Disappointed with Atlas Shrugged

[berrybunches]

First off I want to say that The Fountainhead is in my top 5 favorite books.
I am half way through Atlas now and its disappointing.

My problems with Atlas thus far are as follows:
1) The characters are very dull - where are the complex, evolving characters like Howard Roark and Dominique Francon?

2) Writing style is overly preachy, patronizing and at times seems condescending.

3) Story line isn't that interesting.

4) Corporate business owners are not that damned moral. Sure, if everyone ran a business like Rearden than fine, but that truly is and always has been a minority....he isn't a minority due to government intervention in free markets.

5) Why I put this in the philosophy section: The book makes some great points dealing with the causes and effects of good intentioned market interventions but I do not see any philosophical value to it. All the philosophy in the book are ideas that she seems to have stolen from other philosophers and claims them as her own. The only philosophical value I see in it is how she applies self interest philosophy to capitalist societies. And even still, it was not really new or innovative.


So that's why I am disappointed in the book.
The Fountainhead was good because it was a fiction novel incorporating philosophical ideas through its characters. Atlas is not so good because it is a fiction novel and is written like a lecture trying to pass its self off philosophy.

Ayn Rand certainly isn't the inventor of self interest philosophy...in fact, almost all philosophy deals with this.
One has to wonder if those who follow her have ever picked up another philosophy book because, I think, if they did, she would be easily replaced.

[BuddyRey]

To each his or her own, I guess. I thought The Fountainhead was much more preachy than Atlas Shrugged.

[berrybunches]

To each his or her own, I guess. I thought The Fountainhead was much more preachy than Atlas Shrugged.

It really could be the development of my thoughts and ideas in between the time when I read the two books. In the last 2 years I have learned a lot. I might read The Fountainhead again too see if I change my mind.

[Andrew-Austin]

I read Atlas a few years ago. Listened to an audio book of The Fountainhead under a year ago. Maybe I liked the Fountainhead more just because it was an audio book, but I think its digestible length helped a bit too. But I should probably read AS again. I think the first time I read it I wasn't even a libertarian yet.

As far a characters go, Howard Roark was more likable/heroic than say.. Rearden.

And maybe it was just the audio performance, but I was really interested in the bad guys in The Fountainhead compared to the ones in Atlas Shrugged.

The only part I didn't like in The Fountainhead, was when he oddly felt compelled to blowup that building like that. I mean, that is just unhealthy, he could probably find some other hobbies in addition to architecture.

[Joe3113]

If you are already converted, or know of the philosophy - then it's not going to be as good as if you are first discovering it.

[Icymudpuppy]

I find the books a useful tool of showing extreme examples of why socialism doesn't work.

As a business owner in the Army Reserves, I get a lot of soldiers asking me about starting their own business.

Just yesterday, I had a Major ask me about a business idea he had in which all the employees, regardless of what their job was would get paid the same. I proceeded to copy the section about the Twentieth Century Motor company so he would understand.

[ScoutsHonor]

I find the books a useful tool of showing extreme examples of why socialism works.

As a business owner in the Army Reserves, I get a lot of soldiers asking me about starting their own business.

Just yesterday, I had a Major ask me about a business idea he had in which all the employees, regardless of what their job was would get paid the same. I proceeded to copy the section about the Twentieth Century Motor company so he would understand.

You mean, I think, why Socialism *doesn't* work, right? :cool:

[Icymudpuppy]

You mean, I think, why Socialism *doesn't* work, right? :cool:

Precisely Corrected.

[constituent]

First off I want to say that The Fountainhead is in my top 5 favorite books.
I am half way through Atlas now and its disappointing.

My problems with Atlas thus far are as follows:
1) The characters are very dull - where are the complex, evolving characters like Howard Roark and Dominique Francon?

2) Writing style is overly preachy, patronizing and at times seems condescending.

3) Story line isn't that interesting.


I could not agree more. Unfortunately, it seems that many who get hung on Ayn Rand tend to borrow more from her style than anything else.

