Peopled by larger-than-life heroes and villains, charged with towering questions of good and evil, Atlas Shrugged is Ayn Rand’s magnum opus: a philosophical revolution told in the form of an action thriller—nominated as one of America’s best-loved novels by PBS’s The Great American Read.
Who is John Galt? When he says that he will stop the motor of the world, is he a destroyer or a liberator? Why does he have to fight his battles not against his enemies but against those who need him most? Why does he fight his hardest battle against the woman he loves?
You will know the answer to these questions when you discover the reason behind the baffling events that play havoc with the lives of the amazing men and women in this book. You will discover why a productive genius becomes a worthless playboy...why a great steel industrialist is working for his own destruction...why a composer gives up his career on the night of his triumph...why a beautiful woman who runs a transcontinental railroad falls in love with the man she has sworn to kill.
Atlas Shrugged, a modern classic and Rand’s most extensive statement of Objectivism—her groundbreaking philosophy—offers the reader the spectacle of human greatness, depicted with all the poetry and power of one of the twentieth century’s leading artists.
I was surprised how much I almost like this book because I expected it to be dry, philosophical... something. But it actually had engaging characters and an interesting plot. There were parts of Dagny and Reardon I liked very much and related with. There were also choices Dagny made that I completely didn't understand. And her ending up with Galt was odd. I mean, I get that he was the epitome of everything she'd ever admired or reached for. But she had a relationship with Reardon that grew and had substance and made sense. She had a history and a relationship with Francisco that was also substantial. All she had with Galt was an ideal, not a relationship and it lacked a certain authenticity.
I liked that her writing style was a little unorthodox but created compelling caveats in the story that sort of flashed back or condensed dialog. And I liked her descriptions. There were lines I liked the way she wrote them and things she found a way to say that I really enjoyed. Just from a literary stand point it was interesting.
Except for the 70 page monologue. I trudged through that and did not enjoy it.
Because the book is sort of a colossal display of her worldview and social/economic philosophy. And she had demonstrated that very clearly through the characters and the plot and the dialog and that worked well. I didn't need 70 pages of her actually spelling the whole thing out and examining how untenable the opposing viewpoint was. The thing they always tell writers is show, don't tell. She'd already shown her theme perfectly well, it really bothered me that she then proceeded to tell it all to me all over again.
Other than that monologue - I was surprised that she actually managed to keep me engaged and interested for a such a long book. And she was able to weave bits of mystery into it but then explain everything that happened to every character that I needed to know how they ended up. I liked that I ended up understanding everything and that it was well written along the way.
