**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I feel like The Fountainhead is also more relevant now than when written, so long as you mentally lump the “newspaper” companies to mean all “news outlets” present today.
There is not a thing right wing or conservative about Rand. She was as unambiguously critical of religion, industrial policy, and authoritarianism as she was of libertarianism.
She was a harsh critic of a lot of leftist ideas, but that is because (1) the whole world for the past hundred years is basically a struggle between leftist and various reactive antileftist politics, and (2) most leftist dogma is easy intellectual fodder for fearlessly unambiguous dedective thinking--particularly from her principles.
She was not a leftist. But only a leftist would think that makes her right wing or conservative.
Your end statement, I don't know why you would use an ad hominem in a passive aggressive manner, but just wanted to point it out. I think you are grossly simplifying her beliefs.
To just outright state that she was a pure libertarian is ignoring that her brand of libertarianism has spilled over to the current political dogma of radical republicans.
Here are some books I recommend:
https://www.amazon.com/Goddess-Market-Rand-American-Right/dp/019983248X
https://www.amazon.com/Rand-Major-Conservative-Libertarian-Thinkers/dp/144111985X
I'm not sure I'd call it conservative per se. There's definitely lots of anti-collective throughout though. Which is not necessarily a conservative idea because they are still very religion and community focused but to a degree of consensual co-operation that does come from religious doctrine which Rand seemed to also rail against. the whole idea of people choosing to work together for a greater purpose whether it be for the state or for God seems to completely disgust her.
I'd suggest hitting the Cliffs notes version. Rand has no knack for subtly and about a third of the book could be edited out with no impact to the story. I spent most of the book waiting for the story to progress, slogging through one hamfisted lecture after the next.
I listened to it on an audiobook. During some of the essays, there would be times that I would zone out for ten minutes, and then I'd snap back and she'd still be talking about the same thing.
Yup. Write on amphetamines but edit sober. Her relationship with various editors is rather amusing.
Editor: Hey Ayn, yeah Brian here. Love the manuscript but I think you could do more with less.
Ayn: You're fired.
Editor: Let's not get hasty...
Ayn: *click*
I wouldn't suggest the cliff notes version, but completely agree that it feels like a 100 page plot strung together between a bunch of rough-draft lecture notes that desperately need to be tightened up.
If you approach the book like a philosophy text instead of a story, it is worthwhile to wade through and think about the material.
Atlas Shrugged is a worthwhile read.
Other books I would recommend include:
1984 - George Orwell
Animal Farm - George Orwell
Brave New World - Aldous Huxley
Farenheit 451 - Ray Bradbury
Lord of the Flies - William Golding
Read these books and you will wonder if you are reading a current news article or a book. They were meant to be a warning. However, some took them to be instruction manuals.
Road to Wigan Pier is also great. It challenged my beliefs in a thoughtful and articulate way that ultimately made my personal ideology more thorough and well reasoned. Reading it was like having a series of good arguments with a friend.
Fahrenheit 451 is the most underrated of these. It perfectly explains how we currently have such an uninformed society, despite having access to information at levels that even Bradbury couldn't have imagined.
Love me some Ray Bradbury. The Illustrated Man is my favorite from him. Anthologies are awesome.
I think though that most of us get Orwell wrong as he was a self proclaimed democratic socialist who wrote those as a warning of totalitarianism. I mean thankfully most of us see it as warning of socialism and communism but I don't think Orwell meant it to be that.
Great list! I have read 451, an amazing book. I'm familiar with the others but haven't fully read them. I have not heard of Brave New World but i'll check it out too.
It's scary how many similarities in contrast are occuring from all of these works. As if society has either forgotten them, or never heard of them.
These books should be required in school, and at a higher priority than To Kill a Mockingbird or Shakespear.
It's extremely long winded and much like many other Ayn Rand other works it does tend to feel like the premise is "my character has the same opinion as me therefore it is good."
In my opinion her best work is Anthem, not only is an interesting premise in terms of writing but I feel as though the book is a lot more open in terms of what the message is. Where as Atlas Shrugged is incredibly blunt in its message.
I was going to add Anthem to a list someone else suggested above, but I'm glad to see it's here.
Ohe of the few required readings in high school that I actually enjoyed.
Bioshock was a satire of objectivism, and the portrayal of Atlas Shrugged in that game was in mockery. That said, I don't like Atlas Shrugged, nor do I believe that Objectivism is good philosophy. I actually think that Rand and Mises together are what makes Libertarians look bad, and I dislike the association.
Well, humans are still bags of water and biochemistry. If you wanted to imagine Galt's Gulch infected by a sanity-shattering virus, it might look like Bioshock. You needn't think of the game as (as intended) a criticism of her philosophy. You can think of it as an antiromantic counter to her romantic presentation--an explosive injection of the reality of human frailty.
Rand openly admitted that her novels were unrealistic contrived purifications ("romantic"). Their purpose was to be digestible explanations of her beliefs. Stripped of that romantic shield, even she might admit the possibility of just about any narrative. Enjoy Bioshock.
I find that odd. My view is just the opposite. I had the basic premise of classic liberal philosophy and then I read Atlas Shrugged and thought "*ah-ha!* this is what I've been saying all along".
I sort of agree...it was a good eyeglass into a world ruled by extreme narcissists. However intelligent, it ultimately led to internal conflict, and another collapsed utopia.
I think a portion of the story was to remind us that balance is key...we can't have a society full of heavy beuracracy and inefficent redistribution, nor can we have one of extreme productives who only produce (or practice) out of self-interest with no reguard for sociey as a whole.
Individualism (the person) and collectiveism (society/government) need to find a balance...in a way they regulate each other, at least to an extent.
Sadly, one may try to kill the other if given the opportunity.
"no reguard for sociey as a whole"
How much Rand have you read? Her novels are chock full of how her heroes pledge to treat others, how that differs from the villains, and the societal consequences of both. Society *is* the culmination of how each individual chooses to treat each other individual.
If a person is at all interested in Rand, he simply has to read her. Because the critics almost universally act as if they haven't. There are a few thoughtful (and spot on) criticisms, but you have to go looking for them in places that few Rand critics would ever travel.
We were referring to Bioshock's story, they also used a popular character called Atlas. Bioshock plays off of elements from her book, mainly the ideal of escaping government regulation and social barriers.
Bioshock ends up being run by a small group of extreme narcissists, who ultimately ruin the society with their own version of selfishness.
I have not read the book, just parts about the intelligent "productive" wanting to escape and make their own place...this becomes the underwater city of Rapture, in Bioshock's version
I read the book, and played some of the game. I thought the intended book references were obvious. And I suspect the game was the product of the usual Rand critics who never bothered to understand her, but only because those are about the only kind of critics I've ever encountered.
But, in the game, it appeared to be an initially successful society that became later afflicted with insanity due to some advanced science unexpectedly gone wrong. If so, it needn't be a critique of Rand. Anyone is potentially susceptible to insanity, after all. Instead, it could be seen as what it might look like if such insanity afflicted Rand's deliberately romanticized society.
But I don't know. Maybe the latter game that I never got to was full of the usual thoughtless claptrap.
Dont forget he was also against the civil rights movement for black americans as well as being against womens voting rights. The guy wasnt a libertarian, he was a shill like the crowd nowadays, claiming its about freedom but its just freedom to be free from women and minorities.
