Atlas Shrugged: (Centennial Edition)

A prescient parable for 2012 as the "free" world becomes ever more regulated in the name of collective obligation, and the "unfree" world grows primarily through religious dictatorships overthrowing godless dictatorships. Rand’s central thesis - that there are only a small number of prime movers in a creatively productive society - seems increasingly true as the machinery of anti-business regulation in "free" economies crushes the entrepreneurial spirit. One startling damning point against Christianity, which I am astonished that had overlooked, is the casting of knowledge as the fruit of the devil. The parable of Adam and Eve is directed not against sin, but against knowledge! Such an evil intent ! There are many minor quibbles that I have with the reasoning - especially her attempt to argue that all contracts are freely entered, except when coerced by the "gun". Only against such contracts, is it morally excusable to retaliate with violence. To me this attempt at simple binary categorisation of coercion denies the smooth continuum of coercive techniques and the consequent continuum of reduction in their moral force. Criticism of the wooden style and "two dimensional characterisation" is misplaced in that the book is not an exploration of the character of individuals, but the characteristics of human society. It has more in common with ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra’ than with ‘War and Peace’. It is a polemic (or even a bible) as much as a novel. The John Galt radio speech is the longest "voice over" I have ever experienced. It's purpose is explicitly philosophical rather than dramatic. All books alter the minds that read them. Some books give me the sense that I will see everything a little different for the rest of my life, even if the detail of the text fades. Atlas Shrugged has "shaken and stirred" my attitudes – an experience reported by huge numbers of people over decades. The fact that it has been so 'actively' ignored by the "intelligentsia" while remaining so influential, feeds directly into the novels narrative.

When I finished reading The Fountainhead, I thought that it would be a superhuman feat two have two books like The Fountainhead. And I read Atlas Shrugged(most of it) and found out that Rand is not superhuman. I found this very contradictory to Fountainhead, the heroes in this novel are often sympathetic to their kind and Rand's heroes (at least Roark)do not want any sympathy. They are often on the verge of tears and sorry for the situation the world has put them in. In The Fountainhead, the hero accepts the will of the world and sees himself as a Tank, that nothing will matter and he will mow down anything that gets in his way with his passion for his work. But, the heroes in Atlas Shrugged choose to give lengthy monologues and escape into mountains. I never though I could have such polar opposite opinions about the same idea presented in two different books. The biggest blunder of Rand is in assuming that Heroes are a different breed and that you could separate them selectively, she forgets that what gives rise to a hero in most cases is the necessity and if Galt kept picking up these able men and shifting them to Atlantis, soon he would not have enough place because such is the nature of man that a vacancy is filled almost instantly. Unlike Roark in The Fountainhead these heroes choose to run away from the world rather than face it.

Atlas Shrugged is the product of a victimized and narcissitic woman who could barely function without screeching about those who would steal her liberty. Where Rand would see Stalin's jackboots, the rest of society sees the need for cooperation to overcome indifferent Mother nature. Atlas shrugs, and a "great" man disavows any responsibility of his existence to those who came before, or to any who will come after. The world would be a better place if Rand had merely become a hermit in the back woods, scribbling her drivel on bark, rather than sucking on the teat of the civilization that harbored her delusional, parasitic self.