Rapidshare atlas shrugged

About Rand's philosophy I'll just make two points which I'm not going to bother providing evidence for at the moment. The first is that, like most social Darwinists, Rand fell short in her understanding of natural selection. Her philosophy was largely based on the false belief that nature invariably favors individual selfishness. In reality, evolution has made homo sapiens a social animal; cooperation and compassion are very human traits. More importantly, even if cold selfishness were man's nature in the wild, it would not necessarily follow that that would be the best way for us to behave in our semi-civilized modern condition.

The second point is that, contrary to Rand's belief, pure laissez-faire capitalism never works; it invariably leads to exploitation of the poor and middle class and to environmental catastrophe.

The best economic system that has ever been devised -- so far -- is a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Apr 17, deanna rated it did not like it Recommends it for: the unsubtle. The best way to understand Rand's message in this book is to simply close it, and beat yourself over the head with it as hard as possible. This is essentially what Rand does throughout it's ridiculous length.

I see no reason that a book with a strong lesson can't also have decent character development, natural dialog, and a believable plot. Of course, I also think that you can establish a theme with subtlety, and trust that your reader will figure it out.

Ayn Rand writes as if the elements of fi The best way to understand Rand's message in this book is to simply close it, and beat yourself over the head with it as hard as possible. Ayn Rand writes as if the elements of fiction get in the way of her message, and that reader's skull's are extraordinarily thick and require a firm beating over the head to absorb the theme.

Countless philosophers have said the same thing better and quicker. I realize that I offend many atheists, agnostics and free thinkers by writing this, but as one myself, I have to say that a passionate love of Ayn Rand is not required for membership in that particular club. Save yourself a headache, and pick up the much shorter Anthem. It's just as overdone, but weighing it at ounces rather than pounds, it'll leave a smaller dent in your head. Oh, and if you're only reading it to answer the question on geeky bumper sticker "Who is John Galt?

It's usually stuck on the butt end of a car to express general disenchantment with big government, and a lack of heroes. Now you know, so go read something worthwhile, and if you insist on reading Ayn Rand, hit her non-fiction. Stripped of an attempt at storytelling, she doesn't do half bad. View all 48 comments. Jul 09, Jason Pettus rated it liked it Shelves: late-modernism , character-heavy , classic.

Would you like to hear the only joke I've ever written? Q: "How many Objectivists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Here in Rand's second massive manifesto-slash-novel, we follow the stories of a number of Titans of the Industrial Age -- the big, powerful white males who built the railroad industry, the big, powerful white males who built the electrical utility companies -- as well as a thinly-veiled Roosevelt New Deal administration whose every attempt to regulate these Titans, according to Rand, is tantamount evil-wise to killing and eating babies, even when it's child labor laws they are ironically passing.

Recommended, but with a caveat; that you read it before you're old enough to know better. View all 46 comments. Feb 12, Christopher rated it it was amazing. As Ayn Rand's immortal opus, Atlas Shrugged, stands as a tome to a philosophy that is relevant today as it was in her time. Basically, the major moral theme is that there are two types of people in the world: the Creators and the Leeches.

The Creators are the innovators who use the power of their will and intelligence to better humanity. The first person to create fire is often referenced as the paradigm for these people.

In the book, each of the major protagonists also represent Creators improvi As Ayn Rand's immortal opus, Atlas Shrugged, stands as a tome to a philosophy that is relevant today as it was in her time.

In the book, each of the major protagonists also represent Creators improving the human condition with their force of will. The Leeches my word are the people who create nothing, but thrive off feeding on the Creators.

In Rand's view, they are the bureaucrats, politicos, regulators, etc. Throughout human history she tells us, these people have benefited through no ingenuity of their own, but merely from piggybacking on - and often fettering - the success of the Creators.

