A review of Atlas Shrugged — 4 years ago
In 25 years I have read very many books. Quite often, a novel left me wishing it were longer. Rarely, I had the wisdom to recognize that one more jot or tittle would have detracted from the mastery of a work. More rarely still, I have wished that a book were significantly shorter. Atlas Shrugged is one such book.
The problem is not the quality of writing. While I would have preferred that it were a bit more challenging, the text was quite readable, particularly for something written half a century ago. Nor was I bored by an uninteresting plot, although the dust jacket’s of its contents as an “action thriller” is laughable.
The problem is simply that so little is said in so large a volume of words. Most of Part I and all of Part III are necessary, but the majority of Part II could be compressed into 50 pages without a significant loss. The entire section consists of vignettes taken from the same template: industrialist encounters challenge, industrialist overcomes challenge, industrialist slowly realizes that challenge was symptomatic of world philosophy. Only the identity of the industrialist and the nature of the challenge vary. The 70 page didactic speech that makes up “This is John Galt Speaking” might be excusable if it had not been stated so clearly so many times earlier in the text.
Rand’s protagonists are likeable and her villains easy to recognize, but few characters are believable. Everyone in Atlas Shrugged is either fully good or fully evil. While they may struggle with how to express those characteristics, no one ever changes.
I did find Rand’s Objectivist philosophy intriguing, but only partially compatible with my own experiences. I am receptive to individualism, rationalism, non-violence, and production and creativity as the highest expression of what it means to be human. Furthermore, I am well aware and critical of corruption becoming the largest factor in decision-making and of the triumph of the inferior over the superior through marketing and “pull”. (In my industry, we call it Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.)
However, Objectivism also seems to declare that charity is evil, that a selfless act is motivated by a desire for destruction, and that unconditional love is neither possible nor desirable. Rand seems to value people based on their ethics rather than their ability, but ultimately only the geniuses are welcomed to Galt’s Gulch while men like Eddie Willers are doomed to die with the rest of the world.
A haven like Galt’s Gulch, a new beginning by a small group of like minded people set apart from the world at large, is a fantasy I’ve had myself. Curiously, in my mind such an enterprise would be highly socialist while Rand’s version is purely anarcho-capitalist.
I am glad to have read this, since it was an entertaining story told with a rather unique viewpoint, and because of its cultural significance. I do not expect, however, that The Fountainhead will make it to the top of my list for some time.