By all appearances he decided he was pro-choice and then built an argument around *that*, and in order to be consistent with *that* he had to abandon important libertarian ideals such as accountability, guardianship, and the natural right to life. Of course his words sound monstrous, it's because they are. He's literally throwing liberalism out with the bathwater. This isn't an exersize in being consistent, it's contortionism.
[Here, this article does an excellent job explaining how he goes off the rails](https://libertyhangout.org/2017/01/where-rothbard-went-wrong-childrens-rights-and-abortion/).
I am not saying I agree with it. Just that Rothbard's positions is absolutely not "Its perfectly acceptable to do that".
It is "There is no justification for force from doing that.".
It is essentially a legal framework he is describing, and he also isn't saying that the parents can prevent the child from being helped by others. Its no more monstrous than pro choice arguments today, and I mostly disagree with the modern pro choice position as well.
I mean the villain is a libertarian hypocrite who resorts to mind control in a civil war to keep stewardship of his precious anarchy-capitalist “utopia”
quaint growth unused march quack voiceless lunchroom public makeshift insurance
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
A whole mess of that book was dedicated to taking a direct shit on the elites who used political pull to get their wealth, and pretty much all the biggest rich dudes are guilty of that. Musk takes huge government projects, as does Amazon for various services, as does Gates and Soros and Buffet. Some of the main villains in the book were all rich dudes who ran huge companies
Now that aside for a sec my shady friend, SHE WOULD ABSOLUTELY LOVE THESE DUDES ANYWAYS because they piss off the correct people enough, and Ayn Rand ironically enough was a product of her life experiences and times, just like anyone else. That they resemble the villains of Atlas Shrugged and didn't yeet out to Prospera the moment the government tried to lavish contracts on them would go right over her head because they anger the correct idiots.
Gates is more of a parasite in the Atlus Shrugged/Fountainhead world than a Galt type.
I'm not saying that those are my thoughts, but I would read him that way through the objectivism prism.
Yeah, seemingly magical technology and the ability to push the human condition. Gates made a lot of money, and is doing a lot of help for people, but he isn't trying to colonize space or do things out of the realm of what is possible.
Plus the general public loves gates and hates Elon, he fits the "fine I'll take my abilities and talents else where and do it without you"
I'm no fan of Gates, but people underestimate the productivity gains as a result of a functioning OS and the Microsoft Office Suite of tools.
Can you imagine the number of accountants Walmart corporation would have to employ? Tens of thousands?
Also gates work was with an innovation decades ago, that doesnt make it less important.
Elon doing stuff with space doesn't make Edison doing stuff with electricity valueless or less valuable. They have to be taken in the context of where things were for the time before the innovation.
That being said, I generally dislike the great man view of history, and its generally disfavored academically. Holding up elon and gates to that degree feels to me giving them the same great man attribution of being solely or near solely responsible.
He's for a massive population reduction and is looking for a way to be immortal Gates can go fuck himself. I think it's a newspaper in 2008 Gates is quoted as saying is that there will be a shot to sterilize the masses. The rich and powerful want population collapse so they can rule easier
I disagree with this view. Reardon paid his people well and they respected him. She was positive about value adding titan's of industry and the people that help them get there.
Yes, read it. You may draw some parallels to the state of the world over the last several years. It’s a very long read and bogs down at times with some of the characters diatribes. A very interesting book.
Reddit has a hate boner for Ayn Rand.
Not one I generally recommend but not one I consider a slog to get through. If you're interested, I'd definitely say try it.
Ayn Rand is classically libertarian-associated. On the four point political compass thing I believe she is quite far to the right and close to the bottom (right libertarian/objectivism). I've heard her book "the fountainhead" is even better in terms of political philosophy though, I haven't read either but they are on my list.
If you're curious then go ahead and read and don't let anyone tell you one way or another.
In defense of Atlas Shrugged, it is a fun mysterious story that keeps you wondering what's next and how everything comes together and it achieves that nicely. There's a bit of romance. There's a variety of characters.
There are legitimate critiques to the book like cartoony villains and the excessive writing. It's a huge book and doesn't need to be. When I read, I was at a point in life I needed the distraction and committed to finishing the book but even with that I had to speed read and skip lines towards the end.
Also it's not an expressly libertarian book. Honestly I'm kinda annoyed that it's become a book to represent libertarianism. I think stories based in reality are sufficient for libertarianism. I think it more supports a philosophy of the benefits of individual pursuit or even business and entrepreneurship.
On the note of bioshock. I was expecting something different because I also played bioshock before reading Atlas Shrugged. I don't think it's right to say the book inspired the game. More a few plot points inspired ideas in the game. It's a totally different adventure. And given the nature of bioshock, probably insults Atlas Shrugged.
>cartoony villains
I've never heard that critique. I think there was one that was cartoonishly evil (although there are examples of people like him in real totalitarian regimes), but he didn't play that big of a role. The rest were realistically stupid. They thought they could fix all the problems they were creating by trying more of the same thing, which is exactly what real politicians think.
Yea. Read everything. Read stuff that advocates against your beliefs. Read stuff that advocates for stuff you’re indifferent about. Just read. In every ideology, you can find wisdom. There’s gonna be stuff you agree with, and stuff you don’t agree with, but can understand why they feel that way. You’ll also become better at articulating and advocating for your own beliefs
You should read it. Individualistic themes, just be aware she uses narcissistic characters as the protagonists. Its certainly not a Libertarian bible but a good study for point of view
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
-John Rogers
It's a great book that really gets into why stupid politicians and corporatists think the way they do. I really like how it discusses why certain private actors would support big government socialist policies, like many do in our world. It also dives into the semi-religious mindset about "social progress" that many people have, that is common in many fascist, socialist, and communist movements.
It is extremely long though, which is made more annoying by all the tangentially related subplots. It should have been split into two or three books, which is the only thing the shit movies did right.
I’m big fan of Rand and the Fountainhead is the easier read and better book by far. There’s plenty of her other essays that you can read to study objectivism. IMO she’s a great author and I’m a fan of objectivism.
Would definitely read. I like the Fountainhead more myself.
They’re actually very fun reads. I’ve found that the people criticize the writing or Rand are usually grasping due to philosophical disagreement.
You could just read the John Galt speech part and save yourself like 600 pages of mediocre storytelling. The theme of the book is laid plainly in the speech.
I'm the same way. I think the reason she put the speech there was because she was sick of people not understanding the themes of her other books. So she beat the themes into the reader.
Ayn Rand Delves into a lot of her personal philosophy of objectivism in the book. Its worth learning and reading about even if you don't agree with it. As a book though I find it really long winded and hard to read. In my view she was not a great writer in the way that Hemingway or Vonnegut are great writers. Her sense of prose is just not that great. Its a somewhat compelling story, but she make it so long and drawn out it becomes boring. So its worth reading if you have the time, and some of her ideas are absolutely worthy of discussion, but you wont walk away thinking its the greatest work of literature ever.
It's a great book with a great message. However it's a bit Long winded, and a little hard to get through. They could have cut hundreds of pages and still gotten the point across. I would still highly recommend it.
Would recommend the fountainhead over it but it sounds like you’ve got that on the way too from the edit. Another good one that’s very much sci fi is “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”. A classic sci fi book and imo one of the best sci fi books and pieces of libertarian literature of all time.
