For those who have never read Ayn Rand, this is a rather meaty way to get her philosophy in a work of fiction.
No, she isn't going down in history as one of the literary "greats", but her views on what makes the world work have inspired many of the greatest inovators of our generation and will probably be a lasting legacy for her.
This book is well worth reading if you truly believe in the value of objectivism. If you don't believe then it is well worth reading to find out why others so strongly defend Rand.

ATLAS SHRUGGED is Ayn Rand's 1000+ page story of an ideological struggle between socialists and extreme libertarians. The goal of both sides is the attainment of a noble life, or lives. That's a key point: these folks don't merely want a satisfactory economy; they want honor. For both sides, an economic system is a means to that end, not an end in itself.

The socialists believe in government control of the economy, so businesses can pursue objectives other than maximizing profit, disregarding externalities, and optimizing production. On the other hand, the extreme libertarians want unfettered capitalism, so businesses can pursue no objectives OTHER than maximizing profit, disregarding externalities, and optimizing production!

The libertarians' premise is that the fruits of profit-seeking industrial productivity--material goods--are fundamentally valuable for both their physical usefulness and their imagined spiritual content. As libertarian industrialist Dagny Taggart says, she and her colleagues are "those who make steel, railroads, and happiness."

Well, the libertarians' ideology prevails in the end; and rightly so (even if taken to an extreme, libertarianism is better than socialism, I concede). Nonetheless, I feel its victory is incomplete because ATLAS SHRUGGED never explores how it might fare in comparison to an ideology espoused by mystics, shamans, etc. That is: people who allegedly pursue noble lives so earnestly that they're unconcerned with mechanisms of commerce and productivity...that is: people who do not acknowledge the pertinence of economics to the development of a noble life, or lives...that is: people who are so holy that they have little interest in material goods...that is: people who have no fear of economic outcomes; not even self-destructive ones...

ATLAS SHRUGGED's primary flaw is that it omits this highly relevant, alternate, spiritual/mystical point of view. Therefore, I think the book's conclusions, about the attainment of honor and happiness, are just tentative. Unlike shamans, no socialist characters in the novel--not even Jim Taggart--ever doubt that material comfort is fundamentally desirable while self-destruction is not (some college professors doubt it; but only one, Simon Pritchett, is directly presented, and only for a page and a half).

A total of three paragraphs do present "evangelists" who teach that "love" is "the key to the mystic secrets ... ." But those paragraphs imply that the evangelists have a rigid concept of love. That doesn't make sense; only a fluid, flexible--not rigid--concept could possibly point toward mystical secrets. Therefore, Rand's evangelists seem to be made of straw. They don't seem to represent the point of view I'm curious about. Or else, Rand shouldn't have dedicated merely a few paragraphs to them, in her 1000+ page book.

As further evidence that Rand's spiritual leaders are straw men, she often lets characters use the words "spiritual" and "intellectual" interchangeably (for instance, a bureaucrat, Eugene Lawson, nonsensically says, "I'm worried about taking over the copyrights. That's going to antagonize the intellectuals. It's dangerous. It's a spiritual issue."). But why? These two words--"intellectual" and "spiritual"--mean utterly different things. It should have been obvious, to Rand, that an intellectual mindset is unlike a spiritual mindset.

Notably, the libertarians' leader, John Galt, offers his own appraisal of "'mystics.'" Soon after his initial appearance in the story, John Galt accuses mystics of always exploiting industrialists like himself, saying, "They will dispose of our energy, because they have none to offer, and of our product, because they can't produce." This motivates him to lead a kind of strike against "'the mystics and the kings'" by, incredibly, persuading the country's best businesses to abandon their profit-seeking market penetrations. Of course, by assuming mystics actually care about material goods in the first place, John Galt critically misunderstands them (not counting the straw men mentioned above). This dubious premise erodes the credibility of John Galt's philosophical lectures; at least until his final, climactic 56-page radio address. In that major speech, he occasionally, surprisingly revokes his premise in order to decouple mystics from kings, to make certain specific points. However, in those instances, Rand was simply further suggesting that her critique was really aimed at socialists, not mystics.

All in all, John Galt effectively skewers the morality of social-minded evangelists and intellectuals--often, but not always, wrongly lumping them together with real mystics of spirit. Yet he never disproves that "'THE GOOD, [AS] SAY THE MYSTICS OF SPIRIT, IS GOD, A BEING WHOSE ONLY DEFINITION IS THAT HE IS BEYOND MAN'S POWER TO CONCEIVE ... .'"

Thus, I wish at least one true spiritual/mystical character had directly appeared in the novel, to expound upon God and maybe reinforce Rand's economic conclusions, somehow. John Galt apparently cannot do it, by himself. He's too specious in his assessment of the economic implications of mystical concepts. He relies on too many unwarranted postulates, e.g.: "'every mystic is a potential dictator'", "'[e]very mystic had always longed for slaves'", and so on. Furthermore, John Galt's arguments stem from his faith in determinism and epistemological consistency, both of which were overturned by early-twentieth-century advances in science and logic. Did Rand sadly miss those developments, although she wrote during the 1950's?

Though ATLAS SHRUGGED's conclusions are only tentative, it's still the most audacious, impressive, sweeping defense of libertarianism that I know. I like Rand's grit and philosophical ambition, if not the strength of her analysis. I'll give four stars, but just barely.

I am a fan of Ayn Rand and enjoy all her writings, so I am biased towards her works. With that said...

Atlas Shrugged tells the story of the producers versus the takers. Through 1168 pages of small print, Rand gives example after example why the industrialists should be praised and not vilified. Rand also explains that all workers have value, if they are doing the best they can, at the jobs they can do.

Atlas Shrugged also explains the mind set of the people that vilify the successful, the inventors, the creators.

If you look at the U.S.A. right now, with the government bailing out companies, the new administration's desire to tax the rich and give to the rest, Atlas Shrugged discusses what happens when the producers are forced to shoulder more of the world.

Atlas Shrugged is an amazing fictional story, based on a philosophy of reaching for greatness and being self-reliant, instead of looking to others for your well being.

