-
A City in Heaven
December 13, 2012 | 44 comments
At Large
I Left the Theater Shrugging
The second movie in the Atlas Shrugged trilogy fails precisely because it succeeds.
Atlas Shrugged Part II: The Strike, the second movie in a trilogy based on Ayn Rand’s magnum opus, is tolerable as a popcorn film — that is, if you like fairytales about evil governments, objectivist CEOs, and cursory allusions to metal bondage.
The basic plot points will be familiar to anyone who has ever read the book (or known a 16-year-old libertarian obsessed with it). As the film opens, the U.S. economy is shot. Gas is $40 per gallon, and the trains of Taggart Transcontinental offer the only affordable transportation between coasts. Desperate government agents have given the economic theories of Diocletian another chance. They freeze prices, wages, and employment, and attempt to nationalize the major industries. Egotists Dagny Taggart, bombshell rail executive, and Henry Rearden, CEO of Rearden Steel and inventor of a miraculous new metal, fight for the independence of their corporations by day and shag by night. The rest of the country’s talent is mysteriously disappearing, destroying their work in the process, and leaving only notes written with a question, “Who is John Galt?” Playboy industrialist Francisco D’Anconia (picture the “Most Interesting Man in the World” from those Dos Equis ads, except younger) appears from time to time to ask, in his sultry Spanish tones, if Dagny and Rearden are ready to wash their hands of their pointless struggle and join the other heroes of industry in Atlantis, a secret land where the market always solves.
Producer and backer John Aglialoro, in opening remarks at the Oct. 2 premiere in Washington, D.C., attacked the critics of the first film, Part I, for mocking its philosophy of individualism rather than doing their job by judging it on style. “The critics prostituted their profession for politics,” he said. But Part II has little going for it artistically. The camera work is uninventive; during the opening sequence, in media res, a twin-prop rolls and pitches dramatically through mountain valleys, but when the scene cuts to a shot from the nose looking back into the cockpit, the plane is perfectly steady. Later in the film, when the plot comes back around, the same sequence is repeated frame for frame, with all the drama of a drinking companion retelling his favorite joke.
Further, Mr. Aglialoro’s criticism is odd considering that politics, not art, dictated the movie’s creation. The film seemed driven by the producers, not the director John Putch, who wasn’t present for the premiere. Production was timed with the express purpose of cinematic release before election day. It’s a political commentary, and the audience was asked to think of it in that light. Producer Harman Kaslow told TAS that the film is an evangelistic tool for young conservatives who “never crossed that barrier in a friendship to talk about free markets,” and he said it would appeal to independents who haven’t made up their minds between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.
Ideology Over Art
Superficially, the story is a dystopian thriller. Its entrepreneurs, artists, and inventors wrestle for life in a Hobbesian wasteland against small-minded “looters.” There’s no consciousness of history or inherited freedoms. The timeline stretches out only into the future, where an eschatological horizon divides those who choose dependence, and perish, and those who choose independence, and live. There is something in Randianism that resembles Marxism. The world’s population is split between the evil and the good, those on the right side of history, and those on the wrong side. The good guys will save the world through destruction and revolution.
But behind the curtain, the true story is utopian. The problem, it holds, is not with mankind, but with individuals. If only we could extract the best and the most virtuous of men (plus one woman), and let the rest of the human race go to hell, we could reshape the world into a perfectly rational society. Its utopia badly needs a sense of irony. Rand’s characters lack the greatness of soul that goes along with a consciousness of tragedy, the failure of hope, and the death of good things.
The film, to its credit, tempers the logical extremes of Rand’s moral thought. In The Strike, Dagny doesn’t alternate sleeping with D’Anconia and Rearden while dreaming of John Galt, hopelessly attracted to a string of dominant men. The minor characters are not quite so two-dimensional; they are permitted to be merely average rather than being either incompetent or genius. Indeed, the movie thrills most in those moments when the inventions — not the characters — take center stage: A generator spins, a train flashes down its tracks, a futuristic airplane lifts off from the runway. The grand machines are the first fruits of a new world.
