Anybody here read Ayn Rand's book "Atlas shrugged"?

[grasshopperglock]

If you have, whats your take on it predicting where US politics is headed?

 

[Angered_Kabar]

I've read it and while very long winded, it does a good job stomping the shit out of Marxism. I read it 4 years ago when the auto bailout and Obama was going on and it was scary to read a chapter then turn on the radio and it's happening for real. There's still a few things people say that was pointed out in the book and it makes my blood boil. Stuff like "all we are are bags of meat and any thought and emotion and idea we have is an electrical charge and chemicals".

I also think Ayn Rand predicted hippies.

 

[just jk]

i'm 48.....i think i was 25-ish when i read this book

it's my Dad's favorite and he'd probably been trying to get me to read it since i was 14

 

[macshooter]

Best. Book. Ever. Statist collectivist sh*t is all the same, and it all leads down the same road. The only difference is there is no Galt's Gulch for anyone to go. So get ready for it to get ugly if people don't wise up.

 

[scap99]

Excellent book. Part 1 of the movie seemed pretty close to the book. Don't know if part 2 is out.

Check out Unintended Consequences.


Sent without thinking via tapatalk.

 

[Mr. Bojangles]

I don't think part 2 is out. I'm not a reader, so I've never read it, but I've heard enough about it to get the idea. I thought the movie was well done and would like to see the next one's when they come out.

 

[M. Sage]

The second installment of Atlas Shrugged (movie) will be released this fall, IIRC.

If you have, whats your take on it predicting where US politics is headed?

It's pretty spot on. It can be a tough read at times because she likes to repeat herself to make sure you're getting the point (in fact, you can skip the entire chapter "This is John Galt Speaking"). It's downright uncanny how right she was about how statists/collectivists operate and what they'll do to gain more power. I thought it was literally eye-opening.

Some people like to talk smack about how badly written the book was, and it wasn't exactly a gem (and it was more about the message than the story anyway), but there were some parts that really grabbed me. Wyatt's Torch, for one, and Francisco D'anconia has his moments. IMO she did a good job overall.

 

[XinTX]

I read it. Yes, she gets INCREADIBLY long winded in parts. But it's so prophetic you'd think it was written last week, rather than in the 50's. I think her earlier book "We the Living" gives a prophetic look at where socialized medicine takes us. But Atlas Shrugged could have easily left a third of the book on the cutting room floor and not lost anything. Book takes a while to get going. And there are some speaches in there that go on ad nauseum. Agree that you can skip "This is John Galt Speaking" once you get past the "A is A" bit. The rest is so much repitition. But overall, a pretty good book.

 

[jamesmrj]

I didn't read it per se. I listened to the audio book on my way to and from work a couple years ago. I pretty much agree with everyone else's assessment.

 

[Domineaux]

Amazingly prophetic book indeed, though admittedly long winded.
I've actually run across people who though it was written more recently (say past 10 years) who were shocked to find it was 50 years old.

Screw "who" I want to find "where" is John Galt!

 

[Kyle]

Wow.. I should probably reread it. That book was part of my high school required reading up north... at the time, based, on what I am seeing, it must have been over my head. I found it unbearable and I got absolutely nothing of any use from it.

 

[Domineaux]

Too bad it isn't a part of every high school's curriculum. Might help avoid the slide toward socialism.

 

[Tejano Scott]

I've never read it....

O wait, I guess I have... Lol.

 

[XinTX]

Agree with Rand and her views toward socialism. But her views on religion and interpersonal relationships are rather skewed. And her take on sexual relationships border on sadomasochistic. Her take on charity I find rather odd and doesn't seem to harmonize well with her views on personal liberty. You can tell she has problems with any government entitlements by the oath from Atlas Shrugged:

[h=1]"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." -Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged[/h]

 

[Kyle]

Too bad it isn't a part of every high school's curriculum. Might help avoid the slide toward socialism.

The teachers seem to be perpetuating that idea...

Ill see if I still have my paper on it. If I find it, Ill post it.

 

[Angered_Kabar]

Excellent book. Part 1 of the movie seemed pretty close to the book. Don't know if part 2 is out.

Check out Unintended Consequences.


Sent without thinking via tapatalk.

I think the movie left out the most important thing from that part of the book.

D'Anconia's speech on what is money.

 

[XinTX]

I thought the movie was poor. Rather like amateur night. What killed it for me was the poor portrayal of the Dagny character. I think the actress totally missed the mark there. And Francisco D'Anconia wasn't a lot better. Rearden was played well, as were his wife and mother. They seemed to capture the look of vapiristic leaching evil that Rand portrays in her book. But given that Dagny is the central character of the story, if you mess that up (and IMO, it was BADLY messed up) then it makes for a poor story on the screen. I'll probably see parts 2 and 3 (if 3 ever gets made) just to see if they improve. As I understand, Part 1 was filmed on an extremely tight timeline. Still, that doesn't excuse the shoddy portrayal of Dagny.

 

[M. Sage]

Wow.. I should probably reread it. That book was part of my high school required reading up north... at the time, based, on what I am seeing, it must have been over my head. I found it unbearable and I got absolutely nothing of any use from it.

School teachers are great at killing a book. Atlas Shrugged has enough repetition of ideas in it that you really don't need any more of it outside the book.

 

[macshooter]

I think everyone should read it, but I think I would have missed a lot in that book if I had read it when I was young. I simply didn't have the experience and the frame of reference to get that book in high school. (though it is probably the best book ever written that utterly destroys collectivism, which is something I think should be a part of every high school curriculum, and continued in college)

But I think you need be out in the world on your own for a long time as an adult before you will have seen enough sh*t from people to really get all of what she is saying. It's easily the deepest and most insightful book on the human condition I have ever read. Blew my mind. If I had read it before age 30, I doubt I would be saying that. I probably would have been bored, annoyed, and distracted by how long the book is, and how little of it I could relate to.

I didn't find the book very repetitive, though there is a long winded speech toward the end that took a little more effort to get through than the rest of the book. I also didn't find any large parts that could be tossed out. Now if I had read it when I was 18, I could have probably tossed the whole book out, and got more from a fortune cookie that said "Socialism sucks. Work as hard as you can and be happy." and skipped about 900 pages...

She's no friend of religion that's for sure. Her philosophy about the ideal state for mankind is kind of cold and unrealistic, but I think in many ways it has some merit as something to strive toward. (ie. being as self-reliant, productive, and purpose driven as you can be, to achieve your own goals and happiness in life). And I bet she was awesome in sack. (stealing from Penn Gillette there)

 

[macshooter]

I thought the movie was poor. Rather like amateur night. What killed it for me was the poor portrayal of the Dagny character. I think the actress totally missed the mark there. And Francisco D'Anconia wasn't a lot better. Rearden was played well, as were his wife and mother. They seemed to capture the look of vapiristic leaching evil that Rand portrays in her book. But given that Dagny is the central character of the story, if you mess that up (and IMO, it was BADLY messed up) then it makes for a poor story on the screen. I'll probably see parts 2 and 3 (if 3 ever gets made) just to see if they improve. As I understand, Part 1 was filmed on an extremely tight timeline. Still, that doesn't excuse the shoddy portrayal of Dagny.

Movies always destroy a good book. Especially a REALLY good book. I don't even want to see them. I think even an audiobook would wreck Altas Shrugged, because your mind wanders, and you will miss too much. With Altas Shrugged, if you don't pay attention to it, you're wasting your time.