This book is just flat-out terrible. There's no other way that I can put it. You would think that in a book over 1,000 pages long you'd have characters that show certain degrees of subtlety, nuance, and growth. Not so with this book. Absolutely everything is in black and white terms, and the result is something closer to a religious text than a novel probing into the mind of man. I came away from this book hating every single character in it. The "dialog" is the flattest I've ever read...it's nothing more than Rand spewing her philosophy out of characters that might as well be wearing white hats and black hats as in an old Western film, in case the good/bad distinction wasn't made clearly enough for you. There are some decent parts, such as the first run on the John Galt line, but nearly everything is ruined by Rand's literary version of stamping her feet and screaming "if you don't agree with me, then I'm going to take all my toys and go home!" It's a great endurance test, and I do take a certain snobbish pleasure in saying that I finished one of the longest books ever written, but overall this book was a huge waste of time.

I would like to state one last thing: I happen to agree with certain parts of Rand's philosophy, and I've read Anthem and The Fountainhead. Someone responded to a review I wrote of Anthem stating that a historical perspective was important. Yes, it is important, but all the historical perspective in the world isn't going to make this a good book. You don't need historical perspective to enjoy Don Quixote, or Candide, or the works of Shakespeare. You don't even need to like the characters to enjoy a book: Lolita is a great book, but I disliked everyone in it. I also know Rand's background, how her knowledge of Socialism was a lot deeper than most other writers at the time. I can understand why she would feel the way she felt and why she would write the way she wrote. Still, taking everything into consideration, Rand was still a lousy writer, and Atlas Shrugged is still one of the biggest loads of garbage I've ever wasted my time reading.

...Atlas Shrugged is revealed to be a relevant and prescient work by an uncommon mind. One cannot read the daily news, consider the recent election, or follow the current economic crisis without being astounded by the parallels to Rand's magnum opus. To anybody who finds themselves discouraged, disenfranchised, and downtrodden, I offer you proof that there are people who think like you do. Ability and intelligence will make a come back, they always do. That this book as enjoyed such massive circulation across four decades is proof.

I should have read this when I was in high school because it would have changed my life. It is the finest book about self reliance I have ever read and one of the very best of any genre. No one can read this without going through a change in outlook and attitude towards government and the general unwillingness to take personal responsibility for ones own actions. We all need John Gault more than we know. The more I read, the longer I wanted the book to be.

Book is very long, but once you get started it's hard to put it down. I really think that Atlas Shrugged is what the world is coming to in the very near future.

I have read this book several times, and plan to read it at least once a year. If you think that democratic socialism is a good thing, including the current bail-out crisis, the crisis is the bail-out's, please read this book to gain an understanding of how a free-market actually works. The reasons/excuses used by the socialists in this book to governmentalize the various businesses are the same ridiculous arguments currently being used by the sitting politicians to privatize and socialize the corporations in order to enlarge and expand the government and its power. Which it has no business doing, especially when it created the entire problem to begin with. The democrats forced the banks to make bad loans to people who can't afford them because they decided that the American Dream was to own a house, which it is not. The American Dream is what this book is about. To make it on your own. Don't live your life on the welfare of anyone. The current American government is creating a nation of beholden slaves. People are slaves to unjust taxes being unconstitutionally stolen from them and given to people unwilling to work. Everyone should read this book, and hopefully understand how a truly free society could and should bless the lives of those who produce.

First book I've ever read that made me question my own morals and ideas.
This book is grade A awesome.

It's hard for a committed Christian to give a militant atheist's book five stars, but as the saying goes, "all truth is God's truth", and there is so much vital truth in this tedious, maddening, electrifying, un-put downable, unforgettable book that I can't honestly give it anything else.

It deserves every accolade it's ever received for ~10 pages alone: pp. 608 thru the first short paragraph of 618. (Though for context one should start reading at the start of the chapter, "The Sign Of The Dollar", on p. 601.)

These pages relate Dagny's chance encounter with a tramp on her train who answers the question that's plagued her for the previous 600 pages: "Who is John Galt?".

But as the tramp tells the story of what happened to the great Hammond Car Company, he lays out an utterly brilliant, gut-wrenchingly graphic affirmation of the most important (and studiously ignored, go figure) book of the 20th century, Igor Shafarevich's "The Socialist Phenomenon". This 1975 book-length essay by an exiled Soviet mathematician exhaustively traces socialism in theory & practice from the beginning of world history and concludes:

"A multitude of similar examples leads us to suppose that the dying and, ultimately, the complete extinction of mankind is not a chance external consequence of the embodiment of the socialist ideal but that this impulse is a fundamental and organic part of socialist ideology. To a greater or lesser degree it is consciously perceived as such by its partisans and even serves them as inspiration. THE DEATH OF MANKIND IS NOT ONLY A CONCEIVABLE RESULT OF THE TRIUMPH OF SOCIALISM--IT CONSTITUTES THE GOAL OF SOCIALISM." [emph. mine]

(This long-unavailable book can now be read online: http://robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html. I only wish I had the means to commission a statue of Robert L. Stephens, whoever he is.)

If just these 10-18 of the 1070 pages of "Atlas Shrugged" had been required reading for citizenship, for voting, for graduation from any school in America, America would be a very different place as we approach the 2008 Presidential election.

From a different, country, a different time---she lived a full life then died before I was born... deja vu...

I think this is the most moving and important book I've ever read... perhaps the real story of Armageddon.

The abridged audio version of this book, as read by Edward Herrmann, is an astounding piece of literature, a piece of pop culture, and must read to understand the philosophies of free market economics, liberty, and capitalism.

The story is a dystopic account of the fall of American civilization because of a strike of the people of the mind because of people known as the looters who look to interfere with their ability to make money and profit, and redistribute the wealth of those who created it. The more the government interferes in the economy, the more things fall apart and more men of the mind begin their strike.

Edward Herrmann does perhaps the best job of reading a book that I've ever heard. It is unobtrusive, yet forceful, and he does a great job giving voices to individual characters.

If you can't read the book, have it read to you! This is a rare 5 star review!!

I read that book about seven years ago because I was intensely curious about Ayn Rand and her books. So many people waiting for the bus or riding one seemed to be into her books so I bought a hardback edition and started reading it. I could not stop reading it and turning the pages. When I came to the last page, I was so terribly disappointed that the marvellous story had to come to the end. I WANTED MORE!!!