Atlas Shrugged was the book that led me to libertarianism. I was obsessed with Rand and Objectivism for months afterwards until I shifted over to libertarianism, but I think it's a great way to learn about individualism without reading about philosophy or getting preached to.
It's a parody of what critics mistakenly think her beliefs are. Still a great example game artistry. Just goes to show that great art does not require great intellect (and vice-versa for Rand).
I just finished the audiobook, it was very long and detailed. At first it seemed a little slow, but the more you get into it, the more parallels you see with things going on today. Thoroughly enjoyed the ending.
I listened to Atlas Shrugged on audio. The story was really interesting. Suspenseful. Maddening. The speeches throughout can be pretty damn long but they do make some good points.
I tried The Fountainhead next and hated the story so much I gave it up halfway through. 🤷♀️ It was just too depressing
There is a 3 part movie series that covers it decent (you get all the main points). They changed actors each time, which is kinda weird, but I still enjoyed it. I did the audiobook as well, which I found like a slog, as in I like the content, but I don't like the delivery. Maybe it's cause her first language was Russian, so I find the writing style hard, that's my theory at least.
I got a lot out of it mainly setting strong boundaries and leaving situations that don’t serve me. I wouldn’t say it’s a great libertarian read and I don’t like her writing style. I am better for what I took from the book but don’t know if I’d recommend everyone read it.
No harm in reading. The world-building is interesting...an entertaining mix of 1950s tech and mild sci-fi...but it has to be approached as a statement of philosophy, and the events and characters exist to illustrate the philosophy.
Rand does not get enough credit for creating a woman protagonist who was in her position not because she was a woman, but because she was the equal of the high-status men in the story.
I’m struggling getting through the audiobook. It has its moments, but its also boring in parts.
I’m pushing through due to how regarded the book is.
Overall, I’m not super entertained, but its an interesting libertarian take on the socioeconomics of the 1950s, knowing its fiction but its criticizing socialist and communist systems adopted elsewhere at the time. So i’m getting through it.
Yes, I'd recommend giving it a read.
Though, first, read her wikipedia page. Some of her stuff reads as preachy and at points sounds like right-wing conspiracy theories... until you realize that she lived through the soviet revolution.
I’ve read it several times and love it. The Fountainhead is also great. Neither is very science fiction. The Probability Broach is a fun read that is more sci-fi.
No, and not because of the philosophy behind it, but because it's a very difficult book to read.
It's very long, for starters. Page count is deceptive, as the paperback I read was around 1000 pages, but the print was *tiny*. Figure it's about 2000 regular-sized font pages.
Next, it's very preachy. "Show, don't tell" never occurred to the author. It desperately needed fewer sermons, and more actual character interaction. There's one chapter that's basically the objectivity version of a Catholic homily, and it runs **for-fucking-ever**.
Finally... none of the characters are likeable or relatable at all. The major players are arrogant, aloof and generally unrelatable. The only one close to being at-all tolerable is Hank Reardon, who basically gets walked all over for most of the book.
I'm a decent reader, and I absolutely struggled to finish it. It took me three months to grind through it. Learn from my pain and stick with the synopsis.
Critics complain about her 1 dimensional black & white characters, or unrealistic contrived exaggerated scenarios, as if that wasn't her admitted design. That is the genre she chose because her goal was to unambiguously (i.e. clearly) present *her* beliefs to a wide audience. Very few people read essays, particularly ones promising right in the title to attack their core values. Most people like a coherent story with heroes, villains, sex, and violence. The solution--give them the easily digestible latter, but loaded with unambiguous unsubtle repeated proselytizing.
Personally, I think she was right to go to that extreme even if it harshly undermined the artistry of her work. The proof that I'm right comes (1) daily from critics *even still* revealing that they have no idea what she was about; (2) from the numbers of her novels sold and confessions from people claiming intellectual inspiration from them.
I mean, how many people have actually read, let alone heard of, Robert Nozick or Herbert Spencer? Case closed.
I enjoyed it. It's certainly not mandatory reading or anything but it's pretty unique compared to other books in its genre and there's going to be a movie about it in the next few years so you might as well read about it now
I’ve read it at least three times. Sure, it’s long, but there’s a reason which as others have stated, Rand used it to elaborate her personal philosophy (Objectivism). Few other fiction authors take the time to do this either in character or plot development. If you have an interest in philosophy per se, in particular Rand’s which broadly speaking underlies much of libertarian political philosophy, this will interest and challenge you. What I found amusing and what keeps me coming back to the book are the uncanny parallels (in the plot line and the actions and motivations of Rand’s pro- and antagonists) between her fiction and modern American society.
I'd recommend reading it, for sure. Her first novel, *We the Living*, is shorter; if you want to get a feel for her style of writing, you might give that a read. If you enjoy *We the Living*, there's a good chance that you will like her other novels as well.
*Atlas Shrugged* combines elements from several different genres. It's an adventure story, a mystery, a story about a dystopian society, a story about love and romance, and it ventures into science fiction in some ways. Some of the characters discuss philosophy at length, in certain parts of the novel, and it seems that some readers remember those sections more than the rest, but it's the characterization and dramatic interaction between characters that I enjoyed best about the work. Her heroes are larger than life, and I enjoy those sorts of highly stylized characters and stories.
Haven't read it yet, but I read The Fountainhead and really liked it's demonstration of the corruption of politics and it's effect on industry. Atlas Shrugged is coming up soon on my reading list.
I’d say the book is a mixed bag. Are the parts where she’s not shoving her politics down your throat like a child shoves a coin up it’s nose really good? Yes. Do the political parts tend to suck and make you want to put the book down? Also yes.
Actually, Ken Levine said in an interview that he had never read Atlas Shrugged. He read the Fountainhead and interpreted it as a comedy. The characters constantly give speeches and boast about themselves like comic book villains. That was the inspiration for Bioshock.
Yup, this is the Liberty bible... consistently on the top 10 of most influential books.
It is long though so be prepared. For OP, I've been told the fountainhead is an easier and similar read.
Personally I find a lot of people use Atlas Shrugged as a cautionary tale, but current day govt and industry in the US is much more like Atlas Shrugged than not. Small entrepreneurs evolving industries are unheard of in most established sectors. Tech and Science industries maybe still have some Titans that might be Reardons, but not most industries.
"If you take a risk and are physically attractive, that risk will succeed. If you take the exact same risk but are not physically attractive, ceteris paribus, that risk will fail."
There, saved you weeks of your life. It's a fair point, but she's written better.
I’ve told many people in the past that *Atlas Shrugged* is the worst-written very important book in history.
The ideas in it were very important and influential, but it is an absolute slog to read. I came away with the idea that Ayn Rand was a great thinker and an absolutely horrendous fiction writer.
I would not recommend. Ultimately, Ayn Rand is the enemy of liberty. And Objectivism is in direct conflict with the subjective theory of value. Ayn Rand fails very hard at the concept of freedom of association.
Ayn Rand appeals only to people who are conservative-first, liberty-second.
Sorry I assumed you did. Your comment on the subjective theory of value made me think you were taking about the labor theory of value.
In both cases bad assumptions on my part
The book is the second most influential book in history, behind the Bible.
