"Atlas Shrugged": 1,069 pages of great composting material?

[wtmusic]

Poll question: "Atlas Shrugged": 1,069 pages of great composting material?

I'm 31 pages in and all I see is a superficial confusion of compassion with sentimentality.

[warrens]

1. Depends on the quality of the paper

I read it at 16 and thought it was shrill, over the top, and mawkish. And right wing.

[yellowcanine]

12. Not to mention a totally banal plot.

[Zynx]

2. Ayn Rand had a wholely negative impact on the world.

Nothing she wrote should be read by anyone.

[Kazak]

45. I liked Anthem...

:shrug:

[bryant69]

3. What a crap book

I mean structurally it's interesting, and there's some good passages - but all in the service of the idea that Poor people deserve what they get.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Frank Cannon]

4. It has about the right concentration of manure...

to provide for a great fertilizer just as it is.

[w8liftinglady]

5. OK,crucify me now...but Atlas Shrugged makes a strong statement

..against bureaucracy.I know all about Randian Objectivism(I was a Libertarian for 20 years)..but,nonetheless,I thought Atlas shrugged made a good statement about the value of man's work,and the incompetency of people who are entrenched in bureaucracy.

[wtmusic]

10. Crucifixion? Not on my thread

Bureaucratic incompetence is fair game, but so far it appears that any kind of social consciousness gets cast in the same light

[itcfish]

17. I Didnt see that

in the book. What I saw was only the elite were entitled to make decisions and to reap the benefits without any responsibility. It also made the middle class and laborers to only leeches.

[Finder]

26. I agree with you...

and whether one agrees with objectivism or not, it exists all around us.

[Syncronaut Seven]

43. I read and enjoyed it, But then I'm no innocent.

I read it cover to cover in two days with a critical eye.

My Opinion, As an ideology, it sucked big time.

As fiction, I enjoyed it immensely.

Strangely, I identified with it's anarchistic flavor, but clearly not in the same way as it's protagonist.

I think, to tender young minds without perspective, It is a fairly dangerous and subversive piece of writing.

As a subject of critical analysis it is worthy. I wouldn't recommend it to anybody outside this context.

[Exiled in America]

46. Read the Fountainhead instead - that was a great book.

:)

[Kutjara]

6. Its the bible for those who need someone to give them permission...

...to be rugged individualists.

[CollegeDUer]

33. And complete assholes

to put it in a polite way.

[tanyev]

7. Only if it's printed on chlorine-free paper.

[gratuitous]

13. Ideally, the ink should be organic soy-based

It could affect the taste of any food plants you're raising. Check with your local agronomist or extension agent for the right mixture of Rand to manure and water.

[formerrepuke]

8. I use my paperback copy of it to put me to sleep at night...always works.

[MorningGlow]

9. A load of shite

Obnoxious beyond belief. Even if you disregard whether or not you agree with the message itself and just judge the book on its literary merits, you find it doesn't have any. It's poorly written and boring. The didactic speeches that go on forever just made my brain atrophy. And I'm not a thriller or romance junkie, either--I'm an English major with a master's under my belt--I've read a ton of quality literature, and this does not qualify.

[ldf]

50. i will admit

i did skip over much of the 60 page monologue.

but as fiction, i enjoyed it and fountainhead.

after finishing them i did feel a sense of accomplishment.

just like gone with the wind. :-)

[Squeech]

11. There's good stuff in there

I trot out this same rant on this board every few months. Yeah, Rand's political opinions were often ridiculous-- she's on record claiming Ronald Reagan would make a great president. (She died before it actually came to pass, so she never saw the consequences.)

The value of her books is that she identified a particular kind of asshole power seeker and showed exactly what was dangerous about that kind of guy. The irony is that many of the best examples of that kind of asshole are in power today. Read Atlas with an eye toward identifying people in the Smirky cabal with characters in the novel. When you see how Jim Taggart behaves, for example, don't you immediately flash on our own Decider? Similarly, when you meet Floyd Ferris, I bet you'll think of Don Rumsfeld, and when you meet Cuffy Meigs, you'll think Dick Cheney. (At least I do.)

Rand wanted a pure meritocracy, with no favoritism, no nepotism, no appeals to Jesus. Now her most rabid fans lionize an incompetent boob who tried to make a career on his family name and money, and still failed at everything he undertook, and now wraps himself in the Bible to deflect attention from said failures. I figure Rand is probably spinning in her grave at this turn of affairs.