[Arklatex]

Long time no see BerryBunches!

[Bruno]

I thought the storyline was very interesting, but I have not read The Fountainhead. I did skim through the 60+ page speech by John Galt, however.

[ScoutsHonor]

I thought the storyline was very interesting, but I have not read The Fountainhead. I did skim through the 60+ page speech by John Galt, however.

The Fountainhead is excellent also. It has one of the most interesting villains of all time in the person of a character called "Ellsworth Toohey." :)

[sevin]

Weird. I liked Atlas Shrugged more than the Fountainhead. Keep reading, it gets better as it goes, IMO. However, John Galt's speech near the end is almost 100 pages long. As much as I like that speech, she should have shortened it and saved the rest for one of her nonfiction books.

[newbitech]

I thought the book was anti-climatic. Who is John Galt?

He's a wizard!

[Bruno]

The Fountainhead is excellent also. It has one of the most interesting villains of all time in the person of a character called "Ellsworth Toohey." :)

Thanks! I'll add that to my list! :)

[ScoutsHonor]

You're welcome. :-)

[emazur]

I thought the storyline was very interesting, but I have not read The Fountainhead. I did skim through the 60+ page speech by John Galt, however.

The Galt speech is way too long, it was easier for me to go through it all b/c I had the audiobook. But if you only skimmed it, you probably missed what I consider to be some of the most important words ever written (most important to me anyway, b/c I experienced for most of my younger years exactly what was discussed in the second paragraph, and until reading Atlas Shrugged I had always wondered how many people out there, if any, understood this):

Do you want to know who is John Galt? I am the first man of ability who refused to regard it as guilt. I am the first man who would not do penance for my virtues or let them be used as the tools of my destruction. I am the first man who would not suffer martyrdom at the hands of those who wished me to perish for the privelege of keeping them alive. I am he first man who told them that I did not need them, and until they learned to deal with me as traders, giving value for value,, they would have to exist without me, as I would exist without them; then I would let them learn whose is the need and whose the ability - and if human survival is the standard, whose terms would set the way to survive.

I have done by plan and intention what has been done througout history by silent default. There have always been men of intelligence who went on strike, in protest and despair, but they did not know the meaning of their action. The man who retires from public life, to think, but not share his thoughts - the man who chooses to spend his years in the obscurity of menial employment, keeping to himself the fire of his mind, never giving it form, expression or reality, refusing to bring it into a world he despises - the man who is defeated by revulsion, the man who renounces before he has started, the man who gives up rather than give in, the man who functions at a fraction of his capacity, disarmed by his longing for an ideal he has not found - they are on strike, on strike against unreason, on strike against your world and your values. But not knowing any values of their own they abandon the quest to know - in the darkness of their hopeless indignation, which is righteous without knowledge of the right, and passionate without knowledge of desire, they concede to you the power of reality and surrender the incentives of their mind- and they perish in bitter futility, as rebels who never learned the object of their rebellion, as lovers who never discovered their love.

And I'm the opposite of the OP - I read Atlas Shrugged first and was disappointed by The Fountainhead. It's still really good, but I thought Atlas had a much better plot. Also, Rearden is awesome.

Anthem is pretty good (also very short), and I didn't really care for We the Living much - only finished about 1/3 before stopping but I'd be willing to give it another shot.

[anaconda]

Did Ayn Rand contribute to charity?

[sevin]

Did Ayn Rand contribute to charity?

I doubt it. But if she did, it was only because she genuinely wanted to give to charity and got a good feeling out of it, which is fine, imo.

I give to charity, but for selfish--not altruistic--reasons; I want to see that particular charity do well.

[ScoutsHonor]

Did Ayn Rand contribute to charity?

This is an interesting question.

[ScoutsHonor]

Precisely Corrected.

You are gracious sir.. :)

[ScoutsHonor]

I thought the book was anti-climatic. Who is John Galt?
He's a wizard!

Nah...did you get that idea from reading the book?? ...:confused::o