Where the conflict in this book arises is when the Creators decide they have had enough and revolt. I won't spoil the book by describing specifics, but let's just say it causes quite the societal drama. For Leeches can't feed where there's no blood. All that is fairly significant and involved and worth the read to begin with, but where this book really stimulates me is in the fact that it is still relevant.

Today we have Creators and we have Leeches. Some titans of industry and technology move our culture forward and others hold it back to their own benefit. I work in Silicon Valley and I see this all the time. That's why in many ways I consider this voluminous novel to be as important to a business education as Art of War. To cite other readers' posts, you don't have to agree with what Rand is extolling, but I think you'd be foolish to try and deny the existence of this struggle since it is ingrained in humanity.

Yes, Ayn does get long winded and arrogant in parts as she draws the battle lines, but I don't think an author could have crafted such a powerful conflict without copious quantities of ego to accentuate the differences. View all 47 comments. This book, as much as I detest it, is actually rather useful. Those who have read it tend to be those whom I most especially desire to avoid. Because those who have read it are invariably proud of the fact--ostentatiously so--it is even easier for me to keep my life free and clear of delusional egomaniacs.

Thank you Ayn Rand. View all 21 comments. Sep 08, Simon rated it did not like it. Absolutely terrible. Imagine an analogous situation: A white supremacist writes a book in which all the white characters are great and all the black characters are awful. If you were to read that book and as a result buy into white supremacy; that would make you an utter utter fool.

And yet, Rand writes a book where anyone who is a raging capitalist is a veritable super-hero and anyone who pauses for half a second to consider that maybe such a system is sub-optimal is a sniveling lunatic - and lo, Absolutely terrible. And yet, Rand writes a book where anyone who is a raging capitalist is a veritable super-hero and anyone who pauses for half a second to consider that maybe such a system is sub-optimal is a sniveling lunatic - and lo, the mindless prols think it's a masterpiece and a template for how the world should be run.

The most annoying book I have ever read. View all 56 comments. Jul 10, Meredith Holley rated it it was amazing Recommends it for: soviets. Shelves: utopia-dystopia , reviewed , motherless-daughters , classic-or-cannonical , girls-rule. I was visiting an old friend for the past few days, and she showed me this cover of Atlas Shrugged I made for her when we lived in Ukraine: [image error] It was a necessary repair, but it pretty much proves I should be a cover designer.

I get that Rand is kind of loony tunes of the Glenn Beck variety, and some people maybe? Warning: I think, to make my point, I have to refer to Dostoyevsky a lot, which I seem to always do because he really is some kind of touchstone to me. It makes people say that ideas are dangerous. It happens because people put forward too few ideas. Anyway, back to the book: First, story. The third part of this book is super weird.

My favorite part of her ending is how John Galt gives the most boring speech possible, and it lasts for about a bazillion pages, and you have to skip it or die. Nice try, liar. Second, writing. I know it made a huge difference in my reading of this book that I was living in a Soviet bloc apartment in Lozovaya, Ukraine at the time and had forgotten a little bit how to speak English.

But, we allow for the weirdness because we picture the stuff happening in Russia, where the weird stuff typically goes down anyway. No joke. Third, philosophy.

Maybe I told you this story already, so skip it if you already know it. When I lived in Ukraine, I had the same conversation with three or four people of the older generation who grew up in the Soviet Union. We had free health care, free housing, and now we have nothing. I mean, every once in a while your neighbor would disappear, but it was completely worth it.

Admittedly, the problem with this argument is that it sets up a dichotomy where our only choices are the prosperity gospel and Soilent Green. From what I know of Rand, though, she had seen her neighbors and family thrown out of Russia or killed for being rich.

She was fighting something extreme by being extreme. To me, this comes from people taking her arguments too seriously on both sides. Why is it different with Rand?

Fourth, women. I think, in this way, it was particularly important to me that the protagonist was a woman. Anyway, that kind of hegemony really creeps me out. When I read this book, I was just realizing that I had joined Peace Corps with a similarly misguided motivation. I wanted to go to the needy and unfortunate countries of the world and sacrifice myself to save them. It might sound more nasty than it really was when I say it like that, but I think it is a really arrogant attitude to have.