[w8liftinglady]

16. I think Bush would have fit in well in Atlas Shrugged..

[Squeech]

19. How so?

The same way I do, as the pampered heir that gets his turn as CEO and screws it all up? I'd love to see Bush achieve the same heights of excellence and self-realization that Jim Taggart gets at the end of the book, heh heh.

And I just now figured out who to cast Ann Coulter as, but I won't spoil it :evilgrin:

[wtmusic]

18. I try to give them all the benefit of the doubt

but books (especially long books) which proselytize have to build on a more solid foundation than this...one gets the impression she spent too much time alone in her room.

[tinrobot]

35. I totally agree

There's a lot of similarities.

I found her work quite inspiring when I was a teenager. As I've grown over the past 30 or so years, I realize how heartless she was in a lot of areas, but her overarching theory of getting government out of people's lives still resonantes with me.

[TygrBright]

36. "Meritocracy" is another word for "oligarchic tyranny"...

...because, sooner rather than later, the pricks with the least conscience and most greed will figure out a way to hijack the definition of "merit" to put all the marbles in their own pockets.

dismissively,
Bright

[Tansy_Gold]

39. Yes, good stuff, but if you consider the book as

science fiction, it's easier to understand how Rand struggled to make her philosophy work -- it can only work in a world that doesn't and CAN'T exist.

Rand knew, even in the 1940s and early 50s when she was writing Atlas, that energy was going to be industry's greatest concern. Her story only works because she provides her industrialists with unlimited motive power: the hero, John Galt, invents a device for converting static electricity into alternating current.

She also completely ignores children and the need for bringing them into the world to continue the species. Children are by nature dependent, and any kind of dependence is anathema to her philosophy. As is the flip side of dependence: compassion. Rand had no children, and as far as I know, she didn't particularly like them. When I read the book for the first time at age 20, I noticed that right away -- people having sex all the time, but no one gets pregnant!

All her characters are perfectly good or perfectly evil -- they have no flaws, no weaknesses, or they have no good points at all. In effect, they have no truly human characteristics. They are actors on her stage to promulgate her vision.

Her philosophy includes the premise that smart people, inventive people, creative people -- a composer is one of the heroes of the story, so she wasn't anti-art, as some critics have complained -- deserve the financial fruits of their intellectual labor. What she never takes into consideration is that there will be no financial fruits of the intellectual labor if there are no "workers" to implement it. If there are no musicians, there can be no symphonies performed, recorded, sold, etc. If there are no factories, there will be no automobiles produced to be sold and the profits delivered to the engineers.

What made Rand's philosophy take such strong hold in the US in the late 1950s (Atlas Shrugged was published in 1957; I believe Rand testified during the McCarthy hearings, and since she was such a virulent anti-communist, she probably supported Tailgunner Joe, but I just don't know for sure) was that the staunch anti-communist, and even anti-socialist mindset precluded any comparison of Atlas and the Objectivist philosophy with any other possible system. The 1950s zeitgeist was all capitalism, all the time, all good -- communism bad. So Atlas and its premise were accepted (as so much is in this country) on faith.

Eddie Willers is probably my favorite character, and I think he gave Rand a lot of mental anguish. She had to have someone to talk to the anonymous worker in the Taggart Terminal, and Eddie fit the bill. But Eddie wasn't one of the aristocrats of the mind and therefore he couldn't "win." I've often wondered how the story would have been different if told from Eddie's pov.

Maybe that's the way to read it. . . . .


Tansy Gold

(edited for clarification)

[AntiFascist]

54. I think its time to stage a strike against the unproductive leeches....

of society. The ones who survive off of the efforts of others. The ones who "tax" and absorb all profits for their own uncreative, uninventive, totally worthless endeavors. I'm referring, of course, to many of those who survive on corporate welfare.

[SharonAnn]

93. And Dagny Taggart wasn't empowered about having sex. She had

to be raped to get started.

It's something I noticed when I read it the first time.

I liked her character a lot. It gave me a role model as far as education, working, achieving, etc. But I sure didn't understand how such an "empowered" woman couldn't admit her sexual desire and act on it.

Even as a teen-ager, I wasn't into men controlling women or their actions.

[MissB]

40. I found it useful to read in high school.

It opened up my eyes to a whole 'nother viewpoint. Yeah, it wasn't one which I agreed with, but I appreciate the book simply for that reason.