That book made me see how the material value is determined and how it is diminished by the intensive governmental intervention as well as the corporate interference.

The strong parallel between the society as depicted in the 1957 book and the society in reality is astoundingly accurate. You owe it to yourself to read this book as to understand the financial crisis of 2008 better.

Ayn Rand does understand the economy and its ramification on the modern society so splendidly. She also told it very brilliantly.

I shan't reveal who is John Galt and what is the "motor" that moved the world.

I only got half way through before life got in the way. It was an interesting read and I'm hoping I can get back to it soon.

A long read, but Ayn Rand tells the story of today's America. Politicians stay in power by redistributing wealth. Achievement is penalized, mediocrity is rewarded, and the country spirals down. Hmmm, sound familiar?

Loved it. Gave copies to all of our six children.

A must read...truly. Especially in this election year.

The very instant you hear someone saying "She thinks so-and-so because in the end it's better for humanity" stop the conversation, because that person has either not read the book, or did not read it closely.

Ayn Rand's philosophy attempts to destroy the common trends in modern and contemporary philosophy who claim either there are no moral absolutes, or there are no absolute truths in reality. The claim is that in both instances there are absolutes, and we can know them.

Yes in this novel the characters are unrealistically good at everything, (good looking, can fly airplanes, incredibly intelligent, etc. etc.) Many people have taken this to be a sign of naivety in her writing. To those people I suggest you look at your premises of what constitutes "naive." Ayn Rand tries repeatedly to show that excellence is something to be loved, not flaws.

This sort of theme is present in all Greek epics, and in fact to the Greeks the very definition of "Hero" is something absolutely indistinguishable from what we typically see in our culture today. To the Greeks, heroism was practically synonymous with today's highly successful businessman. They attained wealth, and fame/glory. Yet the very same literary minded people who attack Atlas Shrugged for this precise theme will write entire dissertations on Greek epics, usually in extremely high regard.

The difference is a change of setting, and the philosophy of the person reading the book. She wanted to bring back the values which brought out the best in an individual, where all around her were novels which said that people are to be loved for their flaws, and that one should be GUILTY for loving something for how good it is.

This is only one aspect of the book, but an important one.

As for the economic themes, if you disagree with anything said in the book I only have to direct you to the American economy today. Banks are being seized and sold by the government, hundreds of billions of dollars (forcefully seized from its citizens) being spent to bail out banks (And should I add that in the beginning the banks were forced to take on these subprime loans, or else be sued for 'economic discrimination' and face other fines/legality issues. I know no other way to determine who to give a loan to except for 'economic discrimination' ) Smoking bans for private property, private property seizures.. the list goes on.


I think it's very unfortunate that people will read this book and leave it with such a deep rooted misunderstanding of it, when I approached this book I thought that I understood Ayn Rand's philosophy (at the time I was a libertarian) but I realized that I had everything absolutely wrong, and I had to go on a personal quest to figure out right and wrong practically from the beginning. This book changed me from pragmatism, (The exact antithesis of "absolute" the most subjective philosophy to exist) and showed me a way to live my life and be supremely happy with my accomplishments. I've never been happier in my life, and I only intend to continue accomplishing and bettering myself. Why? because I want to.

That's what this book has done for me.

Atlas Shrugged works as a Fantasy Mystery or Detective Story. Ms.Rand succeeds at projecting the Russian Revolution of her homeland onto America, then reacting to it. To do this she had to drastically misunderstand American history.
The book does have some redeeming qualities. None of the protagonists have degrees in finance or economics. The Protagonists seem mostly to be mechanics, skilled hacks, and engineers. Rand developed the prototypes of many soundbytes used by coldwarriors and ideologues like Reagan and Greenspan.

The gospel of Ayn Rand's Objectivism is best discovered by analyzing her design of the Galt's Gulch civilization. What does it take for a civilization to exist to Ayn Rand's standards of freedom and capitalism? It has to have strict control over who is allowed to enter. The citizens must refuse to trade or commit commerce with all civilizations and individuals who do not live up to their standards of freedom. A hard currency of gold is used, yet somehow banking must also be possible. There must be engines that output more energy than is put into them(the laws of physics will rearrange themselves for you if you are "rational" enough). Objectivist Privateers must have better artillery and ships than national militaries. People who design air planes have tall lean physiques. Less than a days wages can pay for lectures from the top intellectuals and professionals. You can rent your friends car for a solid gold nickel, without having to sign release forms and provide proof of insurance.

Atlas Shrugged can serve as an inspiration for Iraqi Insurgents wishing to sabotage Iraqi civilization just to get rid of the people who don't live up to their standards of freedom and morality.

After the Bible, this is the most important book you should read. I bought this book as a gift to send to two friends and have done so before.

With the current economic crisis it takes on a new meaning.

After reading The Fountainhead, I was extremely eager to delve into Atlas Shrugged. Unfortunately, I found that Rand's follow-up failed to live up to my expectations.

The main driving point with Fountainhead was its story and dynamic characters. Just the sheer dialogue was enough to keep my interest throughout. However, I found Rand too busy extolling the virtues of 'objectivism' here, for the same thing to work. Near the end, she even places a non-stop 60-page diatribe about the philosophy; in my opinion, had the story been more succinct, this wouldn't be necessary. Often, I felt I was reading more of a lecture rather than an actual story.

Another problem I found was some of the characters seemed too fanatical to be real. James Taggert is so hysterical a character that many of his actions had me shaking my head in disbelief and questioning if any human being would act in such a way. Rand definitely makes it obvious where your empathy is supposed to lie and this keeps you from caring about many of the characters.

This is not to say the book is a waste. Much of the story is facinating and Rand possesses an amazing ability to write crafty/compelling dialogue. Dagny is a powerful woman and it's a joy to see her deal with every obstacle which she is faced. And the world which Rand creates is always well thought out. Had I seen more of this rather than being force-feed numerous ideals, I would have enjoyed the book much more.

In the end, if you're looking to experience Ayn Rand, I would strongly suggest you stick with The Fountainhead.

