Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 окт 2020
- More my reading experience, thoughts on the audiobook, and the writing than the themes and motifs of the book.
My Goodreads: / 6315232
My Twitter: / anywiebs
My Instagram: / anywiebs
My Letterboxd: letterboxd.com/Anywiebs/
Many people don't realize Atlas Shrugged, although a work of fiction, is actually a philosophy book. She chose to explain her philosophy in a story format using character and plots in order to get her ideas across instead of explaining it by writing a traditional philosophy book. I'm so happy she chose to do this. Philosophy books are brutally boring and difficult to read. Atlas Shrugged is a pleasure every time I read it.
Ah yes, philosphy books can be hit or miss for me as well. Same happens with novelized philosophy though. So nice to hear you enjoy the book.
Maybe a few weeks ago, I watched a very interesting video that was basically an endorsement of Atlas Shrugged (among other things).
What was interesting was that the video was made by a fan of someone I follow (her name's Karen). The person who made the video estimated Karen's Myers-Briggs personality to be an INFP.
But, in the fan's opinion, Karen would be able to do so much more if she were an INTP (moved from Feeling to Thinking), and the fan recommended Karen read Atlas Shrugged.
Because the video made such an impression upon me, yesterday, I started reading Atlas Shrugged.
What I've done in the past is read and listen at the same time, and I may have to do that with this book. I'm also a slow reader, and I find the combination of reading and listening to be a more immersive experience.
I agree, I have used the audiobook as a reread while still reading the book before (not here, but with other books) I made sure to be ahead of the audiobook by a few chapters at all times so that by the end I read and reread the book which helped in keeping the ideas straight and also understand things better/differently the second time around. Happy reading!
Yep... a person have a heart and a brain. Which of it is in the driver seat. The brain can stay on the road and get you to your destination. If the heart is in the driver seat, you will be driving off the cliff eventually. The emotional and broken bleeding heart.
I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged and it's characters even though I think the thought experiment has a lot of holes. Emotionally I was very caught up in Dangy Taggarts personal journey. The overall feel is fantastic, and exists in my head as an art-deco science fiction fever dream.
Art-deco science fiction fever dream is an amazing description of the book. I agree, the experiment and philosophy behind it has flaws, still need to look deeper into it.
I'm currently on my fourth attempt to tack this monster of a novel. The three previous occasions have been with a physical book and the bulk of it does make the task very daunting and formidable. This time I'm reading it on my Kindle and I don't have that issue and I'm finding the experience a bit easier, thus far. I'm only 300 pages deep at the moment. I am aware of its affection amongst the conservative Right but I'm trying to remain objective and try to extract some positive aspects. I was already attracted to the ideas: "I will stop the motor of the world" and "the immovable mover". I imagine that my own interpretation the these phrases will differ greatly from Ms. Rand's. But I am a firm believer in not throwing out the baby with the bath water and that there is wisdom to be found in the mostly unlikely places, sometimes they are not readily apparent.I
I have issues with audiobooks myself. When one is reading a book, whether a physical one or digital, you are focused on the text whereas if you're listening to an audiobook your mind and attention might start to wander and possibly miss important information. Unless you're in a situation where you can remain ridgedly focused on what you're listening to (say on a long walk) it will be hard to maintain interest for any sustained period of time. I prefer that intimate relationship between author and reader and any third party is a distraction,especially when the audio reader has all the dynamics of a voice-to-text programme. I've heard some audiobooks that are done exceedingly well, they are usually done by actors who know how to emphasise words and bring the text to life. One of my favourites is Brian Cox reading Heart of Darkness.
But I've digressed from the topic at hand. Thus far I'm engrossed in the drama of Dagny trying to find the inventor of this revolutionary motor that might save her company. But as I've experienced previously that just as the story gets exciting it shifts to a less exciting one, adding more and more characters. This book could have been whittled down by several hundred pages. I'm not averse to long books but their length should be justified and not feel like an author's ego run amok. I recently reread Stephen King's literary speed bump IT which suffers from an author not knowing when to edit. One of my favourite pieces of advice in creative writing comes from Hemingway 's The Moveable Feast in which he remarks: Know the complexity of a situation and then state it simply. Both Rand and King could learn a value lesson from this. On my third attempt I just hit a wall and I gave up. I was more than half way through and surrendered. Hopefully this time I will see it through to the end. If I could survive reading the tedium of The Lord of the Rings I can survive Atlas Shrugged.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and I hope you make it to the end this time.