But I love it for the things that I got out of it, and if someone else benefited from my being in Ukraine, it was dumb luck. This would be the Hank Rearden character in the novel. I love that Rand sets up characters who destroy this cycle of abuse. I love that her female protagonist lives completely outside of it.

There are lots of other reasons to read Rand, but most of those get into the argument about her ideas being dangerous. Yes, she conveniently ignores the very old, very young, and disabled to make a specific and extreme point. Anyway, read, discuss, agree, disagree. I hear in the sequel there are werewolves. Aug 16, Richard Derus rated it did not like it. This blog debunks some of the Aynholes' major misunderstandings about the book. Pretentious poseur writes pseudophilosophical apologia for being a sociopath.

Distasteful in the extreme. View all 86 comments. Apr 10, s. I believe they referred to it as 'the greatest book ever written.

Because who cares about Ulysses, right? No, that won't do, I'm going to have to drink and rant for a moment. I refrained from commenting to the customer, because I'm sure it is typically for political reasons that people like this book and, whatever, some people swing left, some people swing right, some people suckle the golden calf of capitalism and some love thy socialist ways and who am I to judge. I'm not a politician and you should all thank me for that.

I'd like to push politics aside but, frankly, I think it is solely for political reasons that this book managed to stay relevant and in print. However, I suppose you are all here to hear about the politics of this book and I would be boring you with talks of wooden character and language and overall juvenile writing abilities, so I'll save those for after. I don't want to argue politics, especially not while drinking, so lets take a moment to look at the plot and oh what a plot it is and see how the politics hold up within.

Besides, there isn't much to analyze in this one as the writing barely goes beneath the surface. Once upon a time there were some factory owners.

These factory owners loved to preach about the pride in working for their company, and hey, maybe conditions are piss-poor and maybe you are barely scraping by to feed your growing family, but at least you can take pride in working for a great company and that should satisfy you and give you meaning some cool existentialist thought could have been added into the book for that, but Rand misunderstood Kant so I doubt she'd be able to add anything beyond surface detail and pop-philosophy.

Then one day the great evil government the government is such a caricature and it's almost a surprise she didn't have them all wearing black hooded cloaks. And really, who voted for those guys? Suddenly, having pride in what they did seemed terrible. Instead of taking pride in their company and working hard to sustain the nation they so loved, like they preached to their employees, they bitched about it a bunch and then stopped working.

Nice guys, right? They set up a utopia Ayn Rand of all people should know utopia is a word for 'fake' society where competing is so cool and they say stuff like 'man, I hope someone competes with me and nearly puts me out of business', which isn't all that different from what was going on in the society they bitched out on in the most comically shameful manner possible. Meanwhile it is made to seem like cheating on your wife is way cool and general chaos ensues. So it goes for awhile, but then, THEN, after a overlong speech that takes all the points any reader with half a mind already put together for themselves and regurgitates it out without the metaphors and into a boring speech that repeats itself many times about the points already mentioned in the novel and then makes sure you know the stuff already mentioned in the novel through a long speech, all hell breaks loose and the main characters bust into town like the goddamn A-Team.

Guns blaze, Dagny murders a few dudes and the one character who was actually worth reading about blows up the super-weapon because that guy was awesome. Screw the rest of the characters, I want to read more about that guy. He was ' about it ', like people who are apparently ' about it ' say while slugging their Mountain Dews and playing video games. All integrity of the novel was lost with the hysterically overblown rescue scene.

I mean, they even got out on 'choppers' at the end. It was the worst action movie I've ever seen, and I'm not even going to go into the scene where apparently it is okay to shoot your employees in the head for going on strike.

And that, my friends, is Atlas Shrugged. People seem to really like the politics, which are 'if things aren't going your way say 'fuck my beliefs, I quit, and fuck america too.