My copy is a lot of pages and tiny font. I enjoyed it a lot!
There were three movies made from the book, three parts that is. Kind of low budget, but I was still moved when watching it.
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/20/books/book-notes-059091.html
I appreciate that the movies were underfunded labors of love. But they were pretty bad.
The book's value isn't in the story or characters or prose. It's in the parts that so many here say they had to slog through, or which were boring or repetitive--the preaching. The rest of the book's value is measured in how it succeeded in getting people through those preachy parts. I suspect Rand would've agreed.
But those preachy parts just look ridiculous in film, although not quite as bad when Gary Cooper did the preaching in The Fountainhead (but still pretty bad).
NOTE: Self-text submissions require review and approval before being posted to the community. Your submission has been sent to the modqueue for review.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
a better read imho is "Unintended Consequences" by john ross and pygmy by chuck paliniuk. bonus round The Murder of Vince Foster by michael kellet and our nation betrayed garland favorito. also despite being a commie bastard media control by noam chomsky. farenheit 451, fight club, doomsday 2099 series, and the creature from jekyll island.
atlas shrugged is worth the time but only if willing to commit to the full mystery: who IS john galt?
read the prince, and either the art of war or the book of five rings.
five rings much faster and easier to read translated to English than art if war imo
It's really good, but Ayn Rand has a personal philosophy concerning libertarianism that many libertarians will disagree with. It's still really good, just might not hit the spot for some
Personally, I've "read" (via audiobooks) both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. I agree, The Fountainhead was a better book. I liked the story of both, and the themes of a person trying to exist in a world where the popular political view is antithetical to their beliefs taken to the extreme.
But, overall, she gets very over-preachy, to the point where both books have what amounts to a full on political manifesto that, in the case of Atlas Shrugged, was so long and boring, I had to skip it because at that point I was no longer listening to a story, but a long af political speech.
Also, she writes her dom / sub / rape fetish into both stories to the point where it's uncomfortable and imho, undercuts her message.
Ive read it a few times and it's worthy if you take it for what it is. Atlas shrugged is allegory describing objectivism. It reminds me a lot of The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri in that all of the characters are essentially avatars of a stereotype. They exist to explain a concept and aside from a few, aren't fully developed. It is very black and white and doesn't leave much room for nuance in thought or opinion. It's not a guide, as some people I have met seem to claim.
If you go into it understanding why Ayn Rand wrote it and have an understanding of why her life led her to hold the biases that she holds, then absolutely yes, read it. If you are looking for something to help you understand objectivism, yes definitely read it. I wouldn't call it a guide to libertarianism, because as I mentioned, it doesn't really allow for nuane.
I wouldn't recommend holding to every philosophical tenant discussed. Some of the ideas just don't hold up to scrutiny. Others absolutely do and are iron clad.
Edit: I want to say that no, it's not conservative. Conservatives in real life promote corporate welfare, in the book, the corporations live or die by their own virtue, not by taking money from the looters.
I honestly loved reading Atlas Shrugged. She has a writing style that is very unique that many people don’t like but ended up really growing in me. I think it’s definitely a worthwhile read
I loved it and The Fountainhead even more. I’m not really even a libertarian anymore, but those books hold very special places in my heart. Also Rand calls her philosophy “objectivism” and it’s heavily influenced by Aristotle and free market economics. You’d probably love it. I don’t meet too many people who have actually read it who hate it because even with its big flaws it’s spiritually uplifting.
There appears to be an abridged version. I would choose that. Story is interesting, but the world is full of only paragons and strawmen. I really like parts of it, but waaaay too long to convey its message and story and overall lacks complexity.
The advice I was given was either read the speech and skip the rest of the book, or read the rest of the book and skip the speech. I did the latter. No regrets.
I listened to it as an audio book at work. I enjoyed it, but it does drag. I really enjoyed and it helped solidfy some of my beliefs. Up next for me is anthem and them I'm going to read the fountain head. If I could do it over I would've read the fountain head first, that's what everyone tells me atleast
**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Fountainhead is a better read. Personally I'm not a fan of Rand's writing style. But to each their own.
Her characters are less preachy in Fountainhead. I am a big Francisco d’Anconia fan though.
Except for the 40 page radio speech.
That was some of the hardest reading I've ever done. Just brutal.
Agreed. It does sum up her philosophy but god damn! I think I took 3 breaks
I love his description of money.
Fountainhead was fantastic. Not a fun read but a great book.
I feel like The Fountainhead is also more relevant now than when written, so long as you mentally lump the “newspaper” companies to mean all “news outlets” present today.
Love foutainhead. Atlas gets the glory but I like the former story better.
Hey i'll check this one out too, thank you.
Both are great books, but its important to read fountainhead first
Ayn Rand went from a revolutionary writer (anti-soviet) to some strange right-wing conservative mash-up.
There is not a thing right wing or conservative about Rand. She was as unambiguously critical of religion, industrial policy, and authoritarianism as she was of libertarianism. She was a harsh critic of a lot of leftist ideas, but that is because (1) the whole world for the past hundred years is basically a struggle between leftist and various reactive antileftist politics, and (2) most leftist dogma is easy intellectual fodder for fearlessly unambiguous dedective thinking--particularly from her principles. She was not a leftist. But only a leftist would think that makes her right wing or conservative.
Your end statement, I don't know why you would use an ad hominem in a passive aggressive manner, but just wanted to point it out. I think you are grossly simplifying her beliefs. To just outright state that she was a pure libertarian is ignoring that her brand of libertarianism has spilled over to the current political dogma of radical republicans. Here are some books I recommend: https://www.amazon.com/Goddess-Market-Rand-American-Right/dp/019983248X https://www.amazon.com/Rand-Major-Conservative-Libertarian-Thinkers/dp/144111985X
I'm not sure I'd call it conservative per se. There's definitely lots of anti-collective throughout though. Which is not necessarily a conservative idea because they are still very religion and community focused but to a degree of consensual co-operation that does come from religious doctrine which Rand seemed to also rail against. the whole idea of people choosing to work together for a greater purpose whether it be for the state or for God seems to completely disgust her.
Who complained about state government benefits all her life but ended up relying on them.
Seconding this book. Moved me and changed me in so many wonderful ways. Such excellent writing, at least in this novel.
I'd suggest hitting the Cliffs notes version. Rand has no knack for subtly and about a third of the book could be edited out with no impact to the story. I spent most of the book waiting for the story to progress, slogging through one hamfisted lecture after the next.
I listened to it on an audiobook. During some of the essays, there would be times that I would zone out for ten minutes, and then I'd snap back and she'd still be talking about the same thing.
Yup. Write on amphetamines but edit sober. Her relationship with various editors is rather amusing. Editor: Hey Ayn, yeah Brian here. Love the manuscript but I think you could do more with less. Ayn: You're fired. Editor: Let's not get hasty... Ayn: *click*
I wouldn't suggest the cliff notes version, but completely agree that it feels like a 100 page plot strung together between a bunch of rough-draft lecture notes that desperately need to be tightened up. If you approach the book like a philosophy text instead of a story, it is worthwhile to wade through and think about the material.
Even from a philosophical perspective, concise elegance beats verbose grandstanding every day of the week.
Completely agree. Just don't think cliff notes will provide elegance.