Audiobook, the reader/actor can really ruin the story. I heard an older one, i don't know the name of reader but it was created in 1991 by blackstone audio. Imo this is a much better narrator than the other guy, he threw in loads of emotions that were not suppose to be there.
Anyway, i hope this will kindle your interest because without it going through this book is a chore and that ruin the joy of it.
Very good to hear your thoughts and experience of this as I’ve tentatively started listening to ‘The Fountainhead’. As you mention, there seem to be so many important elements in both books that I find myself having to go back to the beginning incase I’ve missed something. With 30 or 40 hours ahead it’s likely to take me years to finish but I’m intrigued enough to push on. Something very unique about Ayn Rand’s style and thinking.
I got curious about that one now, too. I saw the movie but didn't like/get it. Her writing has me hooked though.
Interesting to hear your thoughts. I will definitely go with the audiobook if I ever read this one I think. I read We The Living, Rand's second novel, a few years ago and loved it. I've heard it described as the only 'true novel' she ever wrote, and yet it always seems to be forgotten about, which is such a shame.
I really need to read more of her. Honestly never gave her books much thought before, but her writing impressed me so much I am curious if this was an exception or the norm.
I read Anthem last year. It was one of my favorite books! It’s a book about the importance of individualism. It’s pretty short, but so much story packed in. I tried to read another book by her, but it was way over my head.
This was my first, but am curious about her other work. A short one is welcome next ☺️
Ayn Rand has a book of short stories. It's great. Kyra's Viking is one of my favorite.
Of her four novels that she wrote - and that I read - Anthem was the one I did not finish. It was one of the most boring, time-wasting things ever, especially since it's basically - whether intentional or not - a complete rip-off of We by Yevgeny Zamyatin.
Chapter length is annoying if I want to read one in each sitting but apart from that I’m finding it an enjoyable story. Enjoyable enough to want to read some of rands other novels.
Oh true, the chapters are not designed for a comfortable reading session. I still haven't gotten around to her other novels. Thanks for the reminder :)
Thank you for a thoughtful, neutral (i.e. seems unbiased) review.
Very few reviews of the novel are remotely neutral.
Thank you very much. I can see how that happens with this book. Comments were interesting on this video.
(my previous comment sounded really hostile, but I want you to know that my hostility is entirely towards Ayn Rand, and not to you, I actually really enjoyed watching your vlog, and it's nice to hear about the story of the book and how you felt about it!)
Thanks you. I understood that it wasn't me that aggravated you.
Very helpful, thanks
Happy reading!
I love Scott Brick, he is a great narrator.
This was my first encounter of his work, but will keep my eyes open for other things he's done.
Very interesting video. I also don’t know anything about the book, but living in California I hear this book often quoted with even more hate and contempt than “Mein Kampf”, which is of course dumb, but then it was Truman Capote who said “I lose an IQ point for every year I spend in California” : )
Haha, great quote! I've heard her name mentioned mostly in a negative context. People really don't seem to like her.
@@1book1review her philosophy challenges the worldview help by most people. It makes them uncomfortable.
Rand was a fierce proponent of individualism and detested tribalism in all of its many forms. From the identity politics of the left to the nationalism of the right much of politics is based on what tribe you belong to.
Not only that, but she challenged some of our fundamental beliefs. She held that altruism , the sacrifice of the individual for the sake of society, is evil. Altruism is one of the fundamental beliefs of the world today. From Jesus' sacrifice on the cross to the modern welfare state, the idea that we must all sacrifice for others is ingrained in us from birth. She challenged that. This makes people uncomfortable.
When someone's fundamental beliefs are challenged, they tend to lash out. They create strawman arguments or attack her as a person. If you look at the criticisms of Rand, they tend to fall into two categories. They either attack her as a person or they create superficial arguments against her.
For example, they argue that she promoted the idea of selfishness without understanding what she actually meant by the term. To most people, selfishness refers to lying, cheating, stealing. Rand would not call that selfish. She'd call that self destructive. She referred to them as looters and moochers. This would be a character like Orrin Boyle or Jim Taggart. People who lie, cheat, or steal to succeed have convinced themselves that they are not able to succeed on their own merits. That's a destruction of self.
Her idea of selfish was someone who regarded their self esteem as of primary importance. True self esteem, earned through accomplishments. Her selfish characters were characters like Dagny Taggart and John Galt. People who understood that self esteem is earn through hard work and accomplishments and not by lying, cheating, and stealing. Someone who was selfish in the way Rand defined it would never take anything they hadn't earned. Conversely they would never pay something they didn't owe.