Still, the film begs to be compared to its source material, Ayn Rand’s novel: Francisco still implausibly interrupts a wedding reception to lecture on the nature of money; Rearden still despises his wife for her jealousy of his affair with Dagny, and boldly seeks a divorce; Rearden still inspires cheers from an apparently libertarian courtroom audience by proclaiming to a tribunal that he lives only for his own profit. It’s an exercise in ideological faithfulness rather than artistic accessibility.
But perhaps the ideologue and the artist are not so different. They share the bold conviction of rectitude, the indifference to critical reception, the triumph of spirit over flesh. For the film succeeds just as so much modern art has done, by alienating its audience. At no point do Dagny’s troubles excite sympathy. What emotional connection can an audience entertain toward a character whose arc progresses from her opening lines in Part I, “No Jim, I guess I’ve never felt anything at all,” to her abandonment of a burning world, as she heroically learns to treat herself as the only object of moral significance in her universe? Sex becomes consensual rape, and characters freely allow themselves to be objectified, so long as they objectify their partners in turn. For a moral solipsist that might be attractive. The rest of us shrug, unmoved, and walk away from the theater.
The Enemy is Altruism?
Perhaps the more interesting question is this: Would Ayn Rand have approved of the making of Atlas Shrugged Part II, particularly since investors seem unlikely to recoup their money?
Rand, famous for preaching ethical objectivism, and the centrality of the virtue of pride, also railed against the evils of altruism. Mr. Aglioloro mirrored this feeling in his speech before the film’s premiere, saying, “altruism is the mortal enemy of individualism.”
To be clear, the bad guys in Rand’s novel aren’t actually altruists, but thieves. Government agents try to persuade Rearden to sign over his metal patent to government science in the public interest; when that fails, they blackmail him. Guests at the wedding reception who complain that “we all know money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak” sacrifice nothing of their own. (Here the film comes closest to a thoughtful estimation of modern politics, and sometimes it rings of the rhetoric of our incumbent president.) By making out that the politicians are genuinely inspired by deep-felt sympathy for a pure doctrine of altruism, she caricatures them beyond belief.
But this does seem to raise the question: Is Atlas Shrugged Part II: The Strike a noble self-sacrifice on the part of its producers and financial backers? If it turns out to be a commercial disaster, and the market rejects it, will it still be, objectively, a good thing? Mr. Kaslow rejected the hypothetical in the question. “There are ways to measure success outside box office receipts,” he said. “Besides, Atlas Shrugged was panned when it first came out, but it eventually became a bestseller. There are DVD sales, there will be people buying the book after they see the film.”
A full $20 million was invested in Part II, double what went into the first movie, and the higher production values show, even if the FX in one of the big action sequences looks like a scene from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The film’s marketing people did an excellent job with publicity. The first film opened in 299 theaters, and the second opened in 1,012. So far, the market has judged the film and found it wanting. By October 28, it had taken just $3.2 million, or $3,166 per venue. If the final result is a commercial failure — and that seems likely now — it’s because producers idolized an idea at the expense of a movie.
On second thought, that sounds right up Ayn Rand’s alley.
About the Author
Matthew Taylor is an editorial intern at The American Spectator, with a scholarship from the National Journalism Center. He is a graduate of Hillsdale College. Email him at taylorm@spectator.org or follow him on Twitter @mjohntaylor.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (41) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Matthew Taylor
More Articles From At Large
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/10/31/i-left-the-theater-shrugging
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 10.31.12 @ 6:59AM
The first thing any writing teacher or agent will tell a would-be author is "write about what you know." The second thing is that if you want your story to be coherent and gripping at all, you the author have to step back and allow your characters to act the way human beings really act. Ayn Rand has invented puppets, not characters, who never act the way human beings act. Once upon a time I invented a Perfect World, and was dismayed to find that my all too human characters did everything they could to circumvent all the safeguards I built for them, and quickly my perfect society turned into two societies, one of them lived in gated compounds by the people who ruled the world, the other made up of the hoi polloi trying to create lives for themselves without being subjugated to their rulers. At 25 (when I was reading Ayn Rand, by the way) I was firmly on the side of those creating that Perfect World. Today I read back and realize I had reinvented fascism. If Ayn Rand had ever become an adult and read Atlas Shrugged from the point of view of the Rest Of Us, she'd have found out the same.
