Olivia Thaler Atlas Shrugged FINAL BLOG

After reading Atlas Shrugged, I can say that it has been the most thought-provoking and inspiring book I have ever read. Rand’s ability to represent values through her writing is amazing. I can easily say that the novel has changed my perspective on many aspects of life. I enjoyed feeling like an outsider observing a variety of people whose personalities reflect on each other and bring out the best and worst in each other. What makes the novel the most successful is the way Rand develops the characters and portrays them in so many angles. In other words, I now feel as if I am the most uninteresting person in the world, because I compare myself to them.

Before I read Atlas Shrugged, I had many of the same beliefs that those who are not intellectual in the novel had. I believed that money was the root of all evil, that I have to think of others before I think of myself, that the wealthy are sinful, that the poor are helpless, etc. Now, my perspective on all of those ideas, and many more, have changed.

           Firstly, I was very interested in the way Rand indirectly brings up religion through the plot line. My idea of what “sin” and “sinning” is has changed. As a catholic, I was brought up to believe that finding pleasure in things is often a sin. Through characters like Rearden, I realize that man should never have to feel guilty about being successful, nor should he feel guilty in feeling pleasure through his success. Now that I think back, it is almost absurd. We are born to live for ourselves, so why would it ever be wrong for us to be selfish or to think of ourselves?

Secondly, I liked the political aspect of the book. It relates to topics such as how to deal with the poor, how to help those in “need” be more successful. Previously, I had believed that the rich should have to give to the poor. Now I realize that there is much more that plays into this whole ideal. Taking away from those who have worked for their money, shows that we must live for the sake of another man. Taking advantage of the deserving in order to equalize the playing field for those who are undeserving is an almost irrational concept to me now. People of power do not understand that taking advantage of intellectuals will lead those intellectuals, who have the real power, to simply stop the progression of society. That is John Galt’s whole idea: the great minds of the world are what incite progression in society, so it is absurd to prevent them from improving just for the sake of those who are average and have no motivation to prove otherwise. It is a vicious cycle. It is not right to “force a mind,” because that mind will eventually realize that there is nothing in it for him, and will stop cooperating.

My favorite character in the novel is Dagny. She represents motivation where no motivation is found. There is so much depth in her personality, which is why it seems that every man is after her. I feel proud of her, and almost envy her a little, whenever men like Rearden, Galt, D’Anconia, and Willers drool over her. I was sad when she chose Galt over Rearden, because I felt the history between the two would keep them together. I am still glad that Dagny and Galt love each other, because they will be a positive force in society as a whole.

           There were so many instances in the novel when my heart melted. I got emotional for the characters because I wanted them to succeed. I feel this shows how effective a writer Rand is. When Cherryl “goes off into space,” I wanted to cry. Through characters like Cherryl and Willers, Rand represents those whose eagerness for life has been destroyed by the harsh nature of how life is run in society. My favorite part of the novel was when Galt, without fear, guilt, or pain, took on all the hatred of the men who despise him in the electric chair. I was struck with awe when Galt showed no pain or fear as he told the men who were torturing him how to fix the engine that was electrocuting him. This was inspiring to me. Because I was often annoyed by Jim Taggart as a character and often furious with him as well, I was glad that in the end he had almost had an epiphany. He realized that he lives not to help others, but to destroy them.

Another aspect I found interesting was the concept of “superheroes” and “the lost world of Atlantis.” The superheroes, or the great minds, in their lost world of Atlantis, or the hidden valley, represent what makes the world go round. The world without these great minds is one of havoc, and a world controlled by hypocrites is what leads these great minds to leaving the world. I will be recommending this book to many people, and I hope to read it again myself.

Luis Santos' Atlas Shrugged Reaction

Finishing Atlas Shrugged and annotating the last page was probably one of the greatest feelings ever. I would have never guessed I would ever read a 1070 page book, and now that I have done it, I see it wasn’t all that bad. This is because the story was good. It was one of the best books I have ever read. Ayn Rand kept me interested in the story even after 700 pages of it. There were always problems to be solved, new people to meet, and jaw dropping, insightful philosophies from Ayn Rand herself. Rand gives the reader multiple messages to be interpreted. I agreed with some and disagreed with others. Nonetheless, her well developed characters, which were the ones carrying out her philosophies, kept me intrigued in the story. I went from really admiring one character, to hating him by the end of the novel. I think it’s interesting how Rand was able to make me change my mind about things. I feel like now I do not see life as I did before, I now have much different expectations from people.

