So why do so many people here dislike this book? I'm not much of a reader, but I saw this on a /lit/-core image and thought I'd give it a go, I'd heard about it elsewhere anyway.
It's not perfect or anything, the third act isn't as good as the first two, and whilst that speech was written well, it was amazingly long. A bit less philosophical dialogue and more realistic dialogue would've been great.
On the other hand though, the story was really interesting and it's take on a dystopian setting seems somewhat unique. I would like to know what people don't like about the book, I've looked up some reviews but they all seem to attack the philosophy rather than the actual book.
As a side request, does anyone know who the pic related is meant to be? I presume it's James Taggert, but I'd like to be sure.
>>8282353
The characters aren't realistic at all. The problem with the book is the same as the problem with the philosophy; it is not a very accurate representation of reality.
>>8282359
I agree they're not realistic, but was that really enough for you to not like the book? Objectivism seems a rather ideal/'perfect' ideology, if the protagonists weren't perfect to the point of unrealistic, could Rand have actually shown off her philosophy?
I wouldn't say I had much problems with the protagonists, it was more the minor antagonists. They acted the way they did to make the story work, but it must've been some of the most biased attitude I've seen in writing. Sure, make the 'big bad' guys act the way they did, but seeing a minor character yell "I give to charity, I'm a good guy, what do you do!?" seemed rather unnecessary.
>>8282376
I enjoyed it when I read it but I was pretty young at the time. The book exists to sell the philosophy the plot is ok but shouldn't take more than 200 pages to explain. I would call the book bad because it does a bad job of convincing me that the philosophy is valuable.
>>8282462
I guess it could just be because I'm young. I really enjoyed reading it though, the story really held me and the idea that it was powerful people convincing themselves they were actually doing good was a surprising take on dystopian setting.
I don't think there was ever much of a chance I'd have bought into her philosophy. I suppose if that's why you were reading the book you would consider it bad.
Reading more reviews, people don't seem to like the book for being unrealistic. I'm baffled by that complaint to be honest, though that may just be because of my mindset going into it.
>>8282505
I'm 23 and read the book last summer. Not a particularly advanced reader - this was in fact my longest book, but I prefer to read philosophy.
It is way unrealistic. The way she describes the businesses and how they're run is just absurd. Dagny and co. are just superheroes, and the chapter where they go around like the fucking Avengers is proof. Her philosophy was more like mythology, and Zeus is the dollar. That may be stretching but you know what I mean.
Additionally, these people come from INCREDIBLE privilege. Not to be one a SJW or anything like that, I just mean that these people were given greatness, or at least a very flat path to it.
That said - it did, for some reason, make me want to work much harder as an individual. To produce is really amazing. What a purpose it gives an individual to feel as if they're striving towards something, some ideal of human nature or whatever. I like to think about how Hank dedicated himself to his work, and his motives were in fact mostly very good (to me at least) and that was admirable. To become great in this world, it does take an enormous amount of effort, and these people did not shy from a challenge.
Also - the dialog was shit.
>>8282505
One more thing: Rand writes very well the sort of leech-y behavior people get around those with actual greatness. Everyone wishes they were great, and some sink as low as to try to suck it from you. Hank's family is succubi, and that is a real thing.
>>8282376
There is a lot wrong with objectivism
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayn-rand/
>>8282505
Not everything in what I read needs to be realistic but I want some element to be realistic enough that I can learn something from it and apply it to my life. Often that can be truths about what motivates people or some concept a character expresses in a few lines of dialogue. Sometimes it is an analogy or symbolic meaning that is characterized by the whole text. If Atlas shrugged had been set on Mars but the motivations of the characters had been more realistic I wouldn't complain that it was unrealistic. When people complain about the book they probably don't mean it isn't enjoyable to read but rather that they feel reading it doesn't help them grow. Then they say so super bitterly and call you an idiot because this is /lit/
Honestly, the only Rand work I've actually enjoyed was Anthem, and even that was sort of an ironic 'wow bby's first collectivist dystopia' high school way.
It's difficult to separate the author from the work in her case, at least for me, especially when much sounder and enjoyable (eg Zamyatin's We) works exist. I would say Atlas Shrugged (and Fountainhead tbqh) are necessary to properly digest if only to help you refute similar arguments. And I agree that her portrayal of business is pretty outlandish, but again, it does force you to criticize as you read.
>>8282544
That's not entirely true. Rand make it clear that Gale had a very humble upbringing, and as far as I remember Hank was a self-made business man.
Dagny and Francisco were the two main characters that inherited a lot, though they apparently added on to their inheritance because of their greatness.
The idea is privilege isn't everything. James grew up with Dagny and would've had the same opportunity as her, but he did have a great mind. Eddie Willers is who the 'common man' should relate to, and look what happens to him - left to die and at the mercy of the great minds that have deserted the world, despite sharing their morals. What happened to him actually annoyed me, but I think that's the point.
This kind of thinking is in ways realistic and unrealistic. The public at the mercy of those with great minds is probably pretty accurate, so what happened with Eddie is a bit of a wake up call. On the unrealistic side, how often do you hear of someone who didn't grow up privileged making something of themselves? You do need help, and in Ayn Rand's world, getting help from someone like the government wouldn't be possible. You'd be at the mercy of industrialists, and if you can't show your greatness without financial support, you won't be given any. That's just a thought I had anyway.
I just think people are getting hung up on the book being unrealistic. Were people told it was realistic when they went into it? I never got that impression, but no one had ever told me about this book before.
What I can't understand is why people are so keen to strictly apply it to our world. Sure it got I spiration from what Russia was like at the time, but I never got the impression it was meant to be 100% similar. I presumed it was meant to be fictional, I'm surprised people complain it isn't realistic.
Why do you think the dialogue is shit?
>>8282551
I don't disagree with that statement. I'll look at that link later, though this is more about why the book is bad, not the philosophy.
Do you have any other links that argue against objectivism?
>>8282623
>Gale
Should say Galt. Sorry about that.