C. Vernon Crisler | 10.31.12 @ 10:40AM
I tried reading Atlas Shrugged, but the characters were too wooden and I couldn't get through the first fifty pages. It was sheer torture to turn the pages and I finally gave up. (I think it was Russell Kirk who said people read her books mainly for the fornicating bits).
There are too many other works of fiction that I need to read -- the ones I neglected to read in high school -- and Rand's offerings are not on the top of my literary bucket list.
Bill8472| 10.31.12 @ 1:48PM
Don't you find the fornicating bits of Atlas Shrugged (and The Fountainhead, too, for that matter) fairly straightforward rape stories?
The sex parts of Ayn Rand's books were among the worst parts of her writing. That, and the way the novels would come to a crashing halt while Howard Roark, that pirate guy, and some of the others would deliver a 40- or 50-page-long lecture on the virtues of selfishness or something.
Bill8472| 10.31.12 @ 1:50PM
Hank Reardon, that's the other name I was trying to come up with.
Al Adab| 10.31.12 @ 2:13PM
I checked the NYSE this morning but couldn't find what Taggert Transcontinental is trading at today.
Bill8472| 10.31.12 @ 4:13PM
Taggert Transcontinental is now the state railroad of the John Galt Utopian State of Colorado.
Al Adab| 10.31.12 @ 4:24PM
:>) ahhh
Bill8472| 10.31.12 @ 1:44PM
Reading Ayn Rand at age 25 is about 9 or 10 years late. She's ususally picked up in the later high school years by those who spend any time contemplating her thoughts, at the time of life when we're both totally self-involved, filled with angst, and insistent that the adult world live strictly according to the rules our parents taught us, without variation or deviation.
Nancy in NC| 10.31.12 @ 8:19AM
It's been over 40 years since I read Atlas, but I still recall some of the truths I learned. Freedom is the answer for humanity, and communism is the end of mankind.
Rand's lack of religious faith depicts what often happens when people think they are the smartest people in the room. It doesn't matter if you're one of the ruling elite or not, when one thinks they have all the answers the rest of us is in trouble.
But some of Atlas rings very true these days. The Obama administration seems to have taken lessons from the Atlas protaganists.
JD| 10.31.12 @ 3:21PM
Exactly. That's what I find most interesting. It's as if Barack Obama is a character in the book.
Occam's Tool| 10.31.12 @ 10:50PM
He's Ellsworth Toohey from The Fountainhead, Obama is.
Dodd2| 10.31.12 @ 8:21AM
Yes, Ann Rand's writings are rather sophomoric.
Denver Todd| 10.31.12 @ 9:46AM
I didn't think the production values of Part I were very good, so that is why I am not rushing out to watch 2, but I will on dvd. I recall that at one time Angelina Jolie was connected with the project, as the buyer of the rights or something like that, and that would have upped quality immnensely.
gene| 10.31.12 @ 10:05AM
I like Rand's Philosophy, but her way of presenting it in Literature sometimes is tiresome and boring. In Atlas Shrugged, a protaganist takes over the Media and then "presents" Ayn Rand's beliefs. This narrative goes on and on and on and on for something like 70 or 80 pages in the novel. If you cannot state what you believe on one page, shut up already. It is not her philosophy that is the problem, it was the incessant beating of it over people's heads. It appears that in her books, she never took the advice of any editors and always thought she knew what was best . She was boringly wrong.