[Warpy]

14. I finished it in silly giggles

I kept trying to envision those hard, driven characters trying to deal with cranky toddlers.

I was sixteen.

Even at that age I knew what would break her "philosophy" down and kill it stone dead.

[wtmusic]

20. LOL same thought here

but I think you have more patience than I do.

[itcfish]

15. I Swear It Is

the Neo-Con's manual

[Buzz Clik]

21. It's the #1 hit among the pseudo intellectual libertarian set.

[sendero]

23. Emphasis..

... on pseudo.

Libertarianism is as braid dead as communism. It seeks to place a simple overriding principle in control of everything, it ignores actual human nature in favor of a delusional "ideal" one.

I've tried debating Libs many times. They don't think at all, they are like fundies.

[Finder]

28. I disagree but must say those who call themselves libertarians today...

are not altogether representative of the philosophy. I also do not see either libertarianism or communism as being brain dead.

[Sammy Pepys]

22. If there's any one lesson I've learned

It's to learn as much about political philosophy as possible, even those you don't agree with.

[wtmusic]

24. A strong argument

and there's no doubt the book has been influential.

But it's so...long. I couldn't even make it through "Mein Kampf".

[Finder]

29. Agree 100 percent. n/t

[Telly Savalas]

49. It's certainly a good idea to challenge one's outlook,

but Rand is a very poor writer who is very disdainful of rational thought. At least somebody like Hayek actually made an effort to give the appearence of making sense.

Life is too short to waste time with Rand's sort of dreck. If one wants an understanding of "libertarianism," I'd recommend the original 18th century Classical Liberals, not a bastardization of their thoughts.

[Finder]

60. hmmm, disdainful of rational thought? I thought the opposite. n/t

[Telly Savalas]

65. She liked making random assertions and labelling it as "reason"

but that's not the same thing as engaging in rational thought.

[Finder]

69. Have an example? One of the reasons I liked it was the rational...

nature of some of the characters.

[Finder]

25. I liked the book and it is required reading in economics courses...

I also think that one must read or study opposing philosophies in order to debate them or at least understand them. I commend Ms. Rand for framing her philosophy in fictional novels which I am sure helped in spreading such philosophy.

[ProfessorGAC]

31. Mein Kampf Is A Philosophy Book Too!

I'm not sure which economics courses you took, but i've taken enough and taught dozens and i've never seen that book assigned. Never.
The Professor

[Finder]

37. My son read it last year for his high school economics course...

so I am sure it is still being used elsewhere. This year Adam Smith and Keynesian economic philosophy is on his syllabus. I had to read it more than 20 yrs ago.(not in hs though) Perhaps it is a New England thing?

Ironically, I also read Mein Kampf in school in a history course.

[ProfessorGAC]

38. As Did I!

I read MK in a history class too. Freshman year of college, i think.

And, while i concur with your opinion about the need to read philosophies with which one disagrees, it doesn't validate the philosophy by reading it. Rand's philosophy is intellectually bankrupt, imo, in that it is too simple, and two dimensional. Hence, i would suggest that it is a poor book based upon a self-corrupting philosophy of life.
The Professor

[Finder]

42. It is taught for comparative purposes I imagine...

which I agree is the correct way to teach any philosophy.

Interestingly enough, the ARI is now giving teachers free books to use in their courses so perhaps the popularity is for purely economic reasons.lol

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_classroom_books

[Cleita]

53. I don't think you can really understand the forces that

propelled the Third Reich forward unless you read "Mein Kampf" as well as other philosophers like Nietzsche who influenced Hitler. This is why I find this era in America so frightening. What are they reading that forms their ideals?

[Finder]

58. Nietzsche's sister was a nazi...he never would have supported him.n/t

[Cleita]

61. Could you explain a little better? Who wouldn't have supported

him? If you mean Nietzsche wouldn't have supported Hitler it's irrelevant here. The fact is that Nietzche did influence Hitler and helped him validate to himself his belief in the superiority of the Aryan race.

[Finder]

64. True, it is irrelevant but many think Nietzsche was anti-semitic...

which he wasn't.

[Cleita]

66. Yes, but I guess Hitler didn't get the memo. I get the feeling

that Hitler took what he wanted from his reading and ignored the parts that were in disagreement with his ideas.