I had heard many references to Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged over the last few years and thought I would give it a try. Here are my thoughts:

The good: Though VERY long, this book is a page turner. The characters Rand introduces to us are rich (no pun intended) and well thought out. We come to feel greatly for several of them, even those who are not introduced until later in the book. Rand makes the case for her economic and cultural philosophy through parable, which in my opinion is the best way to reach the masses. The story is clearly meant for discussion and Rand makes her point clearly.

The not so good: As mentioned above, the book is long. The same story could have been presented in maybe half the pages. The speech toward the end which takes up 60 pages is too verbose and could have been said in maybe 10 pages or even less. I found myself scanning through this part. I would have preferred some of the "villains" in the story to be less of a caricature of the socialist tendencies in our society, though it may have been necessary for them to be this way for the book to be as satirical as it is. Somewhere around the middle of the book, the story strays from the realistic to the realm of science fiction. I found myself liking the first half better.

In short, this is a book everyone should read, even if for the entertainment value. I don't agree 100% with all of Rand's "Objectivism" philosophy, most notably on the concept of charitable giving, but as an economic screed there is quite a bit of wisdom in it. There are some important lessons to learn from Atlas Shrugged and the world would be a better place if we learned them.

Atlas shrugged has the same issues the Moby Dick does. Under a thousand page novel, a wonderful 200-300 page novel is struggling to get out. The book is a page turner, hard to put down, but is weighed down by the illogical worship of money and power. The assumption that the best minds will always float to the top and that those who are rich are more virtuous destroys a wonderful pulpy thriller. If she had stuck with fiction and ignored philosophy, this would be a 5-star review.

I read this book in one night, skipping the speech at the end going to the next part. That speech, in its own right is a horrible piece of drek that should have been edited out by any right-thinking publisher.

Pros: Gripping, hard to put down, somehow motivates you to find out what happens next
Cons: 2-dimensional (or less) characters, simplistic plot, unnecessary length, stupid pseudo-philosophy.

Conclusion: Not bad for a flight across the US if you can stand the embarrassment of carrying it.

Let's skip the "philosophy" debate-- judged as a story, this book sucks. It is boring. The characters are silly. The story is uninteresting.

I would give it less than one star if I could.

This novel is incredibly long, but the finest peace of literature I have ever read, and I have read many. This story is an intriguing tale that somehow relates to reality in a way that can clarify what seems to be so very wrong with society. This lady was an incredible writer. Even thought the entertainment value of this story made it worth the time, I can honestly say that it changed me and got me think about things I had never thought of before. It changed me for the better.

I knew absolutely nothing about Ayn Rand when I won a copy of this book in a review competition, and thought it was wonderfully ironic that the first novel I had 'chosen' to read since 1990 turned out to be a 1,168 page long philosophical treatise. Divine retribution, indeed, for having inflicted a 1,014 page novel on the public myself.

However, despite having lost the patience with novels years ago, I had taken this one on with the promise to review - and review I would, and no skimming bits either!
Atlas Shrugged is a simple story. For all its supposed breadth of scope and 'epic' qualities its essence can be boiled down to very little.

Indeed there is something strange about the fact that although it discusses (at great length) supposedly large philosophical issues, and sets itself in a curiously dated industrial 1950's America, it feels rather like someone trying to expand a very narrow range of experience into the semblance of something more 'deep'.

Ayn Rand can write, and it seems a great tragedy that she bogs down her obvious talent in a great mishmash of half-baked teenage notions repeated ad nauseam, as if in repetition they will somehow gain credibility.

She writes her 'philosophy' exactly like a fourteen year-old at the debating society: Is Capitalism a Force For Good or Evil?

Ayn believes it's good. It's good because capitalists build stuff, because competition encourages even better stuff, and because steel smelting plants look great at night.
Ayn believes industrialists are sexy. They are muscular, lean, tanned, have aquiline profiles, look good in dinner suits and are very confident.

You can tell she never met Richard Branson.

In fact, Ayn hasn't really conceived of men like Richard Branson - undoubtedly hardworking, competitive, indeed everything that Ayn expects 'great creators' to be, but missing the fact that now, a mere 50 years later, these men don't really create or build anything.

Ayn's 'great' philosophy didn't even make a hundred years before it went out of date. Her notions of how business works are frighteningly naïve and her determination to batter you to death with crudely-handled polemics reduces her scintillating poetic descriptions into The Collected Speeches of Senator McCarthy.

Atlas Shrugged may be considered a 'classic', but for me it will remain only a classic of How Not to Write a Novel, and a testament to how bad experiences in a communist regime do not necessarily make you very astute, let alone a 'philosopher'.

There is something solid about a book where the story echoes in reality fifty years after it was written. It amazes me how I can see the story of Atlas Shrugged play out in today's world again and again with different characters filling the roles. In this book Ayn Rand has captured many of the truths of our world, many realities about the personalities that inhabit it and many unspoken rules about the way we interact. This book celebrates individual accomplishment and those who change the world through sheer personal will power.

In regard to some of the comments I have read - this book is not by any means conservative leaning, especially in today's political environment. It actually attacks both political ideologies of the major political parties here in the United States. If you didn't catch that then you really weren't reading close enough.

The book is very wordy and the ending isn't as moving as most of the book is. However, it is a great read for anyone regardless of ideology. Every person who thinks themselves open-minded should read this book. Afterward you will think twice about the laws that we have put in place.

Atlas Shrugged is definitely a classic and one of my favorite books, although very wordy. Few readers I have known have agreed with every part of objectivism but Atlas Shrugged has in at least some small way affected the way they look at life.

The importance of this book rests in two areas. First, on a base level, are the characters. There is a clear divide between most of the life-affirming and destructive characters in the book: People like Dagny Taggart, Hank Rearden, Eddie Willers, and others on one side and sneaky characters like Jim Taggart, Dr. Ferris, and Orren Boyle on the other. They anchor the book. However, what makes the character list more interesting are those who you don't truly know on which side they will go, such as Dr. Stadler, Cheryl, and the "Wet Nurse." These are the most interesting to watch because they fall the most in the middle of character development, influenced heavily by both their attitudes and the worlds in which they live. For example, Stadler seems to want to be happy (as in watching the billy goat), but believes his course is stuck in one way and can't be changed (as seen with Project X).