In the beginning of the novel, I was not fond of Dagny Taggart whatsoever. In fact, I disliked all her philosophies. Dagny to me was too focused on her work. It was as if she had no heart and only cared about her job and things of the sort. I felt the same about Hank Rearden. The way he treated his family disgusted me. I could not imagine treating any family member like that, and I felt sorry for his mother, wife and brother. James Taggart, on the other hand, was my favorite. When James was young, he would speak of how wrong it was to be concerned only with money. I agreed with him completely. I also think money is not all there is too life. Characters like Dagny and Hank think the opposite. They think hard work is most important, and if you work hard for it, the money is rightfully yours. I had a tough time understanding that part of Rand’s philosophy. Rand believes that it is important for one to be selfish in life. She implies through her novel that selfishness is part of who we are and how we are born and we should remain that way. At first I completely objected that way of thinking. I thought humans should not be selfish at all; in fact we should try being selflessness. As I continued reading the novel, however, my point of view slowly changed. I started understanding why Rand believes we should be selfish. First, it is part of our nature. Humans are animals, and like animals, it is only natural for us to worry first about ourselves. We shouldn’t try and change who we really are. Second, if we work hard for something, it is only natural that we want to keep it. For example, Hank Rearden and John Galt, worked extremely hard all of their lives to improve America. And what did America do in return? It tried to take away some of Rearden’s and Galt’s accomplishments. When they objected, the country started to call them greedy, and publicized in a way that made it seem like they actually were being greedy. This brings me to talk about another subject that Rands book taught me about. And that is the Government. I learned much about the government through her book, and how corrupt it can me. It is common for people to act certain ways only because of jealousy. It is also possible for government officials to manipulate the public into believing one thing that is completely wrong (just like they did with Hank and John Galt). It upset me to see how corrupt a government can become. However, it is interesting to read about it through the point of view of mostly important influential businessmen.

After reading Ayn Rand’s novel, I have different expectations from humans. I can now understand the concept of selfishness. I also see that to live, people must have ambitions, and wishes they want to achieve. Without that, life becomes meaningless and pointless. I can really connect with that and see where Rand is coming from. Finishing the book was bitter sweet. The book taught me so much, things I will keep with me for the rest of my life. Hopefully, Rand’s story will never apply to the world today, but if it does, I will now know what to do. 

Jerry Bonnell Atlas Shrugged Reaction

Before reading this novel, I had heard much about Ayn Rand and her Objectivist philosophy. She is a popular figure in modern-day political consciousness, even being referenced by former Republican Vice-Presidential nominee, Paul Ryan (Forbes). Many people find her beliefs admirable and seek to live their lives in accordance to her philosophy. I tried to read this book with an open mind, in order to understand what everyone else seems to find compelling about this novel. However, now that I have finished this book, I have arrived at the conclusion that Ayn Rand’s philosophy is problematic at best and highly damaging at worst.
 

The core of Ayn Rand’s philosophy revolves around selfishness – “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine” (670). In this novel, John Galt is portrayed as the epitome of selfishness. He is an ideal figure described as greater than those around him; in fact, he might be the greatest man in the world. He seeks only his self-interest and the pursuit of his own happiness with no regard to others. Ironically enough, every other man should forgo their self-interest in the presence of John Galt. For instance, Galt’s love for Dagny is perceived as more important than Rearden and Francisco’s love for her. What is so great about John Galt? Why should everyone cater to his needs and desires? What do most of Rand’s readers see in him? Isn’t it against Rand’s philosophy for Francisco and Rearden to deny their own self-interest and give up on Dagny?

Just as John Galt is idealized as the perfect man, Dagny Taggart is idealized as the “perfect” woman. Throughout the novel, she can do no wrong. Somehow, she manages to win the hearts of the three most prominent men in the novel: John Galt, Hank Rearden, and Francisco D’Anconia. Her most troubling relationship is with Rearden. By choosing to be with him, she is enabling infidelity. However, this is brushed aside because she is portrayed as being more worthy of Rearden’s love than Lillian Rearden. Unlike Dagny, Lillian is depicted as manipulative and evil – always seeking to use guilt to enslave Hank Rearden. Rand casts Lillian as an unsympathetic character only seeking to hinder Rearden from achieving his potential. This also serves to make Rearden’s infidelity seem justifiable. However, I believe that Lillian Rearden is the actual victim in the scenario. Though some of her actions are troubling, she is probably right in complaining that her husband neglects all family commitments. If he never meant to be a family man, then why did Rearden marry her in the first place? Just as Lillian claims, it does seem probable that Rearden only sees her as another object to add to his collection. He may never have loved her or valued her as anything other than a possession. Can society exist without the family structure? Are commitments to be tossed aside once they no longer serve an individual’s self-interest?