[Cleita]

52. Some politician (can't remember the name) once wrote

that if the free world then had read "Mein Kampf" and took Hitler seriously, we wouldn't have witnessed that awful period in history. Most intellectuals didn't take Hitler's rambling prose and shallow ideas seriously, however, in hindsight, they had to notice that everything he did up until the end was his philosophy in "Mein Kampf" put into action.

[CollegeDUer]

34. Sure read all opinions

But you have a limited time on earth; I reccomend not wasting it on this woman.

[Cleita]

51. The key word here is "fiction".

I like some of the fantasy worlds created by writers and I wouldn't mind living in some of them, however, they aren't reality and don't function the same in the real world as they do in fiction.

[Odin2005]

81. It was required reading in your Economics class?

That's a pretty sad indictment of modern economics, it has become nothing more then Neo-Liberal/Neo-Classical/Hayekian/Freidmanian propaganda.

[Coyote_Bandit]

27. The absolute best part of that book

is found on the last page where it says, "The End."

No other commentary necessary.

[guinivere]

75. lol

You got that right. It's tripe. And boring tripe at that.

[Sir Jeffrey]

30. It isn't as bad as liberals think...

but it isn't as good as conservatives/libertarians think. You have to avoid the political arguments in it, which conveniently overlook a great deal of history that prove that human beings are not rational. Objectivist philosophy sees no problem with child labor that requires government intervention, for example. Ignoring this type of thing can be difficult, though.

IMO you can get the same enjoyment from reading The Fountainhead. Again, a nice story and much shorter in length.

[rasputin1952]

32. Rand is hyped as being some form of 'genius'...I prefer

Steinbeck..."The Grapes of Wrath" is the antithesis of "Atlas Shrugged". In comparing the two authors, Steinbeck observed, Rand just shot a passing glance out the window.

At one time I was a semi-fan of Rand...Give me Steinbeck, give me Vonnegut; Rand can stay on the shelf and collect dust.

My favorite author for the 'human condition' as seen through the eyes of one who could feel though, is O. Henry. His sense of irony, and his descriptions are pure prose IMO.

[madrchsod]

41. recycle !

recycled paper is our biggest export to china. see you are helping america even out the walmart effect...

[Kazak]

44. Wait for the movie?!?

There is one in production as we speak, ya know....

The thing I find most odd is, the same person who wrote the screenplay for the upcoming movie adaptaion of Atlas Shrugged also wrote the screenplay for the upcomming movie adaptation of Vonnegut's novel, Cat's Cradle.

[silverweb]

57. No shit?!

I had no idea! I just looked it up and Jolie/Pitt are in talks to play Taggert/Galt. If they're given interpretative license, I think this could be a very worthwhile representation of what is good in the book. Very interesting....

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239

[135th]

96. Bradgelina????

Not to commit thread necromancy before I have 10 posts, but I can't belive that Angelina "I have an office in the UN building" Jolie would do Atlas Shrugged. It seems out of place to have the UN goodwill envoy play a Rand heroine.:7

[stranger81]

47. Great fiction, bad ideology . . . . .

Still a good read, though. As were the Fountainhead and Anthem (esp. the latter).

[tammywammy]

48. I liked it okay

I recommend it to people to read, not because I'm particularly fond of Objectivism, but because I think people should read it.

I find Rand's writing style hard to read, and I'd skip the long paragraphs of endless descriptions.

I prefer Fountain Head & especially Anthem to Atlas Shrugged.


If you find that you can't get through Atlas Shrugged pick up Anthem, it's smaller and easier to digest.

[readmoreoften]

55. Right-wing pseudointellectual trash written by a moron. /nt

[Finder]

59. The radical religious right hates her and always has. n/t

[Telly Savalas]

67. But the radical secular right worships her.

[Finder]

68. Thankfully I have never met anyone who worships her...

but many do find her writings thought provoking.

[readmoreoften]

70. Lucky you. Talking to an Ayn Rand ideologue is painful.

Her so-called "philosophy" isn't a philosophical system or critique based on reason or logic; it's an emotional political ideology posturing as "rational" that is no more "rational" than any other belief system. Worse, she disposes of the history of philosophy and the majority of Western intellectual traditions (except for, supposedly, Aristotle) to create a right-wing pseudo-philosophy as a justification for her hypercapitalist rightwing worldview.

[Finder]

73. I am far from being an objectivist but would love to debate you...

since I disagree with your premise.

[readmoreoften]

77. Which "premise"? There are a few in there. /nt

[Finder]

86. This one...

"Her so-called "philosophy" isn't a philosophical system or critique based on reason or logic; it's an emotional political ideology posturing as "rational" that is no more "rational" than any other belief system."