More importantly, the philosophy divulged in the book is what makes it work. It's a book where the idea seems to be in existence and leaves it for the characters to discover or ignore, instead of the characters creating the ideas themselves. Thus, a good portion of the book is taken up with philosophical discussions and monologues. They can be a bit long, but they are very detailed and interesting to read. If there is anything on the philosophy with which I disagree, it's the route Rand takes to describe it. We should work for our own happiness, but I think that all lives are equal , and that the argument should have rested more on doing what makes our lives and the ones of those we love better. She makes allusions to this at times (most notably, in the discussion between Hank Rearden and Francisco D'Anconia at the steel mills), but I wish there had been more.

I have two issues. One is the descriptions she gives when discussing characters, especially in the romantic scenes. I hade heard about the forcefulness of the sex scenes, and I was a bit startled by it. I also believe that the language tends to read like a Fabio-like romance novel in its description in these sections. Also, Ayn Rand can be a bit preachy in discussing her beliefs. I stated earlier the thoroughness of the philosophical discussion, but there are times when she goes into overkill; the long monologue near the end of the novel (about 60 pages in this version) is a good example.

However, it is an engrossing novel and a very influential one. Every time I have read it (whether I agreed with sections or not), I feel invigorated and want to do something immediately afterwards. The influence comes from giving one the confidence and comfort to not be afraid to experience (as she states it) "the joy of existence" and not be afraid to succeed.

An episode of South Park inspired me to read Atlas Shrugged. In the episode in which Officer Barbrady finally learned how to read (The Chicken Plucker, I believe) he ended the show on a note that the book he had chosen to read (Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand) was "garbage" and not worth the read. I had actually never heard of Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand until I saw that episode. So, naturally, I decided I must find it and read it. Then I forgot all about it until I spied a like-new hard backed copy at the local library on the For Sale table for $1.00!! I bought it and started to regret the challenge when I looked at the tiny print and the 1168 pages. I sat it aside for a few weeks, thinking, "yeah, right, I'm going to read that". But, the challenge niggled at me and I began to read - and read - and read.

I understand that Ayn Rand's uptopia is peopled by those with a pragmatic objectivism philosophy, which some reviews consider to be selfishness. I didn't get the selfishness part as such. I interpreted her objective in writing this book as being AGAINST Socialism. I felt this was demonstrated by the entire society's falling apart by all those that had made it having to give all they had to all those that hadn't made it. As the thinkers and doers lost more and more of their livlihood to those contributing nothing at all and taking all that they could - these people formed a new society on the premise that you should do no work you do not love and you take absolutely nothing without paying for it in some way. Therefore, everyone contributes to their society and that society becomes strong. The original society was coming apart at the seams and eventually totally collapsed without the giants of industry to do everything for them. Individuals in the original society were not allowed to think, nor did they want to. I did NOT enjoy John Galt's Manifesto (Part 3, Chapter 7 "This is John Galt Speaking", pages 1000 - 1070 in my particular book). After reading the chapter in its entirity, I seriously would recommend skipping about 68 pages of that chapter. It's a drone and you'll get the point in the first 2 or 3 pages of that chapter, anyway!

This book seemed overwhelming in length and breadth, initially. But, I am glad that I read Atlas Shrugged, because it really does make one think. Think about things such as we have been under a President for almost 8 years that doesn't seem to want to think and our country and even the world seems to be in a really sorry shape. I kept thinking, as I was reading the book, that perhaps the current administration had read this book and were trying out for the parts of the political system described within. Heaven Help US!

Easily the best book I've ever read. Don't let the length scare you off, it's well worth it.

Pro: pro-capitalism

CON: way too long and verbose -- it almost seems as if Rand tried to squeeze in as many words as possible

No matter how true or right or great an idea or message is, if one fails to convey it in a succint and memorable manner, it's worthless. In retrospect I would just read the cliff notes for this treatise. Also, just like for the KJV Bible they have made Living and NIV versions in modern day language, the publisher of Atlas Shrugged needs to revamp it into a 21st century version -- they can use Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Meg Whitman for the protoganists. (Ok fine someone with more aesthetic appeal than Meg Whitman.)

Extremely prompt delivery from seller. As for the book, haven't read this 1200 page beast yet, but am looking forward to the exercise for the mind.

Atlas Shrugged came highly recommended, and, as I had been impressed by Rand's earlier The Fountainhead, decided to try this longer book.

If you don't expect any characterization or plot, and don't mind a highly repetitive hammering of a particular philosophical stance, you might find it tolerable. In fact, had the same storyline been told in 150-200 pages, it might not have been as bad-but at 1100+ pages, it was seriously stretched.

ALL the "good guys" are exceptionally competent polymaths, and are uniformly handsome, striking, and healthy. ALL the "bad guys" are seriously incompetent and have substantial physical flaws. Just by the description of a character--often running more than a page--you can tell where they stand.

All the "good guys" speak the same; there is no way to identify who is speaking from their speech patterns, word choice, phrasing, punctuation, or anything else: they're essentially verbal clones of each other, and all of them are promoting the same philosophy.

The same applies to the "bad guys", though they espouse a couple of (minor) variations on their philosophy, and one of them--a fairly minor one--could actually be identified by his speech patterns. The rest, again, were verbal and philosophical clones.

None of the major characters developed in any meaningful way. Some of them learned some facts, but none of them achieved any real growth. In fact, the only people who changed in any substantial fashion were minor characters, and many of them only did so immediately before dying.

One of the characters makes a speech in the later part of the book. That speech, which we were told was highly effective to the listeners, was not well phrased, well organized, nor fashioned in such a way as to keep any audience from falling asleep. That speech alone took 60 pages, with no interruptions or commentary from any other character; I had to take a break partway through, and ended up skimming the last 20-odd pages, as it was highly repetitious, both to itself, and everything else in the novel. The author could more effectively have elided it, and had a few characters talk about it in 2-3 pages; instead, the readers were treated to yet another repetition what had been repeated many times before.

From a philosophical standpoint, if Atlas Shrugged were shorter, from a novella to a very short novel, I could honestly suggest it to someone interested in the viewpoint Rand was pushing. At 1100 pages, I cannot.