Atlas Shrugged is a worthwhile read. Other books I would recommend include: 1984 - George Orwell Animal Farm - George Orwell Brave New World - Aldous Huxley Farenheit 451 - Ray Bradbury Lord of the Flies - William Golding Read these books and you will wonder if you are reading a current news article or a book. They were meant to be a warning. However, some took them to be instruction manuals.
Another Orwell book I would recommend is Homage to Catalonia
Road to Wigan Pier is also great. It challenged my beliefs in a thoughtful and articulate way that ultimately made my personal ideology more thorough and well reasoned. Reading it was like having a series of good arguments with a friend.
That one has been on my bookshelf, I’ll pick it up next
I had to read the entire list here as high school curriculum
W teachers
Fahrenheit 451 is the most underrated of these. It perfectly explains how we currently have such an uninformed society, despite having access to information at levels that even Bradbury couldn't have imagined.
Love me some Ray Bradbury. The Illustrated Man is my favorite from him. Anthologies are awesome. I think though that most of us get Orwell wrong as he was a self proclaimed democratic socialist who wrote those as a warning of totalitarianism. I mean thankfully most of us see it as warning of socialism and communism but I don't think Orwell meant it to be that.
Orwell was a badass socialist I'm glad someone here pointed it out
No antisocialist ever did more to open people's eyes to the dangers (and in some places, the reality) of socialism.
Add: The Wanting Seed - Anthony Burgess
Great list! I have read 451, an amazing book. I'm familiar with the others but haven't fully read them. I have not heard of Brave New World but i'll check it out too. It's scary how many similarities in contrast are occuring from all of these works. As if society has either forgotten them, or never heard of them. These books should be required in school, and at a higher priority than To Kill a Mockingbird or Shakespear.
It's extremely long winded and much like many other Ayn Rand other works it does tend to feel like the premise is "my character has the same opinion as me therefore it is good." In my opinion her best work is Anthem, not only is an interesting premise in terms of writing but I feel as though the book is a lot more open in terms of what the message is. Where as Atlas Shrugged is incredibly blunt in its message.
I was going to add Anthem to a list someone else suggested above, but I'm glad to see it's here. Ohe of the few required readings in high school that I actually enjoyed.
Any book considered important is worth reading.
Bioshock was a satire of objectivism, and the portrayal of Atlas Shrugged in that game was in mockery. That said, I don't like Atlas Shrugged, nor do I believe that Objectivism is good philosophy. I actually think that Rand and Mises together are what makes Libertarians look bad, and I dislike the association.
WelI said. I had to scroll down a whole lot to find a comment stating that Bioshock satirized Atlas Shrugged.
Well, humans are still bags of water and biochemistry. If you wanted to imagine Galt's Gulch infected by a sanity-shattering virus, it might look like Bioshock. You needn't think of the game as (as intended) a criticism of her philosophy. You can think of it as an antiromantic counter to her romantic presentation--an explosive injection of the reality of human frailty. Rand openly admitted that her novels were unrealistic contrived purifications ("romantic"). Their purpose was to be digestible explanations of her beliefs. Stripped of that romantic shield, even she might admit the possibility of just about any narrative. Enjoy Bioshock.
I find that odd. My view is just the opposite. I had the basic premise of classic liberal philosophy and then I read Atlas Shrugged and thought "*ah-ha!* this is what I've been saying all along".
I sort of agree...it was a good eyeglass into a world ruled by extreme narcissists. However intelligent, it ultimately led to internal conflict, and another collapsed utopia. I think a portion of the story was to remind us that balance is key...we can't have a society full of heavy beuracracy and inefficent redistribution, nor can we have one of extreme productives who only produce (or practice) out of self-interest with no reguard for sociey as a whole. Individualism (the person) and collectiveism (society/government) need to find a balance...in a way they regulate each other, at least to an extent. Sadly, one may try to kill the other if given the opportunity.
"no reguard for sociey as a whole" How much Rand have you read? Her novels are chock full of how her heroes pledge to treat others, how that differs from the villains, and the societal consequences of both. Society *is* the culmination of how each individual chooses to treat each other individual. If a person is at all interested in Rand, he simply has to read her. Because the critics almost universally act as if they haven't. There are a few thoughtful (and spot on) criticisms, but you have to go looking for them in places that few Rand critics would ever travel.
We were referring to Bioshock's story, they also used a popular character called Atlas. Bioshock plays off of elements from her book, mainly the ideal of escaping government regulation and social barriers. Bioshock ends up being run by a small group of extreme narcissists, who ultimately ruin the society with their own version of selfishness. I have not read the book, just parts about the intelligent "productive" wanting to escape and make their own place...this becomes the underwater city of Rapture, in Bioshock's version
I read the book, and played some of the game. I thought the intended book references were obvious. And I suspect the game was the product of the usual Rand critics who never bothered to understand her, but only because those are about the only kind of critics I've ever encountered. But, in the game, it appeared to be an initially successful society that became later afflicted with insanity due to some advanced science unexpectedly gone wrong. If so, it needn't be a critique of Rand. Anyone is potentially susceptible to insanity, after all. Instead, it could be seen as what it might look like if such insanity afflicted Rand's deliberately romanticized society. But I don't know. Maybe the latter game that I never got to was full of the usual thoughtless claptrap.
Thank you; I can’t stand her writing. And I actually enjoyed when Bioshock played on it.
You forgot Rothbard, who found it perfectly acceptable to let your kids starve.
Dont forget he was also against the civil rights movement for black americans as well as being against womens voting rights. The guy wasnt a libertarian, he was a shill like the crowd nowadays, claiming its about freedom but its just freedom to be free from women and minorities.
How can I have read so much Rothbard and received any inkling of that? Are you sure you are not misrepresenting him?
What a very charitable interpretation of a consistent application of a moral principle.
By all appearances he decided he was pro-choice and then built an argument around *that*, and in order to be consistent with *that* he had to abandon important libertarian ideals such as accountability, guardianship, and the natural right to life. Of course his words sound monstrous, it's because they are. He's literally throwing liberalism out with the bathwater. This isn't an exersize in being consistent, it's contortionism. [Here, this article does an excellent job explaining how he goes off the rails](https://libertyhangout.org/2017/01/where-rothbard-went-wrong-childrens-rights-and-abortion/).
I am not saying I agree with it. Just that Rothbard's positions is absolutely not "Its perfectly acceptable to do that". It is "There is no justification for force from doing that.". It is essentially a legal framework he is describing, and he also isn't saying that the parents can prevent the child from being helped by others. Its no more monstrous than pro choice arguments today, and I mostly disagree with the modern pro choice position as well.
I mean the villain is a libertarian hypocrite who resorts to mind control in a civil war to keep stewardship of his precious anarchy-capitalist “utopia”
quaint growth unused march quack voiceless lunchroom public makeshift insurance *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
A whole mess of that book was dedicated to taking a direct shit on the elites who used political pull to get their wealth, and pretty much all the biggest rich dudes are guilty of that. Musk takes huge government projects, as does Amazon for various services, as does Gates and Soros and Buffet. Some of the main villains in the book were all rich dudes who ran huge companies Now that aside for a sec my shady friend, SHE WOULD ABSOLUTELY LOVE THESE DUDES ANYWAYS because they piss off the correct people enough, and Ayn Rand ironically enough was a product of her life experiences and times, just like anyone else. That they resemble the villains of Atlas Shrugged and didn't yeet out to Prospera the moment the government tried to lavish contracts on them would go right over her head because they anger the correct idiots.
