OK, so now that I’ve finished Atas Shrugged, some of my friends have asked what it’s about and whether it’s worth reading. I’m posting my thoughts here for anyone who’s curious. Please remember this was an enormous novel and there is no way I can cover all parts of it, so I’m going for the highlights.
THE GIST
See previous post. 
Basically the book takes place in a 1940s-esque dystopia where every country on Earth except the U.S. has become a socialistic People’s State. America, however, is not far behind, seeing as popular sentiment views the rich, productive factory owners as selfish and greedy parasites who should be giving their money to all the unskilled, unmotivated people in the world who “never had a chance”—mostly because they never tried. Then the government passes laws with dumb names like the Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog Rule that essentially force productive companies to give their profits and business to less productive companies—less productive because their owners are too busy schmoozing in Washington to actually do their jobs—all in the name of fairness. Then—surprise!—the economy starts to crumble.
Then one by one, all of the productive geniuses in the world start to disappear. Now the leeches can only leech off on another, and the entire world slowly collapses.
THE GOOD
Overall, I enjoyed the read (except for the 70-page speech near the end; alas). The novel has interesting characters, a good deal of plot twists, mystery and suspense, and some great science fiction stuff (Project X! Run away!!).
And wow, Rand can really write a good dystopia. She makes it almost fun to watch the world fall apart, because the psychology of it is so fascinating. (What? These people aren’t really willing to send 300 train passengers to their deaths just to avoid responsibility. No, they couldn’t. Wait a minute, I think they are! Oh my word!)
In terms of writing style, Rand’s description of characters is so brilliant at times. One of my favorite lines: “Lester Tuck, his campaign manager, was a small, aging man with a face that looked as if it had once been punched in and had never rebounded. He was an attorney who, some generations earlier, would have represented shoplifters and people who stage accidents on the premises of rich corporations; now he found that he could do better by representing men like Kip Chalmers.” I mean, that kind of writing is stinking genius!
While I disagree with Rand’s moral philosophy (more on that later), I’m somewhat sympathetic to some (not all) of her political and economic views. For example, part 2, chapter 10 contains one of the best descriptions I’ve seen of why socialism on a basic level won’t work—showing how the “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” will make previously nice people want to punch old ladies.
On an interesting side note, this book played a role in the formation of the Libertarian party here in the U.S.
THE BAD
Caution: this book contains sex and long speeches. Sections containing these elements, especially the latter, give way too much info.
The philosophy of the book (shamelessly dumped on the reader in long, action-stopping monologues) can be summed up in this statement: “I pledge by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” Thus Rand promotes a “rational selfishness” that requires every person to think of himself and his desires before anyone else, and sees every interaction between human beings as a trade. If asking for a product without paying for it is bad, Rand reasons, then expecting love or faithfulness without paying for it is bad too.
Of course, as a Christian, my worldview is based on unmerited grace, with a worthy Man sacrificing everything for those who were not worthy of love. So in the interest of full disclosure, I’m at odds with Rand even before we start.
But I think that the application of her philosophy breaks down within her own novel. While Rand does a fantastic job of creating dystopia, her utopia rings hollow to me. When a bunch of unapologetically selfish people live together, all selfishly pursuing their own desires, she claims they will somehow never squabble but all live harmoniously together.
Apparently Rand never visited a daycare.
OK, OK. Rand devotees may point out that all of these selfish people are rational selfish people, as though that rationality ensures that no one will actually be evil. But I still don’t see how everyone pursuing their own desires automatically translates to social order and harmony.
To me the logical breakdown is especially obvious in her philosophy of sex. Without giving too much of the story away, I’ll just say the book includes a love square. Not a love triangle, a square: one woman, three men. And the woman realizes: it doesn’t matter what your previous lover has done for you or how he feels, you need to follow your lust because it is always right. This leads to conversations that go something like the following:
Lover #2: “Madam, my love for you is the most important thing that ever happened to me. I gave up everything for you, which in retrospect wasn’t a good idea because sacrifice is bad, but still you are my entire reason for existence. I realize you’ve fallen in love with some other man now and will leave me for him, but I’m OK with that and won’t ask questions. I’m still just as happy as ever. I’ll even help you two get together—no hard feelings.”
Woman: “This is exactly what I wanted you to say. How terribly convenient! You’ve been a peach. Ta-ta.”
Really? Really? But in Rand’s magical selfish valley, it works—because the author wants it to work. The book’s heroes insist that we must always view everything in light of true Reality, but it seems that there’s a good deal of fantasy holding the plot together.
And so …
So do I recommend the book? It depends. If you’re the kind of person who enjoys reading without thinking and you just absorb whatever the author says without question, then don’t read Atlas Shrugged. In fact, don’t read anything at all, not even cereal boxes.
I enjoyed the read and honestly do feel smarter having read it. The whole thing was a giant mental exercise, where I had to spar with Rand on every point and examine every premise she threw at me. I’d recommend Atlas Shrugged if you’re up to the challenge of not only tackling the giant book (it’s over a thousand pages long), but stopping and re-examining and countering every philosophical assertion it contains—but you should be doing with every book anyway.
So there we go. An enormous blog post about an enormous book. Whew! I’m going to go take a nap.