Because if there is one thing Ayn Rand can't stand, it's taking pride in your work. What I really want to talk about is the book as a piece of literature, so don't get all steamed up about politics on me here, pal! Granted, there are a few pretty lines here, particularly the line about cigarettes and how all great thinkers should have that glowing ember at their fingertips while the lightbulb of thought is burning, but other than that Rand is a forgettable sci-fi novelist that has poorly aged with time.

Not a line of dialogue rings true to actual speech, not a cough or a scoff can go without her graciously informing the reader that the scoff or cough shows their disapproval or discomfort and whatnot. Furthermore, she certainly can't let a metaphor slip out without explaining it; reading Ayn Rand feels like being a grown adult and sitting in a elementary reading class and having the teacher explain how books work.

It's as if she has no faith in her reader as a literate, thinking human being. Worse, the characters are the sort that can only exist on the page and have such narrow-minded two-dimensional aspects that one can't possibly imagine them walking around in the real world. Of course the government is terrible in this novel, its such a caricature that nobody in their right mind would bother being submissive to it. Granted, this book is satire, but come on Rand, put some effort into your creativity.

However, Rand seems fully unable to build three-dimensional characters so is it that James is garbage or Rand herself? This idea is possibly my least favorite aspect of the book because it is comically incorrect. Though maybe my English degree is as useless as it is as finding me a job totally useless , but from what I've gathered reading books and Derrida is that language is anything but exact. Language is pliable, words are an attempt at harnessing the abstract into sound, caging thought into something more tangible.

If words have an exact meaning then all the poets have been doing is creating gibberish. And how can Rand go on writing her weak metaphors if she actually believes that statement. Briefly, Ayn Rand separates people into two catagories: those that make, and the ' looters '. I've slept on a lot of couches, but also made a lot of breakfast sandwiches.

What then am I? Somehow, people still rave about this book. I will say, however, that the chapter where they kill everyone by putting a steam engine through a tunnel was incredibly well done. She could have cut the rest of the novel and simply published that chapter because all the major points are present and for a brief moment the book felt worth reading.

I also loved the bits about the pirate and the scene where the government takes over the mines to find them desolated. There are some great 'fight the man' moments but they are buried under a god-awful plot that puts the plot and politics before the writing and told through characters that are so two-dimensional that I can't even believe the scenes that have them walking down a street.

There's some politics here I guess some people could get down with, and I do understand that this is a response to the horrors of Communist Russia, but she did this so much better in Anthem though even in that she contradicts herself often. Right after a large discussion on freedom and not letting others think for you, the man names the woman character. He just tells her, this is now your name.

Which seems suspiciously not like the freedom the man was fighting for and others have tackled the issue in a much more agreeable and artistic manner.

All sarcasm and jokes aside, I simply do not think this book is well written. I could honestly not care less about the political aspects, its the literary aspects that cause the low rating.

I came, I read, I shrugged. However, the office had AC, heat and tons of paid vacation. Perhaps I'm just bitter about the time I was sent home for listening to a DFW interview on Bookworm because it was 'spreading liberal propaganda in the workplace.

Sorry, I'm most likely the asshole in this situation. There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.

The other, of course, involves orcs. Nov 20, Manny rated it really liked it Shelves: science-fiction , too-sexy-for-maiden-aunts , blame-jordan-if-you-like. In some ways, this is a very bad book. The style is stiff and clunky, and the world-view she is trying to sell you has holes you could drive a train through. There is a nice putdown in One Fat Englishman.

The main character has just been given a precis of Objectivism. He says "I bet I'm at least as selfish as you. But I don't why I need to turn that into a philosophy".

