I found myself without a clear series to continue in my usual sci-fi/fantasy rotation (sorry Black Company) and going down my insurmountable goodreads want-to-read list I arrested on Atlas Shrugged. I recalled a dim recollection of praise for it from a friend a few years ago and decided it was about time I tried some historical fiction.

I was not prepared for trains. Forgive my ignorance but given the title and the realm that the book finds itself in, a somewhat philosophy, I thought it would be more Greek myth than industrial drama. Despite my initial confusion I was interested from the get go. On one hand I was thinking about IQ84’s intro of a woman in taxi traffic, and on the other I found the dialogue/inner monologues to be well done.

I also was not aware of the hotbed of controversy that this book, and its author, are mired in. As I did not expect trains, or a female protagonist, or a utopian/dystopian drama, I did not expect the need to defend ‘objectivism’ or oppose whatever the hell that is. The intro to the audiobook includes some bit about the author and impact of the work, so I skipped it. Straight to chapter one. I went in entirely blind, and I think that was to my benefit.

First and foremost I want to say that I think this is one of the most thought provoking and thought challenging fictional books I’ve ever read. You get the point straight off, some notion about personal accountability and how it is individual merit that determines a persons success. The tail end chapters about truth and the human mind as the absolute goods go a little over my head. However, despite the (now obvious to us modern folk) problems of the book and its conclusions, I agree with much of the message.

I agree that a person’s greatest asset is their mind. I agree that merit can determine success. I agree that hard work can be a value in itself. And I, in general, agree that people behave in pursuit of their own entirely selfish modes. I agree that objective truth eventually always prevails despite societal interest. I agree that people that don’t think for themselves, or take any responsibility, or are politicians, are annoying as hell. I even agree that they are ultimately self destructive.

What I think the majority of people that gripe about this book fail to do is place the ideas in time. During its writing I would say that the necessary social and environmental theory to understand the weak points of the underlying philosophy proposed by the (long as hell) book, weren’t developed. I can’t say that the author was totally unaware of such issues, but I don’t think the average industrialized person of the pre 1960s would have really considered them as important.

The world was infinite then.

Alas, we live on a finite globe with limited resources. We live in a universe governed, by as far as I can tell, probabilities. I don’t think the author considered luck a valid contribution to someone’s worth.

The myth of the self-made man, the American dream, has died in many aspects since the writing of this book. I mean c’mon, the main characters all happen to have inherited important industries or came from important offices or had the opportunity to go to the elite schools or were just rich to begin with.

History has taught us that the Elon Musks, Henry Fords, John WhoDoneIts, of the world only exist when supported by social coercion, not merely merit. Tax dollars, unfair markets, and monopolies are the true paths to the heights that Atlas Shrugged assumes belong to the highest individuals. Even that sentiment is deceptive. The hyper individualism proposed does not exist. We are a social creature, and the cumulative works of our race are a benefit and building block to ‘great men’ of industry.

Or is everyone supposed to develop Newtonian physics, metallurgy, hell, agriculture, on their own? The heroes of the story stand on the achievements of so many others as if it were solely their own. It isn’t. Could never be.

The playboy rich guy was Spanish.
That is the extent of the ethnic diversity of the cast. All others white men. And however progressive the idea of a woman operated company was at the time, I say it still fails to account for the broad spectrum of human experience.

The utopia that is proposed among the successful businessmen is ridiculous. And the dystopia among the ‘looters’ is just as preposterous. Perhaps their only function was to draw on the opposite nature of the two worlds, and an ‘inevitability’ of how the world would end up if the “men of the mind went on strike.”

I think if you read the book and conclude the above only, it is totally understandable. Most of population is functionally illiterate beyond a 4^th grade level. Not that the people in the Goodreads comments section can’t read, they obviously can, but their reading comprehension levels lack. To hate all of the ideas in this book, or even the objectivist philosophy, I think does mean you missed some of the point.

Hyper-individualism is one of the themes. One person being the difference. You and your actions and accountability being what matters. The idea that when you’re lazy or non-contributive in some way means that you are less valuable is, a little bit true. If you find yourself as a moocher or someone who takes more than they give (in any capacity, not just financially) I suspect you felt personally attacked by this work. And I think this work rightly concludes that that represents most people. Most people benefit from the actions of a few. I have found that true in my experience as well as statistically supported. Something like 50% of the work gets done by only 20% of the workers in any given field. Its just a fact of life.

I think of course there is more nuance, as I stated earlier, luck and relationships and many other factors go into whether you are successful or not. But this book made me think about how hard, or not, I work. Made me analyze how much I am applying myself to life in general.

It made me ask questions about what I value, what I value in others. How I want to work, or what I want to create. It made me laugh about how silly and actually unproductive a society of Mark Zuckerbergs would be. What I agree or disagree with. I think its absolutely a good book and worth a read. And I hope you can do so without just getting fed up with the hog riding and appreciate some of the encouraging messages in the book.

And the sex/sex psychology is super crazy. Almost worth it for that. The main protagonist falls in love with each man she meets (so long as he’s smarter/richer than the last) and all the men not just cool with it, but friends for it. She’s got like 5 dudes on retainer and their all in love with eachother too. Way more out there than twilight, hunger games, divergent, or even that pop-girl-smut.

+4.4/5 on the -5 to 5 scale.