I think it is the opposite.

[readmoreoften]

87. Okay, well, then you go first. Explain why Ayn Rand is so compelling.

But honestly, I'm too busying working as low-paid college adjunct to spend too much time in an entrenched online debate on objectivism, which is too doctrinaire for me to take seriously-- not to mention morally repugnant. Any philosophical "Institute" that expels members for challenging the premises of a cult philosopher is about as "opposite" from real inquiry as you can get in my opinion. It seems to become more like group-think in practice than individualism.

[Finder]

90. Perhaps a thread on objectivism rather than a fictional book may be...

better. I agree with you as far as any group that expels members for that reason. I also agree with you regarding group think...I bet we agree more than disagree on the topic.

[readmoreoften]

91. I'm we do agree more than disagree. Or else we wouldn't be on a

site for Democrats ;)

I'm a left libertarian, and I prefer the concept of singularity more interesting than a sort of shallow fight for individualism (undistinguished individuated parts of a mass)

As far as fiction goes, it's competent for what it is, but wordy, in my opinion.

[Cleita]

62. Every time someone from the Ayn Rand institute is a guest on

Al Franken or Thom Hartmann, it isn't hard to unravel them because what they stand for isn't very solid. But the whole conservative ideologies are like this. It's so easy to shoot holes through them.

[readmoreoften]

71. Yeah, objectivism just simulates philosophy. It isn't philosophy.

That's why you won't find it on a college syllabus (except maybe for the purpose of deconstructing it).

[Finder]

72. So wrong...we are living it in the US. n/t

[readmoreoften]

76. I'm not saying it isn't "a philosophy", in the sense of philosophy...

as belief system.

We are certainly living under so-called objectivist principles (i.e. obsessive/rigorous individualism), but that doesn't mean it is a nuanced philosophical argument. It is more like a cultish totalizing belief system that leaves no room for debate.

[silverweb]

56. It's a mixed bag, but with plenty of good in it.

There are a number of ideas in the book that are worthwhile, despite contradictions. Rand promoted the idea of fair wages and appreciation for honest work. She attacked cronyism (and do we ever need a good dose of that now). She promoted personal integrity and competence in work and in life.

She overreacted to the ideas of communism, which she escaped and hated, when she made capitalistic industrialists her only heroes. Like many do, she flew to the polar opposite of what she hated. Modifying that extreme to allow a libertarian/socialist hybrid (like that in Scandanavian countries) is what can (and hopefully will) bring benefit to many societies. Recent experience shows that that kind of hybrid society flourishes in every way.

Finally, she wrote that double-edged oath of Galt's, the second part of which her "Objectivist" minions very conveniently ignore: "I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Demanding that others "live for them" is exactly what capitalistic leeches do when they stomp on Labor by underpaying their workers and abusing their rights, and by refusing to permit true democratic representation of the people against the corporate-owned rulers.

Atlas Shrugged is the Libertarian/Objectivist's bible and Rand's cultists treat it in exactly the same way: They cherrypick those ideas and passages that support their ideology, and conveniently ignore the many that contradict it.

Don't throw out the whole book because some of its ideas are off base. There's still a lot in it that's good.

[ismnotwasm]

63. Yuck

I didn't like it. At first, I didn't get it. It gave me a headache. I had to have people who appreciate Rand explain her some of her more salient points to me, and I usually don't have to do that. I did get the "government is bad" stuff. I could barely read the story because of the tone you're mentioning.--(Oh, by the way it gets worse) The reason I got through it was because it had a dark, science fiction feel to it.

So, while I don't think any book should be compost, If a long book with social and political commentary (and not I'm NOT comparing the two--NO comparison other than relative length)was required, I'd pull out a copy of War and Peace.

[havocmom]

74. All the people I knew who swore by that book, and Rand in general,

are now lonely, bitter, grabby whiners complaining about how life is unfair and other people are responsible for their misery.

And as for compost, while they are all full of a prime ingredient of the stuff, they can't make anything grow. So full of negative energy they can create nothing, grow nothing, enjoy nothing.

:rofl:

Great when ya live long enough to actually see Karma kick butt.

[Gatchaman]

78. Neal Peart of Rush was inspired by Rand to write "2112"

That's about the only redeeming quality I can think of for her writings.