They also argue that she put the businessman over the worker. But that's not true either. Most of her villains were businessmen. I've already listed people like James Taggart and Orrin Boyle. And some of her heroes were workers. For example Eddie Willers. And the list of people at Galt's Gulch included composers, actresses, authors, judges, etc.
Atlas Shrugged was the culmination of her life's work. She started out writing about the dangerous and destructive nature of socialism in stories like We the Living and Anthem. These were based on her experience growing up during the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. She then wrote The Fountainhead where she explored the idea of an ideal man. She then took that idea and developed that into Atlas Shrugged, which combined the two different themes, the "selfish" individual and the altruistic society. After Atlas Shrugged she turned to writing non-fiction and developing her philosophy.
One of the criticisms of Atlas Shrugged is that her characters are cardboard cutouts or too black and white. And that's true to some extent, at least the second point. Rand was a philosopher as well as a writer. She used her novels as a way to explain philosophy. Characters like John Galt and Orrin Boyle are embodiments of their philosophies, Galt the individualist and Boyle the collectivist, whereas Dagney and Hank are both mixes of the different philosophies and evolve as the novel goes on.
@@Biologist19681 Wow, thanks for that comment. I'm not sure I am fully on board with some things you said, but still haven't dug deeper into her other works to know what she means, I only have this book to draw from. I agree that people dislike having their believes challenged but I dont think the challenger is automatically right. Not being American gives me a different background on socialist ideas and the welfare state. I can agree with some of her notions, especially when it comes to giving jobs to people because they are competent, not because they have "a right" to it, like so many of her characters demand to be given (another) chance and not taking responisbilities for their failures. This drives me up the wall and I am all for valuing competence more. However, I highly disagree with her aversion to taxes.
@@1book1review understood. It's not something that people take to easily as it challenges their preconceived world view.
On the idea of taxes, the idea is that taxes should be replaced by user fees and donations. Not overnight but over time. This is the reasoning behind it:
If you want to help the poor, you could go rob a bank and donate that money to the poor. Is this moral? Most people would say no. But why is it okay for the government to do the same thing, take money from people who earned it through threat of violence and give it to others?
Charity is the answer to how do you help those people who really can't help themselves. Why would people give to charity in a "selfish" (in Ayn Rand's meaning) world? Because people are a value to you.
@@Biologist19681 Ah there I think you/she is wrong, Just take health care, the US has a really messed up system that is forcing people to rely on begging for money to pay their bills or get necessary treatment. And yes, I just compared charity to begging, because that is what you force people to do if you say it is acceptable to rely on the charity of others to have your basic needs met. Also we see how well the charity system works: Companies exploiting people for their own gain blaming them for their poverty instead of taking responsibility that they just don't get their fair share of the companies earnings.
If you compare countries that use taxes to those relying on charity to cover basc human needs I'm sure the tax systems wins out. I'm not saying it's perfect and we are far of from using it to its full potential, but the charity system is an ideology that sells a feel good feeling by doing less than if you paid proper taxes. The financial outpour would be greater, but people don't feel good about paying taxes, partly because we can't decide what our money is used for unlike with charity: you get to say who gets support and who doesn't. Charity is hoax made necessary by a broken system protecting the wealthy's wealth. Which I think is what Rand was against.
I haven't read it, but I've heard mixed things about it, and Ayn Rand.
Yeah, she seems to be a lot.
Give it a shot. Form your own opinion. It seems everyone either hates it or loves it - it's been appropriated by the right, and panned by the left, and it seems both have an overly simplistic take on what is largely a mixed-bag of a novel. I've been rereading it (13 years since I last read it) and the characters do tend to be one-dimensional caricature strawmen, and the the dialogue is not at all how people talk - but I'm still enthralled by the plot, the descriptive writing is strong (seems Rand was better at writing places than people) and there's a few good quotes here and there.
@@nl3064 Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I have trouble saying how much I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged because the writing is so good but Ayn Rand's philosophy is abhorrent and I don't want people to confuse my admiration of this novel with admiration of objectivism.
One of my favourite scenes from the book is when the brother is standing on a train platform wishing that he had a friend on whom he could lean on, literally and figuratively, because he is just so weary and tired. It really connected with me at the point in my life when I read that.
I'm glad you enjoyed it.
I have no probems separating the author from the text. also don't know her philosophy enough to form a proper opinion.
However, I could not relate to the brother as he was leaning heavy on everyone and taking it for granted that they should support him.
What do you find abhorrent about her philosophy?
Coment abaout the reading not about you and your time management
My video, my channel, I can do what I want. Sorry not sorry.