Dagny Taggart is above all familial commitments. She is not a particularly young woman, yet remains unmarried, and committed only to her work. Although she is employed in the family business, Dagny holds no respect or affection for her brother James. This is understandable – like Lillian, James Taggart is portrayed as one of the most contemptible characters in the novel. Indeed, his actions are rarely justifiable, yet serve to make him an unrealistic representation of all that Rand detests. His belief in altruism leads to his ultimate downfall. Nevertheless, Rand fails to convince me that altruism is immoral. James Taggart is merely a two-dimensionally crafted caricature that Rand creates as a straw-man argument that she proceeds to demolish. In order to prove a point, one must examine opposing arguments and intelligently refute them. Rand never attempts to deconstruct views contrary to her own. Instead, she dismisses them as futile and continues to exaggerate her case.

Some people may argue that Atlas Shrugged is reflective of our society today. In particular, one could draw comparisons between the current government shutdown and the strikers’ revolt against the looters’ system. As most of us are aware, the shutdown was caused by a political disagreement over the Affordable Care Act. In order to attempt to repeal this act, a group of Congressmen have caused the government to close, resulting in massive, if temporary, unemployment. This situation parallels the political strife in the novel. Both the strikers and the politicians chose to withdraw from responsibility, rather than work through their disagreements in the conventional manner. Just as the government shutdown has hurt many ordinary Americans, so did the strike in Atlas Shrugged.

Overall, the book is a successful testimony to Rand’s personal beliefs. I understand why people may find it appealing, but I cannot abide by that philosophy myself.

Philip Kaifer's Atlas Shrugged Reaction

As a novel, Atlas Shrugged is very intriguing, if not confusing at times. Ayn Rand tells the story of a successful business woman’s struggle to succeed in a world that is pitted against her. Rand cleverly develops all of the main characters and adds on to the plot little by little, creating an incredibly detailed representation of the world that Dagny Taggart lives in. There are so many incidents throughout the beginning of the novel that allude to later parts. Everything from the existence of Halley’s Fifth Concerto to the ever present question “Who is John Galt?” All of these mysteries remain unaddressed in the beginning of the novel. By keeping the answers to these questions hidden from the reader, Rand entices the reader to continue. Some of my favorite parts of the novel occur when Ayn Rand reveals the answers to these questions, many of which are given in the first chapter of part three, when she introduces John Galt and his utopian town hidden in the mountains. 

Even though Atlas Shrugged was entertaining, the novel does have some down-sides. The plot of Atlas Shrugged is definitely challenging to follow. Without even discussing how much the book rambles on and repeats itself, there are several chapters where the events skip forward in time, sometimes skipping entire seasons. I found it aggravating to follow many of the specific details of the story because I was not very clear on the timeline of the novel. One example that I found confusing is the timeline in which Cherryl Brooks was involved in the story. It seemed to me as if everything from her encounter with James Taggart to her eventual suicide happened within the course of just 1 or 2 months. I’m sure that if I went back and made a timeline of the major events in the book I would be able to determine exactly how much time had actually passed. However, as a reader, the timeline was rather confusing.

The ending of the story was also very strange, I don’t see how many of the events after John Galt’s speech relate to the plot. Rand has already explained how horrible the government is and how incompetent all of the looters are.  It is also obvious that the nation is destroying itself from the inside out, Rand did not need to have project X randomly explode and literally blow up half the nation. This concluding segment of the novel was also the most exciting portion to read; it seemed like something out of an action movie. In my opinion, though, it does not relate to the theme of the book, and it definitely does not make up for the previous 1000 pages of repetitive plot.