Al Adab| 10.31.12 @ 11:17AM
I too left the film feeling somewhat of a disappointment. While the story line was intact the point was not clearly made as to the genesis of the social problems and the work of the destroyers opposed to the producers. Hopefully #III (should it be produced) will tie all the ends together and we will learn about free markets, the meaning of the cigarettes, more of Akston and so on. Ragnar is also absent from II and his role in the breakup not so clear even in I where headlines alluded to his actions.
Perhaps like Shogun or Winds of war this would have been better presented as a lengthy TV mini-series, but no matter it is rewarding to see it brought to the screen in any fashion since, these days, the entire premise seems so prophetic.
Bill8472| 10.31.12 @ 4:18PM
Speaking of whether or not Part III will be produced, I live in a city with a nationwide reputation for its political conservatism, but Atlas Shrugged II only played for about two weeks and it was gone from all theaters in town by the time I decided to go see it.
Al Adab| 10.31.12 @ 5:00PM
Well, Bill, don't forget that Rand was no Conservative and her "free" system was imposed not chosen. Although much of her theory appeals to Conservatives, the atheism and her sexual proclivity does not.
Simon Templar| 10.31.12 @ 12:10PM
Some very interesting and rich comments and perspectives in this thread.
Please allow me to throw in my two cents...
First, the author is over analyzing all of this..take it down a few thousand and stop being so serious.
The movie was entertaining and presented an obvious sci-fi tale of a potential future that is certainly possible and in the style of good movie making presented a powerful message. The people making this film are not professional Hollywood movie makers..keep that in mind and have struggled long to get the financing for it. It was enjoyable. Leave it at that. Let's encourage more movies to be made with conservative perspectives.
Now, Ayn Rand was herself an amateur to writing and you can see it in her "wooden" characters and certain aspects of the story that were rather cliche. So, what? Not bad for someone new to this. Story is still very good and a bold challenge and message.
Simon Templar| 10.31.12 @ 12:10PM
As far as the objectivist philosophy. Certainly a lot of contradictions and flaws particularly regarding the definitions of selfishness vs. self interest and a misunderstanding of altruism vs. thievery masquerading as altruism. She also confused greed with a desire for prosperity and success. They are not the same. Nevertheless, she had some very powerful insights as well that ring true. Thanks to her for that.
As conservatives, we need not worship our leaders and follow blindly like liberals but rather take what is good, appreciate their contributions, and leave the rest. We do not have to think and walk in lock step. We have more in common then in differences. Live and Learn.
Mark30339| 10.31.12 @ 1:20PM
Thoughtful comments Simon. Perhaps I will get the movies later via netflix. Rand's earlier book, THE FOUNTAINHEAD, is an excellent work; her characters are unusual -- but the passion is anything but wooden. The great takeaway from ATLAS is a virtual handbook on how big government types conspire and manipulate to achieve their confiscatory objectives -- and what a mess they make of an entire economy in the process.
Simon Templar| 10.31.12 @ 2:59PM
Thank you, Mark,
Did you know a movie was made of Fountainhead starring Gary Cooper?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SsGpu1cXJc
Enjoy. Check it out. Actually was a good movie for its time and was met with similar whiny complaints by columnist in its time as well.
JimH| 10.31.12 @ 1:32PM
I don’t know if Rand considered it such, but to me Atlas Shrugged is a work of science fiction. Like a lot of science fiction the characters are somewhat wooden and secondary to the big idea that constitutes the story. I first read it about 40 years ago. I have since recently reread it. The first reading was much more enjoyable. The rereading was a bit painful and tedious in spots. It is though, still a unique work and parts of it have been as accurately prophetic as 1984. When it was first published fiction with an individualist slant was thin on the ground. The best individualist writing can still be found in science fiction. I’d recommend Poul Anderson and Robert Heinlein as a start.