It may be the worst novel I've ever bothered to finish; I kept hoping there would be something worthwhile in upcoming pages--a key character flaw the author argued against, in fact: hope based on a lack of acceptance of historical facts. It had no plot, no characterization, no character development or growth, poor dialog, and the most blatant hammering of a philosophical stance I've ever seen, spread out over substantially too many pages.

(For the record, I'm almost entirely in agreement with the position promoted by the protagonists. I don't disapprove of the message, merely the delivery--repeating the same thing a few hundred times doesn't make it any more convincing.)

Although this book is rather long (which is one of many's main complaints), and it took me about a month and a half to read, it was well worth it. I was so enthralled by the character of John Galt and the concept of selfishness not being a bad thing. I left with a much higher self esteem.

This book is a classic - a (very) long novel that puts forth a cohesive presentation of her conservative point of view. Now, fifty (50) years later we can see the reality of her brilliance with the crumbling of our government and society.

By far one of the best books I have ever read. Whether or not you agree with Rand's philosophy, this book will make you think.

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand is not just a novel; it is an intellectual illustration of the author's philosophy. It is also a suspense thriller, a mystery, a love story, and a self help book all rolled into one. It has been in continuous publication for over fifty years and people are still reading it. Why? Because though the philosophy is not perfect, it is not nearly as flawed as the other philosophies dished up and accepted for the last couple of thousand years. Ordinary man is not a worm; he is an individual and the values he adopts as an individual matter, they are the things that keep civilization moving, or freeze it into a static corpse. In reading Confucius one learns everyone and everything has a place and in this there is harmony, but there is no place for change. This is a major fault found in most philosophies and religious doctrines. The acceptable strategies for achieving happiness are all based on yesterday and today, none of them work when pitted against the only true constant of the universe, Change. Tomorrow always brings change, whether embraced or rejected, it comes and must be dealt with.
The characters in this story at the time of their creation were considered to be much larger than life, but life has gotten bigger since then and in today's world they feel only a little above real people we see in the news all the time. The story exposes the dark side of communism and the dangers of government meddling with the market, while inventors and entrepreneurs struggle to move the world into tomorrow. It begins with the sensing of change, the world is sliding into decay and stagnation. People have adopted cultural philosophies that are not logical and their civilization is not just slowing down, it's starting to fall backward. Instead of admiring achievement, people vilify it, feeling they should support those who can't achieve because this is a more noble way of behaving. Their philosophies are a lot like the recent acceptance of PC (politically correctness), where the truth and validity of an argument was not as important how it was stated and some things could not be discussed at all because such discussions were deemed not PC.
This is a book that will entertain and enlighten you and it could change the way you feel about those who criticize your achievements. At the time it was published the book had a message, but times have changed and interestingly enough the message has grown larger.

My husband won't stop talking about how great this book is. Anyone with a business background can appreciate it.

Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged (Signet, 1957)

I knew a great deal about Ayn Rand's philosophy long before I first experienced Atlas Shrugged. I read a good deal of her nonfiction in college, and a shorter novel, as well as endless articles about Rand and objectivism. I'm an objectivist myself, in the main, so it seems to me that if there's anyone Atlas Shrugged should appeal to, I'm it. Target audience, full steam ahead. Add to this that after a lot of reflection (and when you're in the middle of Atlas Shrugged, one of the ten longest professionally-published novels native to the English language, believe me, you have a great deal of time for reflection) I understood why Rand chose to keep her characters two-dimensional; paradoxically, it helped me remember who was who. But just because I appreciate something doesn't mean I have to like it.

I think anyone who's experienced Atlas Shrugged, even its most ardent defenders, is likely to have remarked at some point that a good editor would've don the book wonders. It could have easily been trimmed to five hundred pages (from its current 1,187) with very little trouble. But length alone is not enough to condemn a book; Stephen King's logorrhea garners sales in the millions, and the books are a great deal of fun to read.

Lack of subtlety in one's message is a reason to condemn a book, even when one agrees with the message in question. And yes, I do understand that John Galt's infamous sixty-page speech is a powerful piece of writing. What it is not, however, is something that has any place in a novel. It's as much fun to read, in its context, as the interminable, useless two hundred pages during which the action stops in Moby Dick so Melville can treat us to a treatise on how to kill, skin, and eat a whale. "But," the defenders cry, "it's all about theme!" Yes. That's my point. It's a novel. If you stop the action and address the reader with two hundred (or, in this case, sixty) pages of theme, you're no longer writing a novel, you're dolling up the editorial page and attaching your characters to it. And Galt's speech is, of course, only the culmination of many times-- dozens, at least-- Rand stopped the action, ignored the plot, and allowed her characters free rein to have endless discussions about the finer points of objectivism. All well and good, if you're writing a treatise on objectivism. But this is supposed to be a novel-- with well-drawn characters, a gripping plot, that sort of thing. Atlas Shrugged is not. It's the similarly execrable La Bas for a more enlightened crowd. It doesn't matter how much I agree with Rand's philosophy, or how much I enjoy her novels when they clock in at under half a million words. This is a book that almost demands you to read an abridged version. **

I thought the beginning started out a little slow, but then I was able to really get into the story. I was bored at times with all the philosopical speeches, but the rest of the story is good. This book really made me think. For people that think a lot about the what ifs of life they will really like it.

I started out wanting to read this book as a novel, not as a political treatise. I told myself: just because I don't like libertarianism doesn't mean Ayn Rand sucks. I told myself I'd be open-minded.

Well, the verdict is that the story is a nice enough story for about two thirds of the book, what with the collapse of the economy and the failing train system and the melodramatic hair-pulling of Dagny Taggart. There are two things that divide 'Atlas Shrugged' from good literature: the first is that the story is basically a wind-up for Galt's long monologue near the end. It (the story) contains no deeper meaning such as we look for in a text, besides Rand's repetitive Objectivist blithering. The characters, as many other reviewers note, are merely the figureheads of the two mighty ships of ideology whose clash constitutes the plot of the book, and despite the pretty paint that's on 'em they're about as interesting characters as a wooden figurehead is. Plus, it's painfully obvious where she's going with the plot. I had guessed the Big Secret of who John Galt is by page 300.