Atlas Shrugged was not meant as a work of fiction to entertain its readers, it was meant to explain and justify Ayn Rand’s personal political philosophy. I have no doubt that this is definitely true. I would have enjoyed the book so much more if it was just the story of Dagny Taggart without the ceaseless political commentary. I probably would have enjoyed the book more even if it was just the fifty page radio speech that John Galt addresses to the nation. It seems as if Rand attempted to combine a work of fiction meant to entertain with an anti-communist memorandum. Her novel functions just like propaganda; it provides a political philosophy with a relatable backdrop. While one might argue that not all propaganda is bad, I would argue that the propaganda present in Atlas Shrugged is. Rand doesn’t simply provide details about what her political ideals are, she enshrines them. She portrays them as certain truth and forces the reader to compare the benefits of her ideas with the absolutely dysfunctional world she creates. It is like the phrase “comparing apples and oranges.” The only difference is that instead of apples and oranges you have a utopia and a dystopia, it is obvious which choice any sane person would make; in other words, she forces you to choose her side even though neither is likely. It is interesting how Ayn Rand mentions several times in the novel the importance of individuality, logic, and reason. Yet, she does not even let the reader use individuality or logic or reason when deciding the validity of her book.  

Alex's comment on Philip's post

          I definitely agree with this, Philip. This book is basically a way for Rand to share her philosophy with everyone. On the inside back cover she even writes this. The entire story led up to Galt’s speech, but the story wasn’t even really necessary. To me, it seems like filler so she can get to his speech. I totally agree that she could’ve just published Galt’s speech and this would have said everything she wants to say. I liked this book as I read it and I agreed with many of Rand’s points. I have always disagreed with welfare systems and people feeling entitled to other people’s money. However, I think Rand’s views are way too extreme. She is so close minded and I think is a product of the extreme  government of the Soviet Union from which she came. Other author’s like Orwell do an excellent job of warning against the dangers of socialism and communism, without including their own extreme views. Rand draws the reader in and makes her beliefs very clear. In the context of this story, they make sense, but in the present reality it just seems crazy. Neither extreme socialism or her views could work, there needs to be a balance. Her extreme everybody for themselves model existed for thousands of years, when people lived as nomads and killed each other over minor disagreements. She doesn’t realize that going extreme in either direction will result in a dystopia. 

Hernan Preito's Comment on Diana Emden's Reaction

Diana I completely agree with you on all the aspects you touched on, in your reaction. I also believe that everything is making sense now that I’ve gotten closer to the end of the novel. John Galt the man who no one knew at the beginning is now the founder of Atlantis and Prometheus, both rumors that were mentioned by different people earlier in the novel but later on become complete truths. Everything makes sense now as I read on the questions that I believed would never get answered were slowly but surely disappearing from my mind. I also saw how, the person who Dagny called the destroyer later on became everything but the destroyer. Galt had his reasons and it was clear that later on in the novel Dagny agreed with them. I liked your analysis that he was not a destroyer but a cultivator of human knowledge, slowly collecting the great minds of the world making his threat to stop the motor of the world true.

Alex Williams Reaction 9

           This was a really interesting part of Atlas Shrugged for me and it made me see Rand’s philosophy more clearly. The month Dagny spent in Atlantis filled me in on even more stories of the beliefs of all the great minds there. However, it still seemed very repetitive to me. Every story is different, but pretty much all them say the same thing in different words. I just feel that Rand really likes to draw things out that can be said in much fewer words.

            A thing that I liked was the many parallels I saw between this story and George Orwell’s Animal Farm. Whereas, Animal Farm was a relatively short book, Atlas Shrugged is much more detailed and has many other elements in it. Atlas Shrugged, to me seems almost like a prequel to 1984. We don’t know exactly when this takes place, but I assume in the 50s and then the 60s as that’s when Rand wrote this. I see many things that could lead to 1984 such as the propaganda, scapegoating, and having to hide everything from those around you, only knowing hatred. In 1984, they have the thought police and in Atlas Shrugged, I am starting to see the government toward a trend of controlling people’s thoughts by convincing them that they have no thoughts. The “modern” philosophy, economics, and business tactics are very useful ways of controlling the population. Then Project X took it to a new level by introducing literal fear of death to the people rather than fear of employment or prison.

            I’m very curious to see how long Dagny and Hank will hold out. I think that with Dagny’s announcement on the radio, they are another step closer to Atlantis. However, I do not completely agree with this concept. Yes I do agree with them leaving the world they now call “hell” behind, but I do not think that everyone left besides Hank and Dagny should be damned. What about those like Eddie or Hank’s secretary? What about people that have taken a stand but just aren’t born brilliant like Dagny, Hank, or Francisco. They share the same views and work just as hard. What also interested me was the biblical parallel that I saw. The world became hell and the good escaped to heaven (Atlantis), and it does seem like the world is coming to an end. There is open violence and people feel nothing but hatred towards each other, definitely not the “brother love” that the government preaches.