Thank you, Kingsley Amis. But on the plus side, the book is a page-turner; it does a great job of helping people brought up in a In some ways, this is a very bad book. But on the plus side, the book is a page-turner; it does a great job of helping people brought up in a left-wing tradition to understand the right as not just deluded or evil my friend Gen said she had the same experience after reading it ; and it is good at voicing the frustration that competent and honest people feel when they are surrounded by incompetent and dishonest ones.

And the romance between Dagny and Hank is emotionally very satisfying. I was so disappointed when she But I fear the author's desire to push her philosophical agenda got in the way of the story.

I haven't exactly changed my mind on any of the above, but, as Jordan persuasively argues, it's kind of missing the point. And, with all due respect to the other reviews here, most of them are also missing the point. Well, because we're answering the wrong question. Some people uncritically adore this book. Guys, dare I suggest that you might want to broaden your reading tastes just the tiniest amount, and see if you still feel that way? A rather larger group of reviewers can't stand Ayn Rand, and point out various obvious flaws: lack of feeling for English prose style, lack of character development, lack of realistic dialogue, interminable sermons on Objectivism, and sundry other charges.

Of course. All of that's clearly true. But here's the question I find more interesting: if the book is so terrible, how come it's been such a gigantic success? It's been said that only the Bible has had a greater influence on 20th century American thought. It must have something going for it. So here's my second attempt. I think the book is dishonest, but it's dazzlingly dishonest, on a grand scale, and that's what readers find fascinating.

As everyone knows, the basic thesis is that people should be more selfish, and that this will in some mystical way be good for society as a whole; a boldly paradoxical idea, and, at first sight, it's complete nonsense. I can well believe that my selfishness might be good for me personally, but why on Earth should it be good for anyone else? It flies in the face of at least two thousand years of Western ethical thought, which has been largely focused on making people less selfish, not more.

As has been widely pointed out, Objectivism is pretty much the antithesis of Christianity. Which does suggest the question of why many people on the American Right claim both to be Christians and at the same time supporters of Rand's ideas, but let's not get into that right now.

I don't really understand how the American Right thinks, so it'll be more productive to consider my own reactions to the book, which were by no means all negative.

In particular, I find Dagny a sympathetic main character. Yes, she's the Mary Sue to end all Mary Sues, but that's exactly it. Rand believes in her so completely that I can't help being swept along. I am aware that few real women are hypercompetent technical and managerial geniuses, who think nothing of working 48 hours straight and then looking drop-dead gorgeous in a designer gown. If the movie ever does get made, though, you must admit that Angelina Jolie was a shrewd piece of casting.

Even if Dagny doesn't exist, I want her to, and I've seen many worse role-models for young women. That mixture of beauty, intelligence and passion is appealing. And sure, most of the other characters are one-dimensional stereotypes, but, when you're as self-centered as Ayn Rand was, that's how you see things.

It's a subjective view, and I find it interesting to look at the world through her eyes. Now that I've admitted that I love Dagny - I must admit that I can't decide whether I want to be her or sleep with her; probably a bit of both - let's get on to analyzing Rand's big con. A large part of the book is a lavish, over-the-top, melodramatic romance. Will Dagny get her guy? She's hopelessly in love with Hank, who feels just the same way about her.

But Hank's ghastly wife, Lillian, seems to be an insuperable obstacle to their happiness. Hank's got all these mistaken principles , see, which mean he has to stay with Lillian, who doesn't appreciate him one bit, rather than go off with his true love. The best scene in the book is the confrontation at the party. Hank has created his new miracle alloy, which is a thousand times stronger than steel and a cool blue-green color to boot.

The very first thing he makes from is it a bracelet for Lillian. And is she grateful? Of course not! She's actually going around complaining to the other women about this ugly thing her dumb husband has given her to wear on her wrist. Why couldn't he give her a diamond bracelet like a normal guy? But Dagny, in a blazing fury, goes up to her, and in front of everyone says that she'll be so happy to swap her own diamond bracelet for Hank's unappreciated present.