Occam's Tool| 10.31.12 @ 10:53PM
Heinlein was no non-interventionalist. Starship Troopers, recall? Also, the Puppet Masters and several others. Libertarian in most things, yes. But he also believed in busting heads when necessary.
JimH| 11.1.12 @ 7:56AM
A policy I agree with.I never said Heinlein was. Perhaps you read the word individualist in my post too quickly?
RayKremer| 10.31.12 @ 1:38PM
I've been told that ideology aside, the Atlas Shrugged book isn't very well written. Also, too, while Ayn Rand's libertarianism is admirable, her anti-religious views are not. However, I left the theater from Atlas Shrugged Part II with the feeling that somebody involved in the creation of the book and/or movie was a time traveler from a future in which Barack Obama won reelection, and came back to bring us a warning. Cliché and wooden characters? Perhaps. But they are not the point of the story, they are not the stars, they are just a means to an end, a vehicle to allow a narrative story to take place. The stars of the story are the Fair Share Law and Directive 10-289. More powerful than any actor's performance were the signs that said "America: born 1776, died yesterday" and "Business closed for the duration of the recovery". It really says something when one could easily see such laws coming from the Obama-Pelosi-Reid wing of the Democrat party were they given the chance, rather than only from the fictional future government that Rand created. John Galt's miracle engine and his secret land filled with hard working people that dropped out of society could never happen in the real world, but the total economic ruin seen in Atlas Shrugged could. Radical leftists in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere are working hard to ensure that is does. I only pray that we can stop them.
Bill8472| 10.31.12 @ 1:40PM
One thing that both the book and (it seems) Part II of the movie do is reveal one of the human weaknesses of utopianism: the great mass of humanity falls short and (at best) must be left behind to create the Hell they create for themselves by being ordinary.
For the Communists and the Fascists, it wasn't enough to leave them behind; they had to be exterminated like rats. It's not entirely how an objectivist world, run according to Rand's beliefs, would treat the mass of people. One thing is sure: compassion for them would be severely discouraged.
Matthew Taylor| 10.31.12 @ 2:35PM
Great discussion so far. I'm learning lots. JimH's comment that Atlas Shrugged should be interpreted as SciFi is useful. To Simon Templar - it would be easier to take the film lightly if the makers of the film hadn't clearly taken it so seriously. And they look foolish for doing so.
Rand's description of the mechanics of political and economic tyranny a la Stalinist Russia are plausible - such and such laws would be passed, such and such rhetoric would be used to justify it, and as far as that the novel and film work as SciFi, as an exercise in possibilities.
But the kind of world she offered as an alternative to tyranny is unpalatable and absurd, as I tried to show. Objectivism is a very petty philosophy, far from robust enough to overcome that sort of evil. The best it can do is imitate the thing it hates, and burn all the impurities out of the world. If they had put Ragnar in the movie, that would only have reinforced my point. Those characters are actively hastening the end of their civilization so they can build a new one.
Simon Templar| 10.31.12 @ 3:12PM
Matt, I am not sure what you were trying to say that the makers of the film took it too seriously?
Why would they not? Would you if you spent so much of your time, life, and money trying to make it against a lot of naysayers? Why is that foolish?
I agree with your view that the philosophy she created is rather flawed.
But I disagree that the characters are all hastening a crisis to build a new society. Actually, I saw characters who were nobly attempting to work hard and succeed despite adversity and attempting to change it without violence, revolution, etc. I think she was trying to present several views to reacting to tyranny, all with their nobility and value. I think that was the whole point of the novel - there are no easy answers, and yes, there are people, many of them libertarians who actually hold the view that we should just let the system collapse on its own and not even try to save it or reform it. Hear it out here all the time. They are part of the debate as to what we should do.
The movie should be taken seriously as its content is very serious and so are the issues it tries to address.
Simon Templar| 10.31.12 @ 3:18PM
You make good points by the way. Just think your being a bit too critical of the movie. Would love to know more about exactly what you think is wrong with her philosophy and what would her ideal world would look like. That would be an interesting article.