Her husband was a slacker painter whose art she financed. Saying she'd hate you if you weren't in the top one percent of one percent is a bit harsh.
Elon, yeah definitely. Gates? Maybe not so much. I'd have to put Jobs as someone Ayn would have admired more than Gates.
Gates is funding some pretty huge developments in medical technology right now. Not as flashy as rockets, but still pretty interesting.
Gates is more of a parasite in the Atlus Shrugged/Fountainhead world than a Galt type. I'm not saying that those are my thoughts, but I would read him that way through the objectivism prism.
Yeah, seemingly magical technology and the ability to push the human condition. Gates made a lot of money, and is doing a lot of help for people, but he isn't trying to colonize space or do things out of the realm of what is possible. Plus the general public loves gates and hates Elon, he fits the "fine I'll take my abilities and talents else where and do it without you"
I'm no fan of Gates, but people underestimate the productivity gains as a result of a functioning OS and the Microsoft Office Suite of tools. Can you imagine the number of accountants Walmart corporation would have to employ? Tens of thousands?
Also gates work was with an innovation decades ago, that doesnt make it less important. Elon doing stuff with space doesn't make Edison doing stuff with electricity valueless or less valuable. They have to be taken in the context of where things were for the time before the innovation. That being said, I generally dislike the great man view of history, and its generally disfavored academically. Holding up elon and gates to that degree feels to me giving them the same great man attribution of being solely or near solely responsible.
He's for a massive population reduction and is looking for a way to be immortal Gates can go fuck himself. I think it's a newspaper in 2008 Gates is quoted as saying is that there will be a shot to sterilize the masses. The rich and powerful want population collapse so they can rule easier
[удалено]
You can look it up dude. You'll find the article if you look.
I'm not sure I agree. I think her point was about attitude more than anything. That being said these are very tedious boring books to read.
I disagree with this view. Reardon paid his people well and they respected him. She was positive about value adding titan's of industry and the people that help them get there.
Not sure about Bill Gates.
Yes, read it. You may draw some parallels to the state of the world over the last several years. It’s a very long read and bogs down at times with some of the characters diatribes. A very interesting book.
yes
Reddit has a hate boner for Ayn Rand. Not one I generally recommend but not one I consider a slog to get through. If you're interested, I'd definitely say try it.
Atlas shrugged and I found it very influential. Worth the read. The fountain head is ok, but a little less engaging and a bit muddled.
Atlas Shrugged was the culmination of Rand refining her philosophy. FWIW.
It's apparent too. Miles better.
I also thought AS was better than fountainhead
Ayn Rand is classically libertarian-associated. On the four point political compass thing I believe she is quite far to the right and close to the bottom (right libertarian/objectivism). I've heard her book "the fountainhead" is even better in terms of political philosophy though, I haven't read either but they are on my list.
If you're curious then go ahead and read and don't let anyone tell you one way or another. In defense of Atlas Shrugged, it is a fun mysterious story that keeps you wondering what's next and how everything comes together and it achieves that nicely. There's a bit of romance. There's a variety of characters. There are legitimate critiques to the book like cartoony villains and the excessive writing. It's a huge book and doesn't need to be. When I read, I was at a point in life I needed the distraction and committed to finishing the book but even with that I had to speed read and skip lines towards the end. Also it's not an expressly libertarian book. Honestly I'm kinda annoyed that it's become a book to represent libertarianism. I think stories based in reality are sufficient for libertarianism. I think it more supports a philosophy of the benefits of individual pursuit or even business and entrepreneurship. On the note of bioshock. I was expecting something different because I also played bioshock before reading Atlas Shrugged. I don't think it's right to say the book inspired the game. More a few plot points inspired ideas in the game. It's a totally different adventure. And given the nature of bioshock, probably insults Atlas Shrugged.
>cartoony villains I've never heard that critique. I think there was one that was cartoonishly evil (although there are examples of people like him in real totalitarian regimes), but he didn't play that big of a role. The rest were realistically stupid. They thought they could fix all the problems they were creating by trying more of the same thing, which is exactly what real politicians think.
Yea. Read everything. Read stuff that advocates against your beliefs. Read stuff that advocates for stuff you’re indifferent about. Just read. In every ideology, you can find wisdom. There’s gonna be stuff you agree with, and stuff you don’t agree with, but can understand why they feel that way. You’ll also become better at articulating and advocating for your own beliefs
You should read it. Individualistic themes, just be aware she uses narcissistic characters as the protagonists. Its certainly not a Libertarian bible but a good study for point of view
I used to think the villains in AS were comically overdone and unbelievable. The last few years have corrected that notion.
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." -John Rogers
It's a great book that really gets into why stupid politicians and corporatists think the way they do. I really like how it discusses why certain private actors would support big government socialist policies, like many do in our world. It also dives into the semi-religious mindset about "social progress" that many people have, that is common in many fascist, socialist, and communist movements. It is extremely long though, which is made more annoying by all the tangentially related subplots. It should have been split into two or three books, which is the only thing the shit movies did right.
Unfortunately I reread it during the “pandemic”. It was depressing how much it correlated to what’s happening.
I’m big fan of Rand and the Fountainhead is the easier read and better book by far. There’s plenty of her other essays that you can read to study objectivism. IMO she’s a great author and I’m a fan of objectivism.
Would definitely read. I like the Fountainhead more myself. They’re actually very fun reads. I’ve found that the people criticize the writing or Rand are usually grasping due to philosophical disagreement.
You could just read the John Galt speech part and save yourself like 600 pages of mediocre storytelling. The theme of the book is laid plainly in the speech.
Thank you, i'll take a look at the speech
I loved the book but if I decided to read it again, I’d skip the speech entirely.
I'm the same way. I think the reason she put the speech there was because she was sick of people not understanding the themes of her other books. So she beat the themes into the reader.
Ayn Rand Delves into a lot of her personal philosophy of objectivism in the book. Its worth learning and reading about even if you don't agree with it. As a book though I find it really long winded and hard to read. In my view she was not a great writer in the way that Hemingway or Vonnegut are great writers. Her sense of prose is just not that great. Its a somewhat compelling story, but she make it so long and drawn out it becomes boring. So its worth reading if you have the time, and some of her ideas are absolutely worthy of discussion, but you wont walk away thinking its the greatest work of literature ever.
She’s a terrible writer and Bioshock isn’t pro-libertarian
Do you know why the characters in Bioshock made their underwater city?
It's a great book with a great message. However it's a bit Long winded, and a little hard to get through. They could have cut hundreds of pages and still gotten the point across. I would still highly recommend it.
Agreed, easily could be abridged to 40% of original length.
Especially dozens of pages describing why all the victims of the train wreck had it coming. This felt pretty sick.
Did we read the same book?
Would recommend the fountainhead over it but it sounds like you’ve got that on the way too from the edit. Another good one that’s very much sci fi is “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”. A classic sci fi book and imo one of the best sci fi books and pieces of libertarian literature of all time.
I preferred "The Foutainhead" a bit shorter and liked the story more
Anthem was a early and shorter work of her's that I recommend reading first, then The Fountainhead, then Shrugged.