The second problem is that Rand's writing, though oozing with melodrama, is not great at all. In this age of spell-checkers and text messaging, when most impressionable youngsters will be wowed merely by Rand's ability to string grammatical sentences together with a minimum of outright infelicities, the number of positive reviews here raving about Rand's writing can hardly be surprising (though it is a bit saddening). We old-fashioned people with a healthier respect for excellent prose of depth, however, will have to look elsewhere for literary enjoyment.

This is a book of science fiction. The good guys have almost magical powers of accomplishing things because they are the good guys and the plot requires it. The bad guys are totally evil. etc. Typical space opera stuff in a sociological context. Not a problem for me.

My problem is that this is an awfully badly written book (like a lot of other SF cult favorites). Booooring. And mean-spirited. When I first read it as an adolescent I was surprised by the intensity of my dislike of its meanness. I tried to reread about 40 years later. Same reaction. Mean and boring.

My recollection of Rand herself on TV shows is of a certain dominatrix type charm(this is said positively, I remember her on Carson). She seemed likable but hardly to be taken all that seriously.

As for this philosophy stuff (Objectivism). Get real. It is not "a philosophy", or philosophy, or intellectually respectable. It may be a good mechanism by which a bunch of intellectually lazy poseurs can pretend to be "intellectuals". That is their business.

One star. Two or three were it not for the meanness factor. But I can see how space opera fans might love it.

I love this story. I understand that it is really about objective capitalism but I don't care. I'm a sucker for a long and detailed story about people, about life. The characters are expertly rendered. The fashion is used in a truly inspirational way. It brings a whole new layer the characters, especially Dagny.

Rand makes you think about your life and how you react when faced with a challenge or decision. It makes you question charity and welfare. It makes you wonder why some people are in destitute when there are always jobs to do, even if they are less than desirable

Atlas Shrugged is a beautifully written book. It's unbelievable that English was not Rand's first language.

Whether you like the message or not, Atlas Shrugged is an important piece of literature and should be read. Ayn Rand uses the novel as a medium to preach her views on socialism, capitalism, objectivism, the economy, and the government without holding back. She goes to the extreme to prove the point that the government should not be allowed to intervene in big business and that reason should be the basis for all decisions. Personally, I found the extreme morality of the heroes and heroine and the complete immorality of the political "looters" to be genius.
As a work of fiction I found Atlas Shrugged to be captivating, entertaining, and enjoyable. What I found even more fascinating was the philosophy behind the novel. I think that though the extreme morality versus immorality demonstrated in the characters Rand clearly shows the value of reason and logic and the dangers of apathy and cunning. She portrays the importance of independence, and the dangers of complete dependence on another person. Although this novel is politically charged, it is easy to read and extremely engaging.

There is no other book that encompasses a whole philosophy and moral code as well as Ayn Rand does in 'Atlas Shrugged'. Anyone looking to find moral ground for the pursuit of happiness and the right to live your life as you see fit, this is the book.

Rand outlines the necessity of the freedom of the mind and the soul from tyranny and oppression. She explains the virtue of individual thought and creativity to the advancement of the human race. The forces of evil and good are clear defined in this book. Ayn Rand creates heroes and horrible villains. It's an amazing book that is consistently overlooked at any level of the education system.

Read-this-book.

Ayn Rand is noted as saying she considers her interest in philosophy only as a tool to support her love of writing fiction. However, as Atlas Shrugged clearly exemplifies, Rand is a master of articulating her philosophy by means of her fiction.

Atlas Shrugged provides a storyline that expresses Rand's vision of Objectivism so well that one need not have any formal outline of her values beyond the storyline to comprehend her philosophy. Ironically, the speech by Galt to the nation that so clearly defines the philosophy of Objectivism was hardly needed to convey the message as the plot was so well contrived that it accomplished the task with ease. Thus if Atlas Shrugged has a weakness, it is in Rand's seemingly lack of interest in brevity; however, the perpetual nature of the storyline easily diffuses this issue.

Rand has the remarkable ability in this book to provide both eloquent expression of surroundings and emotion in conjunction with a plot line that builds and recesses to an eventual climax. Early on we are led to believe that we are in search of answers to questions that have not yet been fully formulated. This pursuit of truth is coordinated so well with the defining natures of her characters. The meaning of the disappearance of so many productive figures from society is nearly presented many times only to be taken away leaving the reader left yearning for more when those answers were abruptly thwarted (such as Francisco's meeting with Hank at the mills). This style of narrative bestows an abundance of interest while establishing the mindset of Rand's philosophy.

Much has been said regarding the manner in which Rand has expressed Objectivism in this book. Rand is often accused of creating a far too bipolar characterization of people, as well as an unrealistic mindset of the book's adversaries. Defense of her views is superfluous, as the philosophy either stands on its own merit or falters. However, Rand's use of lucid dialog and expression of character flaws to communicate her ideals, even while reaching to extremes, is clearly with the guided intent of making her point. We should also recall that Rand entered this world deep in the heart of the Soviet Union where people of such extreme socialistic views were not uncommon evidenced by the communist existence itself. Rand presents a work of fiction that illustrates an atypical philosophy, not a commentary on human nature. While the manner may be close in nature, any critical thinking of this book will produce the obvious nature of the difference and come to the conclusion that Rand does an admirable job expressing her vision whether the philosophy is sound or not.

I highly recommend reading Atlas Shrugged to those interested in undertaking any critical thinking. Rand presents a disciplined and unyielding philosophy that deserves both scrutiny and consideration. One has the added benefit of discovering Objectivism within the realm of an enjoyable fictional piece that includes mystery, romance, industry, and plenty of action. While there are many great philosophers whose work might rank higher in overall consideration, few among them would be as aptly capable of wrapping their position into a separate and pleasing storyline as Rand has bestowed with Atlas Shrugged.