Perhaps, you should write your view of her "utopia" in a sci-fi genre? That would be very cool.
T. David Demarest | 10.31.12 @ 5:19PM
"Let's encourage more movies to be made with conservative perspectives."
What do Randians want to conserve, pray tell? As far as the history of American conservatism qua cultural and political disposition is concerned, Rand is not a conservative. What she is is an extreme liberal.
What "conservative perspective" brought forth this film? Or are we enlarging the conservative tent to include the likes of Jeremy Bentham, Charles Darwin, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Herbert Spencer? Conservators of what classical and enduring view of man?
"Nevertheless, she had some very powerful insights as well that ring true. Thanks to her for that."
Name one such so-called "insight" with which Rand has enlightened the world.
"As conservatives, we need not worship our leaders and follow blindly like liberals but rather take what is good, appreciate their contributions, and leave the rest. We do not have to think and walk in lock step. We have more in common then in differences. Live and Learn."
Yes, I suppose that everyone has his virtues. Apparently (Godwin's Law aside) Hitler was not a bad painter. Chairman Mao had impeccable taste in classical music. So what? Is it worth any man's time, as a human being in general and a thoughtful conservative in particular, to try to tweeze out the brownie-mix from Rand's ballyhoo? The two are so mixed together and the truths that she does manage to elucidate so prosaic and dull that the effort is not worth the yield.
Simon Templar| 10.31.12 @ 7:55PM
Yeah, I get it. You did not like the film, the author, or anything else, Fine.
Unfortunately, you used an old rhetorical fallacy or false argument to make your overall point.
So, now Rand apparently is in the same tent with Hitler, Darwin, and just about anyone else you might like to falsely equate with her? So, no value can be found in anyone as we might risk giving value to those clearly not deserving any respect and have done great misdeeds. You are being ridiculous. So, if someone does not think exactly like Demarest apparently, then they have nothing worthwhile to offer, nothing original, nor anything of value. Very black and white thinking and actually very post modern on your part.
You do not have to like nor agree with anything Rand proposed, wrote, or lived.
When you can formulate a more solid and coherent argument, reply. Otherwise, do not waste my time.
Matthew Taylor| 10.31.12 @ 3:45PM
They look foolish because they represented to the audience (I didn't mention this in the review) that the most important points of the film were when the characters were expressing their philosophy of life, the same thing that is most unreasonable about it. Also the entire script of the film was vetted for inconstancies with Rand's thought by David Kelley, founder of the Atlas Society, a society which promotes the philosophy of Objectivism. Kelley himself said a few words before the screening. Aglioloro emphasized the centrality of objectivism in Rand and for the film. Economics and politics came in a distinct second and third.
I read Rand's understanding of Dagny's efforts as being well-meaning but flawed. That Dagny didn't fully understand her responsibility to herself, to make sure that she enjoyed the full benefit of her work. In Rand's formulation, Dagny was being insufficiently virtuous. The only way to make sure that she could enjoy the full fruits of her labors was to build society from scratch. It's a classic enlightenment project which bears no love or respect for historical rights and duties, attachments to place and family, religious insight, the limits of reason, or an awareness of the tragedy of man's persistent sinfulness.
Simon Templar| 10.31.12 @ 8:07PM
OK....not sure exactly why I must dislike the film nevertheless, and that it was not a good film.
You may be correct as to Rand's Dagny but that did not come off as such to me when I watched the film.
Still found the clash of ideas and the futuristic predictions spot on as well as useful, entertaining, and educational.
Once again, I agree with you on your insights as to as you put it, 'respect for historical rights and duties, attachments to place and family, religious insight, the limits of reason, or an awareness of the tragedy of man's persistent sinfulness.'
See, the difference is I was not looking for that but taking it as it was... a sci-fi tale of a future where government has grown so powerful and large that it has essentially destroyed our constitution and the sovereignty of the individual under the guise of fairness and helping the people.