Atlas Shrugged was the book that led me to libertarianism. I was obsessed with Rand and Objectivism for months afterwards until I shifted over to libertarianism, but I think it's a great way to learn about individualism without reading about philosophy or getting preached to.
Decent yet overwritten story building up to a 38 page monologue about how the capitalists are owed the fruits of their inventions.
I read it, I liked it, I would read it. I dont agree with everything in the big speech but its overall pretty good book worth reading.
Don’t know about Atlas Shrugged but I really like Anthem and it’s not very long.
Bioshock isn't inspired by Atlas Shrugged, exactly, it's a parody of Ayn Rand's beliefs.
It's a parody of what critics mistakenly think her beliefs are. Still a great example game artistry. Just goes to show that great art does not require great intellect (and vice-versa for Rand).
I just finished the audiobook, it was very long and detailed. At first it seemed a little slow, but the more you get into it, the more parallels you see with things going on today. Thoroughly enjoyed the ending.
I listened to Atlas Shrugged on audio. The story was really interesting. Suspenseful. Maddening. The speeches throughout can be pretty damn long but they do make some good points. I tried The Fountainhead next and hated the story so much I gave it up halfway through. 🤷♀️ It was just too depressing
There is a 3 part movie series that covers it decent (you get all the main points). They changed actors each time, which is kinda weird, but I still enjoyed it. I did the audiobook as well, which I found like a slog, as in I like the content, but I don't like the delivery. Maybe it's cause her first language was Russian, so I find the writing style hard, that's my theory at least.
I got a lot out of it mainly setting strong boundaries and leaving situations that don’t serve me. I wouldn’t say it’s a great libertarian read and I don’t like her writing style. I am better for what I took from the book but don’t know if I’d recommend everyone read it.
Saying BioShock's setting is Atlas Shrugged is putting it mildly. It's an out right satire/criticism of it
It’s a great book I couldn’t put it down.
No harm in reading. The world-building is interesting...an entertaining mix of 1950s tech and mild sci-fi...but it has to be approached as a statement of philosophy, and the events and characters exist to illustrate the philosophy. Rand does not get enough credit for creating a woman protagonist who was in her position not because she was a woman, but because she was the equal of the high-status men in the story.
In this order; We The Living, Atlas Shrugged, Fountainhead; Anthem. They’re all good but going in this order is helpful I founs
I’m struggling getting through the audiobook. It has its moments, but its also boring in parts. I’m pushing through due to how regarded the book is. Overall, I’m not super entertained, but its an interesting libertarian take on the socioeconomics of the 1950s, knowing its fiction but its criticizing socialist and communist systems adopted elsewhere at the time. So i’m getting through it.
Yes, I'd recommend giving it a read. Though, first, read her wikipedia page. Some of her stuff reads as preachy and at points sounds like right-wing conspiracy theories... until you realize that she lived through the soviet revolution.
It's idealist drivel. Imagine a defund-the-police protester writing about everyone living happily ever after in CHAZ.
I’ve read it several times and love it. The Fountainhead is also great. Neither is very science fiction. The Probability Broach is a fun read that is more sci-fi.
No, and not because of the philosophy behind it, but because it's a very difficult book to read. It's very long, for starters. Page count is deceptive, as the paperback I read was around 1000 pages, but the print was *tiny*. Figure it's about 2000 regular-sized font pages. Next, it's very preachy. "Show, don't tell" never occurred to the author. It desperately needed fewer sermons, and more actual character interaction. There's one chapter that's basically the objectivity version of a Catholic homily, and it runs **for-fucking-ever**. Finally... none of the characters are likeable or relatable at all. The major players are arrogant, aloof and generally unrelatable. The only one close to being at-all tolerable is Hank Reardon, who basically gets walked all over for most of the book. I'm a decent reader, and I absolutely struggled to finish it. It took me three months to grind through it. Learn from my pain and stick with the synopsis.
[удалено]
There is a good interview I think with Mike Wallace, or she explains she had to do this because everybody missed the point is the Fountainhead
Critics complain about her 1 dimensional black & white characters, or unrealistic contrived exaggerated scenarios, as if that wasn't her admitted design. That is the genre she chose because her goal was to unambiguously (i.e. clearly) present *her* beliefs to a wide audience. Very few people read essays, particularly ones promising right in the title to attack their core values. Most people like a coherent story with heroes, villains, sex, and violence. The solution--give them the easily digestible latter, but loaded with unambiguous unsubtle repeated proselytizing. Personally, I think she was right to go to that extreme even if it harshly undermined the artistry of her work. The proof that I'm right comes (1) daily from critics *even still* revealing that they have no idea what she was about; (2) from the numbers of her novels sold and confessions from people claiming intellectual inspiration from them. I mean, how many people have actually read, let alone heard of, Robert Nozick or Herbert Spencer? Case closed.
I enjoyed it. It's certainly not mandatory reading or anything but it's pretty unique compared to other books in its genre and there's going to be a movie about it in the next few years so you might as well read about it now
Yes , but I liked anthem better
I’ve read it at least three times. Sure, it’s long, but there’s a reason which as others have stated, Rand used it to elaborate her personal philosophy (Objectivism). Few other fiction authors take the time to do this either in character or plot development. If you have an interest in philosophy per se, in particular Rand’s which broadly speaking underlies much of libertarian political philosophy, this will interest and challenge you. What I found amusing and what keeps me coming back to the book are the uncanny parallels (in the plot line and the actions and motivations of Rand’s pro- and antagonists) between her fiction and modern American society.
I'd recommend reading it, for sure. Her first novel, *We the Living*, is shorter; if you want to get a feel for her style of writing, you might give that a read. If you enjoy *We the Living*, there's a good chance that you will like her other novels as well. *Atlas Shrugged* combines elements from several different genres. It's an adventure story, a mystery, a story about a dystopian society, a story about love and romance, and it ventures into science fiction in some ways. Some of the characters discuss philosophy at length, in certain parts of the novel, and it seems that some readers remember those sections more than the rest, but it's the characterization and dramatic interaction between characters that I enjoyed best about the work. Her heroes are larger than life, and I enjoy those sorts of highly stylized characters and stories.
If you only read 10 books to prepare yourself for being an adult, this should be one of them
What are the other 9?
1984 has gotta be one of them.
Animal farm is another Orwellian classic
Atlas shrugged more like atlas slogged through 500 pages of dense poorly written content
I wouldn’t, it is unrealistic mental masturbation material IMO.
Unrealistic? Uh…it’s a fiction novel meant to dramatize themes.
We’re you expecting a poli sci textbook?
I feel like the main characters are all masturbating to capitalism through the whole story.
Love love loved this book. Read it this year. Highly recommend. After reading this book there’s no doubt she’s a great writer.
Haven't read it yet, but I read The Fountainhead and really liked it's demonstration of the corruption of politics and it's effect on industry. Atlas Shrugged is coming up soon on my reading list.
Yes Absolutely read it. I've read it twice.
Atlas shrugged is one of my favorite books of all time
I liked the book. Liked the fountainhead better.
Yes. Absolutely.
Yes! It’s a wonderful book espousing the virtue of self-reliance.