Honestly, if you're not on Dagny's side at this point, I fear you have no heart at all. I was certainly cheering her on, and given the general success of the novel I assume I was one of millions. Rand has stacked the deck, but she's not exactly the first author to do so. The reasonable point she's making here is that, in romantic matters, people should often do what they want to do, rather than than what they feel they ought to do.

Straightforwardly selfish behavior is better for everyone; people need love, which makes them happy, rather than pity, which ultimately makes them miserable.

At least, it's true in this particular case. You're sitting there willing Hank to understand what's so blatantly obvious. And, once she's got you to buy into her idea, she switches the cards right under your nose. In just the same way, she argues, people should always act selfishly! See, if you're given something you haven't truly earned whatever that means , it won't make you happy.

Moreover, the people who are actually entitled to it will feel hurt and frustrated, just like Dagny, and in the end they'll lose their motivation. And thus, um, if you tax multi-billionaires at more than whatever the fashionable rate is, civilization will collapse. I may have condensed the argument a little, but I think that's roughly it.

As already mentioned, this is nonsense, and shows that romance authors, even quite good ones, shouldn't try their hand at political philosophy. But that needn't stop you from appreciating their romances, and I certainly did. Next week, I will be reviewing Barbara Cartland's commentaries on Kant. To be continued.

View all 91 comments. How would it start? Let me guess : " - Mrs Cartland, do you think that Kant syndrome can be combated by It would have worked much better as a fluffy romance. Mar 30, Mario the lone bookwolf rated it did not like it Shelves: facepalm-trash-bin. The premise: Everyone is stupid except the faith and ideology I want to spread with awkward, bad writing and glorifying sociopathy with a touch of ethical thoughts to make it not look even more inhuman.

Great, beautiful misogynist vs ugly women. Any kind of wonderful fascism-, eugenic-, master rac The premise: Everyone is stupid except the faith and ideology I want to spread with awkward, bad writing and glorifying sociopathy with a touch of ethical thoughts to make it not look even more inhuman. Any kind of wonderful fascism-, eugenic-, master race- driven lunatics vs all other humans.

They are wildly intolerant. And they act on their bigotry, fear, and rage by smearing their opponents and trying to cancel them. There can be no more virulent me-first ideology than that. Factually, historically, it is the authoritarian, communal, anti-freedom left that is always a "danger to others.

Just ask the families of the roughly million people it killed in the 20th century alone. It is tragically amusing — and highly illustrative — that so many self-proclaimed "anti-fascists" will go to almost any length to prevent others from being exposed to viewpoints that contradict their own.

We'll never know. Will the general manager of a professional sports team get the axe if he admits to reading, say, The Fountainhead? How ironic would it be if leftists start a book- burning club and fuel their first conflagration with copies of Brave New World and Darkness at Noon? Or maybe they will bring them to retail outlets and businesses before they — mostly peacefully , mind you — burn them down. That would be a twofer! The left is not pro-democracy.

It is afraid of freedom. It is not pro-science. Ellis Wyatt : Who the hell are you? John Galt : My name is John Galt. I live in a place we call Atlantis, and I think you'd fit in there. The government we have there respects each of us as individuals and as producers. Actually, beyond a few courthouses there isn't much government at all. Bottom line, Mr Wyatt; if you're weary of a government that refuses to limit its power over you, if you're ready at this moment to claim the moral right to your own life, then we should leave, and I'll take you there.

I'll take you to Atlantis. Sign In. Play trailer Drama Mystery Sci-Fi. Director Paul Johansson. Top credits Director Paul Johansson. See more at IMDbPro. Trailer Atlas Shrugged: Part I. Photos Top cast Edit. Steven Chester Prince Engineer as Engineer. Armin Shimerman Dr. Potter as Dr. Potter as Armin Shimmerman. Navid Negahban Dr. Robert Stadler as Dr. Robert Stadler as Navid Neghaban. Craig Tsuyumine Reporter 1 as Reporter 1.