Juancho here.
The book’s author, Ayn Rand, was a heavy proponent of her
own philosophy now known as Objectivism. It’s a philosophy that is radically
individualistic, where the individual searches for his own happiness as the
highest purpose in life. It values personal achievement and reason as the
ultimate standard of decision making. Economically, it proposes freedom for
production and laissez-faire
capitalism, because it allows men to function purely as traders and exchange
not just products and money but the value of their work. The best way to summarize objectivism is probably through Galt's motto: "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."
These principles are front and center in the plot of Atlas Shrugged. The main characters are
prodigious industrialists who say they’re in it to make money but really work
because of the desire to produce value. Their opponents are bumbling government
officials or their competitors, who cannot compete with them but continue to
devise rules and regulations attempting to destroy their ability to produce,
while still needing them to produce and keep the country going. John Galt is
only alluded to for most of the book, with the characters making wildly
different assumptions of his characters, most of which are actually partly
correct.
The story itself is actually quite engaging. Great
industrialists are disappearing, sometimes very conspicuously. The ones
remaining have to combat an increasingly overbearing government in order to
prevent the collapse of modern society. The main characters’ motivations are
clearly defined and I enjoyed rooting for them when they achieved small
victories. A lot of the side characters are also really cool and refreshingly
interesting. The plot also moves at a decent enough pace so that at least one
important thing happens in every chapter.
But the book itself is also very flawed. The characters are
meant to be archetypes, but they’re so black and white and caricaturesque that
they come across as ridiculous, especially the antagonists. The book is full of
author filibusters where Rand likes to lengthily espouse her views in
inappropriate situations, culminating in the massive speech near the end. John
Galt, when he is introduced, is ridiculously perfect and unbeatable, to the
point where you can’t really enjoy his appearances in the plot.
As far as the philosophy of objectivism goes, I find myself
agreeing only with some of it. I’m a huge proponent of capitalism, but full
laissez-faire is excessive, because companies will try to get away with so much
that they cause harm to their customers. Ayn Rand wants people to work for
their own fulfillment and values, which neglects the social aspect of human
nature. She considers all social interactions a “transaction,” which kind of
makes sense but it feels really impersonal and hollow to me.
Regardless, it was still a worthwhile read-through. I
definitely will not be reading the book again, but I still have fond memories
of some of the characters. Consider this a fair warning to you if you decide to
read it: it will take up a lot of your time. It’s worth a look if you’re
interested in the philosophy but not as much else.
Footnote: There’s a series of movies coming for the book. I
saw the first movie. It was decent, if a little rushed. Reading the book
definitely helps you understand what’s going on, but it hits the main bullet
points in case you don’t have enough time to read the book, yet still enough
time to read random ramblings on the internet. =P
See you guys around.
No comments:
Post a Comment