as rail travel.

The main train station in a big city; New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Miami... There'd be sailors and soldiers in uniform, men in suits and ties, kids and moms, young girls in dresses and hats... An enormous lobby full of people saying good-bye and saying hello, waiting for loved ones, waiting for trains, transfering trains... Everyone looking their best and more hustle and bustle than you can imagine; announcements for trains arriving and leaving, band playing, bars, restaurants, shoe-shine boys, newsstands... Train travel was unique, and very American. It did symbolize American prosperity and adventure and freedom, and speed, and progress... And, as I wrote, the infrastructure of rail travel made running a railroad a major, major job; incredible logistics. A lot of the pioneers in the computer industry where model railroad nuts in their youths. Train and phone networks (and telegraph before it) were the precursors to a lot of the engineering this country is built on. Europe still functions much this way, with rail travel as the central, modern mode of transportation.

Republibot 3.0
Republibot 3.0's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2008
Storytellers

Actually, while I was reading the second half of this book, I was continually reminded of Heinlein's first novel, "For Us, The Living," which is as terrible a book as you're ever likely to read. It makes Galt's ludicrously long speech seem like a fortune cookie by comparison. Just a terrible, terrible, terrible book written entirely in order to support a political/economic movement that he was fond of at the time (Which basically entailed the government printing out endless money, then burning some of it). He was pretty emphatically insultingly anti-Christian and anti-religion in general in it, and the 'great moral triumph' of the book is when the protagonist realizes he can have sex with two women at the same time. Woo-hoo. It was written around 1939, and Heinlein himself was aware of how terrible it was, and more-or-less hid it, but it's obvious from an early age that Bob had some issues with religion, and sex, and of course he was a life-long swinger who went through, what, five marriages?

But regardless of where he started out, and regardless of where he ended up (his 80s novels were terrible), for most of his career he was a damn good storyteller. I can't really compare him effectively to Rand because this is the only thing I've ever read by her, and I'm not inclined to tackle another one. Certainly it seems that Heinlein was more of a natural to it, though he was obviously influenced by this book. (He mentions "John Galt" as a catch phrase in "Harsh Mistress") and covers a lot of the same territory far more concisely and entertainingly. Good observation.

Heinlein was a Libertarian with a capital "L," by the way.

The Artist Formerly Known As Republibot 3.0

neorandomizer
neorandomizer's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2009
Heinlein wrote it better.

Ayn Rand lived in and loved New York City which is easy to do if you have the money to enjoy it. But NYC is not a car town my mother did not learn to drive until she was forty and moved away from New York, their was no need to drive, so that might explain the lack of cars in the story.

Now I like the ideas in the book but I think Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is an easier read and states the same concepts with out the anti religion ideas of Rand, Heinlein is more anti organized religion without throwing out the concept of God. The real problem with Atlas Shrugged is that it really is a political manifesto first and a novel second so that drags down the story telling. And Rand is not a natural story teller like Heinlein was. Heinlein wove his political ideas into a story and not a story into his political ideas like Rand did.

Ayn Rand's core ideas have some merit but like most political theories it underestimates some of the evils of human nature. But her ideas about personal responsibility and freedom have influenced both the modern Libertarian movement and the Republican party. It's the personal responsibility aspect of Ayn Rand that liberals hate and have made her their target for over 50 years.

In the 50's and early 60's their was in libertarian thought a lot of rejection of the sexual mores of the time. Heinlein played with this in many of his books from Stranger in a Strange Land onward. It is also one of the things that conservatives use when they want to bash Ayn Rand and libertarian thought in general. I have had it happen to me when the referendum to ban gay marriage was up for a vote in Nevada because I was against it on libertarian grounds I was told by a conservative coworker that we libertarians only cared about being free to do want we wanted and did not care about the country's morals which sort of misses the point of the idea of personal liberty and the fact that I am a Republican.

I did found it eerie that as I reread the book in January and February of this year that the news coming out of Washington reflected what was going on in the book. I read somewhere that Atlas Shrugged was one of the best augments against the bank and auto bailouts and I think I agree with that.

Note: I just heard that Ted Kennedy has died. I hated his politics but he fought for what he believe in and was one of the last deal makers left in the congress. For some reason it is sad when a worthy enemy dies. It also means I am getting old everyone from by youth are now dying.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Status

Bleeding Heart does not have a status.

Latest Status Updates

Ginrummy Scifi author Ian Banks died today, after a battle with cancer. 1 week ago
Republibot 4.0 @SheldonCooper : Sorry to hear that! I hope you feel better soon. 2 weeks ago
SheldonCooper I've been violently ill this weekend, so my review of After Earth will be a week late. But it is coming 2 weeks ago
Ginrummy Ray Harryhausen, Visual Effects Master, Dies Aged 92 6 weeks ago
SheldonCooper Iron Man 3 review will be live first thing in the morning! 6 weeks ago
SheldonCooper @Kevin Long Second, it reminds us to never stop looking to the future and trying to make it better. Everything Trek's ever stood for 6 weeks ago
SheldonCooper @Kevin Long Observing a fictional event like First Contact Day is, first and foremost, just fun. 6 weeks ago