Do not see many people tackling that concept in art. To each his own.
Should I punish myself for not being a purist and condemning it all because it does not fit my and your prescriptions and expectations?
Simon Templar| 10.31.12 @ 8:14PM
Oh, by the way, I did find your article to be very worthwhile and having made some very good points. Do not want you to misunderstand my objection to some of it. I was serious, love to know more about what you think is flawed with her philosophy....
Simon Templar| 10.31.12 @ 8:17PM
Oh, and thank you for your reply, I now better understand how you saw the film and Rand herself.
Occam's Tool| 10.31.12 @ 10:53PM
For a true Randian SF experience, read Anthem.
Alice Moore| 11.1.12 @ 9:27AM
Anthem was short, sweet, and to the point.
I read Atlas Shrugged at 16. Looking back, all the critiques of clunkiness, poor characterization,militant atheism, and meandering plot are true. However, this is the old truism that the sum being greater than the parts is demonstrated. Over sixty years after Rand's works were written they still are hardy perennials in book stores. Atlas Shrugged cannot be such a hopeless piece of dross. It helped many to transition to WFB , National Review, AmSpec, Rush Limbaugh, etc.
Like Vladimir Nabakov, English was not Ayn Rand's first language. I am impressed by her pithy work Anthem for that reason.
buckeyeman| 11.1.12 @ 11:39AM
I read it at age 18 (1968). It served as a nidus to crystallize my thoughts and the values my parents tried to instill in me, more by their actions than by lectures. I didn't need to adopt "Objectivism" as my personal philosophy in order to value the message of the novel (a message apparently lost on the herd of Rand haters currently posting).
I like the SciFi analogy. Similar to many dystopian novels, A.S. was written as an allegory, not a cookbook on how to construct a utopian society in the Rockies. Moby Dick is still regarded by many as the pre-eminent masterpiece of American literature yet is 1,946 pages long and has probably been read by fewer people than have read the (shorter) Obamacare bill. Yet generations have extracted concepts to ponder from Melville's somewhat vague plot for 150 years with far less screeching about the books faults than what I read here today.
I'll bet the author and his coterie of Rand haters just loved the pointless and idiotic Hunger Games. ("ooh, ooh, I know the movie kinda sucked, but you need to read the book, it all kinda makes more sense..." )
JD| 10.31.12 @ 3:25PM
The idea that making the movie would be opposed by Rand exposes a hypocrisy of the books. Rand's characters frequently evangelize their wisdom, despite the lack of self-benefit in doing so. One could say that they plan to benefit indirectly from their knowledge-spreading, but this opens up accusations of similar benefits from leftist altruism.
The Answer is that self-interest is not what some make it out to be - a pursuit of the tangible. Self-interest is truly a pursuit of what self wants, which could be anything in the moment, including things utterly intangible. It could even be the good feeling derived from doing charity.
But is this knowledge a rebuke of Rand or of her critics? After all, her critics frequently condemn her ideas for lacking a place for charity or morality. That simply isn't true - if self-interest prefers charity, then Rand's ideas endorse it, even if Rand herself might not.
Howard| 10.31.12 @ 8:38PM
What I was most impressed about Rand was that her philosophy was based on individuals leading lives that they truly wanted to live. She grew up in an era of "ism's". Communism in her native Russia and Fascism throughout the world. Her "ism" was based on individuals, not mass movements. Sure you can criticize her atheism and sexual proclivity. But, her impact on the world has been immense. She was certainly an imperfect messenger, but an important one whose philosophy continues to have a vast impact throughout the world.
Occam's Tool| 10.31.12 @ 10:55PM
By the way, to the disappointment of Ron paul supporters, Rand was pro-Israel---"In any battle between Civilized man and the savage, support the Civilized man," is from Rand. There's a reason the foremost anti-jihad forum on the web is called Atlas Shrugged.