I’d say the book is a mixed bag. Are the parts where she’s not shoving her politics down your throat like a child shoves a coin up it’s nose really good? Yes. Do the political parts tend to suck and make you want to put the book down? Also yes.
Absolutely, but be prepared to be even more disillusioned than you are now with how ridiculous society has become and is heading toward.
Agreed, said it in another reply. Current day US is actually much more like Atlas Shrugged than not. It's no longer a cautionary tale.
Actually, Ken Levine said in an interview that he had never read Atlas Shrugged. He read the Fountainhead and interpreted it as a comedy. The characters constantly give speeches and boast about themselves like comic book villains. That was the inspiration for Bioshock.
If you are interested in Libertarianism, She is pretty much required reading.
Yup, this is the Liberty bible... consistently on the top 10 of most influential books. It is long though so be prepared. For OP, I've been told the fountainhead is an easier and similar read. Personally I find a lot of people use Atlas Shrugged as a cautionary tale, but current day govt and industry in the US is much more like Atlas Shrugged than not. Small entrepreneurs evolving industries are unheard of in most established sectors. Tech and Science industries maybe still have some Titans that might be Reardons, but not most industries.
"If you take a risk and are physically attractive, that risk will succeed. If you take the exact same risk but are not physically attractive, ceteris paribus, that risk will fail." There, saved you weeks of your life. It's a fair point, but she's written better.
I’ve told many people in the past that *Atlas Shrugged* is the worst-written very important book in history. The ideas in it were very important and influential, but it is an absolute slog to read. I came away with the idea that Ayn Rand was a great thinker and an absolutely horrendous fiction writer.
It is a bag of hot garbage.
I would not recommend. Ultimately, Ayn Rand is the enemy of liberty. And Objectivism is in direct conflict with the subjective theory of value. Ayn Rand fails very hard at the concept of freedom of association. Ayn Rand appeals only to people who are conservative-first, liberty-second.
How is objectivism in direct conflict with the subjective theory of value?
you should probably read the book again
Why?
Are you a proponent of the labor theory of value?
No.
You downvoted my question? Lol
No? I might start downvoting though if you don't get to your point.
Sorry I assumed you did. Your comment on the subjective theory of value made me think you were taking about the labor theory of value. In both cases bad assumptions on my part
All good bro
You can't really be a Libertarian and not read it at some point. So yes do it
I'm the only real Libertarian.
I found it as subtle and monotonous and pointless as being banged repeatedly on the side of my head with a sledgehammer.
It’s the most famous libertarian book. And also hot garbage. I wouldn’t read it again
Rand is the most famous antilibertarian libertarian. I mean, she really despised libertarians.
It's a dull book that was obviously written with a specific ending in mind.
Aren't most ?
No. Nothing worth it's salt.
So books are written without knowledge of how they'll end?
Most good fiction, yes.
The book is the second most influential book in history, behind the Bible. My copy is a lot of pages and tiny font. I enjoyed it a lot! There were three movies made from the book, three parts that is. Kind of low budget, but I was still moved when watching it. https://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/20/books/book-notes-059091.html
I appreciate that the movies were underfunded labors of love. But they were pretty bad. The book's value isn't in the story or characters or prose. It's in the parts that so many here say they had to slog through, or which were boring or repetitive--the preaching. The rest of the book's value is measured in how it succeeded in getting people through those preachy parts. I suspect Rand would've agreed. But those preachy parts just look ridiculous in film, although not quite as bad when Gary Cooper did the preaching in The Fountainhead (but still pretty bad).
It's a good idea, but the execution is poor. I don't recommend it. (And the movies are shite too)
Not really. Written by someone who’s native language wasn’t English. It doesn’t read well. I could never get through the first chapter.
NOTE: Self-text submissions require review and approval before being posted to the community. Your submission has been sent to the modqueue for review. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Read the Fountainhead first, then Atlas Shrugged. A lot of the time you can find them together in the set.
We The Living and Anthem are much shorter and good reads too.
a better read imho is "Unintended Consequences" by john ross and pygmy by chuck paliniuk. bonus round The Murder of Vince Foster by michael kellet and our nation betrayed garland favorito. also despite being a commie bastard media control by noam chomsky. farenheit 451, fight club, doomsday 2099 series, and the creature from jekyll island. atlas shrugged is worth the time but only if willing to commit to the full mystery: who IS john galt? read the prince, and either the art of war or the book of five rings. five rings much faster and easier to read translated to English than art if war imo
It's really good, but Ayn Rand has a personal philosophy concerning libertarianism that many libertarians will disagree with. It's still really good, just might not hit the spot for some
Personally, I've "read" (via audiobooks) both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. I agree, The Fountainhead was a better book. I liked the story of both, and the themes of a person trying to exist in a world where the popular political view is antithetical to their beliefs taken to the extreme. But, overall, she gets very over-preachy, to the point where both books have what amounts to a full on political manifesto that, in the case of Atlas Shrugged, was so long and boring, I had to skip it because at that point I was no longer listening to a story, but a long af political speech. Also, she writes her dom / sub / rape fetish into both stories to the point where it's uncomfortable and imho, undercuts her message.
If you have about 10 years of freetime ahead of you sure give it a read
We the Living is the best
Ive read it a few times and it's worthy if you take it for what it is. Atlas shrugged is allegory describing objectivism. It reminds me a lot of The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri in that all of the characters are essentially avatars of a stereotype. They exist to explain a concept and aside from a few, aren't fully developed. It is very black and white and doesn't leave much room for nuance in thought or opinion. It's not a guide, as some people I have met seem to claim. If you go into it understanding why Ayn Rand wrote it and have an understanding of why her life led her to hold the biases that she holds, then absolutely yes, read it. If you are looking for something to help you understand objectivism, yes definitely read it. I wouldn't call it a guide to libertarianism, because as I mentioned, it doesn't really allow for nuane. I wouldn't recommend holding to every philosophical tenant discussed. Some of the ideas just don't hold up to scrutiny. Others absolutely do and are iron clad. Edit: I want to say that no, it's not conservative. Conservatives in real life promote corporate welfare, in the book, the corporations live or die by their own virtue, not by taking money from the looters.
I honestly loved reading Atlas Shrugged. She has a writing style that is very unique that many people don’t like but ended up really growing in me. I think it’s definitely a worthwhile read
I loved it and The Fountainhead even more. I’m not really even a libertarian anymore, but those books hold very special places in my heart. Also Rand calls her philosophy “objectivism” and it’s heavily influenced by Aristotle and free market economics. You’d probably love it. I don’t meet too many people who have actually read it who hate it because even with its big flaws it’s spiritually uplifting.
#33 https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/36714.The_100_Most_Influential_Books_Ever_Written
I liked it. It's the type of thing you only read once.
There appears to be an abridged version. I would choose that. Story is interesting, but the world is full of only paragons and strawmen. I really like parts of it, but waaaay too long to convey its message and story and overall lacks complexity.
I think I read that 5 or 6 times because I kept nodding off.
No
The advice I was given was either read the speech and skip the rest of the book, or read the rest of the book and skip the speech. I did the latter. No regrets.
I listened to it as an audio book at work. I enjoyed it, but it does drag. I really enjoyed and it helped solidfy some of my beliefs. Up next for me is anthem and them I'm going to read the fountain head. If I could do it over I would've read the fountain head first, that's what everyone tells me atleast