[Blue-Jay]

79. That overly wordy book should be called "Atlas Shat"

[Drewskie]

80. I liked Anthem it was a fine book but could'nt make it through

Atlas shrugged.

[Odin2005]

82. Never argue with a Randoid, it is a waste of time.

They will dismiss anything they don't like as "not objective and therfore an attent to inject emotional arguments into the discussion." It is basically a psudo-intellectual way of saying "you're a stupid, bleeding-heart liberal."

[readmoreoften]

88. Not to mention their emotional attachment to their ideals.

There is nothing more disgusting to me than the pose of rationality hiding a vicious and self-serving agenda.

[Batgirl]

83. reading it as a teenager must have delayed my emotional maturation process

by several years. (Okay, maybe I'm not quite there even now.) I found the ideas conveyed in her books completely persuasive at the time, the crucial reason being that I had no real world experience to contradict them. I don't know what her excuse was, except that only through the use of outlandishly unreal characters could she demonstrate the viability of her "philosophy."

In her fictional world, the heroes are not only gifted at running their giant industrial concerns, but they are all persons of utmost rationality and integrity. In this imagined reality, someone who was evil, irrational, short-sighted, dishonest...could never be materially successful. Only highly moral and rational "producers" and 'innovators" could ever be rich, successful businessmen. As such, these business leaders would naturally treat their employees well, because they would be rational enough to realize it was in their own best interests to reward employees and therefore encourage loyalty and productivity. (Snort.) These business leaders, because of their deep moral principals, would never knowingly put a dangerous product on the market, because they would realize that not only is it wrong, but against their "rational self interest" to sell products that would bring harm to their customers. (Double snort.)

These heroic business leaders would also never engage in any dishonest, unethical shenanigans to put competitors out of business. Preferring to complete fairly in the marketplace without government handouts, protectionism or other manipulations, and "may the best mogul win." (Triple snort + one knee slap.)

What a long painful process of going out into the world and finding out how irrational and short-sighted people really are. How shocking it was to realize that being a narcissistic predator greatly increases the chances of material success, from the local strip-mall king to the leaders of huge energy concerns and pharmaceutical companies. It's just part of the job to calculate mathematically how they can lie and cheat to screw their customers and competitors, calculate mathematically how many lawsuits they can absorb in marketing harmful drugs or other faulty products. And how many of them are led by the sleazy graduates of business schools who have no knowledge of any actual products or processes, but are trained instead in "management" theories.

In Rand's world, the owner of a steel mill was a scientist who personally slaved away in the lab to create a new metal so innovative it had the potential of revolutionizing the railroad industry. Now we have CEOs who flit from company to company, without regard for the nature of what the company actually produces. In fact we even have companies such as Enron that produced no actual products, but excelled at manipulating markets.

One of the more infuriating aspects is knowing how many modern business leaders look at fictional Rand heroes and actually flatter themselves by claiming some kind of equivalency.

[Zhade]

84. When I ran out of TP recently, I tried to use an old college copy...

...but the paper was too rough.

That's the level of my respect for that 'author'.

[Frazzled Educator]

85. Put it in the recycling bin.

Last thing we need are "greed is good," Social Darwinistic conservative tomatos.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

89. wait till you get to the speech...

I confess, I skipped most of it.

[cathandler]

92. I quit with 100 pages left of Atlas Shrugged.

I hated these people! I yelled aloud to my spousal unit," i hate these fuckers! Why am I reading this shit???? So, tell me, how does the book end?

[bertha katzenengel]

94. I thought it was intensely profound. I was mesmerized by "Who Is

John Galt?" I was fascinated by the place where the airplane went.

I was very young. I look back and thing, jesus, was I that impressionable? Uuuuggghhhhhh...

And her other big seller, The Fountainhead? In the beginning, the female protagonist is raped by the male protagonist, and subsequently falls in love with him and they have a relationship throughout the book? What kind of misogynist WAS Ayn Rand, anyway?

I say, compost it, WT.

[Wiley50]

95. Maybe the Landscape bed. Not the Veggie Garden. Might get sick..n/t

[roamer65]

97. Atlas shrugged is a piece of crap

I made it through about 20 or 30 pages and found it to be boring and propogandistic. "America 1928" was a failure and I have no desire to return there...EVER.

It would be sheer enjoyment to run copies of that book thru a shredder or wood chipper.

[DireStrike]

98. Atlas Shrugged 2: One hour later

From here: http://www.angryflower.com/archive.html