There is a reason why college students love this book, join the Objectivist's Club, and then fall into real life and join the political party of their choice. If they truly loved this book, they they will be a Republican. If they hated it, as I did, as I do every one of her books, you will be a Democrat or Democratic Socialist. I was 8 months pregnant when someone gave me this book. I made it to page 753. Then, when the deserving rich have made a commune for themselves in the Rocky Mountains, one of their members discovers a cure for cancer. They decide that the struggling masses of working and unemployed worthlessness that is the rest of the world do not deserve to have this cure (even though the cancers may be caused by the rich's own companies and/or lack of safety devices in factories). At page two, I called my best friend and said "This book is a right wing manifesto, right??" She said yes and wondered how long I would actually read it. On page 753, I threw the book as hard as I could against the wall. Then I tore it into little pieces. Very little ones. It took a few days. It was far more fun than actually reading it. Look, her basic philosophy is NO government. Man's basic birthright is to make himself happy in any way possible. If that means stepping all over other people, then all the better. The stepped on deserve it! Why didn't they get out of the way, those morons! The basic problem with Rand and with her "philosophy" (I do not believe her book or her ideas are a complete philosophy. I believe they are conservative masturbation), anyway, as I was saying, the problem is that Rand completely omits the FACT that you cannot, can NEVER omit the link between self and community. The only reason rich people are rich is that there are thousands of people working to keep them that way. The reason poor people stay poor is that there are hundreds of thousands of people trying to keep them that way. I'm not an idiot, I have a Ph.D. in Rhetoric and Social Justice. If you want an innoculation against this horrendous, criminal book, read Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed or Cornel West's Race Matters or Hope on a Tightrope: Word and Wisdom by Cornel West or even NIV Pocket Thin New Testament With Psalms & Proverbs by Jesus Christ and other good people. If you are religious and smart, read Introducing Liberation Theology. Or, just look around you. Think about how you ignore the people who clean your messes up, the people who ring up your purchases, the people who keep the entire infrastructure of the world running. They don't deserve a cure for cancer, but the CEOs of Philip-Morris and Nike do? Please. Go out and commit and act of love today. And just don't read this book, unless your reading is to arm you against those who have read it and believe it. THINK! The book, for me, boils down to this: A huge slap in the face to all working class people in the world. All of them. (working class defined as: people who have only their labor to sell; people who live from paycheck to paycheck; people who have no health insurance; people who cannot afford good education for their children -- not even an apartment in a good district -- people who are not in unions but who do physical labor -- teachers, miners, farmers (not the conglomerate farmers, but single farmers), factory workers, sweatshop workers, secretaries, telemarketers, data entry processors, mailmen, etc., etc., etc.) You or your father and mother or your grandparents were most certainly from the working class. If you are the first person in your family to complete a college degree (B.A.) then your family is working class. If your parents didn't complete high school, they are working class. I could go on, but Rand believes that NONE of these people deserve anything good. She would spit in their faces and use the heel of her boot to grind it in if she could. She is a nightmare human being, good only as a negative example of what NOT TO BE. By the way, vote Obama '08.

In reading a good half of the reviews, people either tell you to read it or not read it. Many people spent paragraphs telling you what you should think of it and how you should not be bothered to read such trip and low brow philosophy(if it ever was) and trash in an overwhelming, unconquerable, epic 1070 pages, how her characters were paper and transparent and unrealistically heroic, how wrong she was, how the real world is not, cannot and should not be this way. The Looters of her novel.

The people who side with Ayn Rand had only a paragraph or two and at most had a description on how it benifitted their life and that one should read it for their own analysis. That it is knowledge to be learned or to bolster freedom loving peoples ideals. The Capitalists of her novel.

In fact you are handed in these reviews, a real life example and the essance of what she was putting on display in this novel. The simple fact that there are people who will tell you what to think and do and that there are people who tell you what they think and leave you to do what you will with that knowledge and that is your responsibility.

In Atlas Shruggs, Ayn Rand asks the question of what will happen if all the people who DO things in a country go on strike when a goverment attempts redistribution of wealth, be it gold, property or ideas. What if they said no and refused to create wealth with ideas, ability and capital, for no goverment has ever created wealth but instead takes it and doles it out to those who do no such thing. The world would stop. This is in opposition to the leftists asking what would all you industrialists do if your workers went on strike. They would simply shrugg and make robots to do the work instead.

Ayn Rand's Utopian system is simple.....there is no system, as in true capitalism. She understands the founders of this country far more then it's born citizenry I think. She champions the ideas that its the superiority of the individual that makes people wealthy and that one's self is the only one who can make one's self happy and successful. She shines a bright spotlight on Collectivism and its evils of forced charity which is and eternally stands as an oxymoron. She marvalously cuts down Political correctness and artificial equality.

I liked the novel immensly and highly reccomend it. I find the heros (thats what they are) to be totally realistic, encouraging and refreshing and not unlike myself. Infact I found them to be very much like myself. I also found her antagonsits to be equally realistic especially given todays changes that are afoot in this country.

In the end I find excerps from her novel word for word in todays news and political arena. Scary stuff considering how long ago she wrote this and where she was born.

I am John Galt!

This is my first acquaintance with the writing of Ayn Rand, and I walk away impressed, but not taken aback. Atlas Shrugged hammers home Rand's personal philosophy Objectivism in very eloquent language and a complex story with great detail. Does Rand accomplish her goal of creating an allegorical novel explaining the dangers of dependent, socialistic society? yes. Does this make for an excellent novel? Most of the time. Her characters are one dimensional, either completely embodying the Rand model for ideal person, or embodying the opposite. Is there no one in her world with a Objective mind, but the human quality of weakness? Rand would have us believe not. The style of the novel is something that you adapt to: eloquent and excessive. The 70 page soliloquy by the character John Galt is one example where Rand could have stated her point in less words. Overall, recommended for fans of philosophy who can stomach some wordiness. 4.5/5 stars (I rounded down because it was closer to 4).

In our world of self-serving media sound bytes Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand should be required reading for college students. Especially in an election year all book clubs and libraries should put it on their lists for discussion. Our country is spinning out of control by promising everything to everyone but always taking for granted those that provide the wealth from which we all benefit through our jobs, our lifestyles, and our self worth. Ayn Rand was an immigrant to America from Russia in the early part of the 20th century. She saw her country collapse. Her philosophy that was written in 1956 seems like it was written yesterday afternoon. Do you have the courage to read it?

If you are a conservative, a libertarian, or at least a thinking person this is a must read. Objectivism would be such a valuable paradigm for people to embrace, especially in the 'modern' world where 'second-handism' seems to tbe the coin of the realm.
Do yourself and the rest of us a favor, and get this book as well as The Fountainhead