3 ms·

I've only read passages. I'm mostly concerned with the "Going Galt" bit, which I'm either understanding as originally conveyed or every summary I've read from

by jbooth 16y ago

I've only read passages. I'm mostly concerned with the "Going Galt" bit, which I'm either understanding as originally conveyed or every summary I've read from both ends of the political spectrum was egregiously wrong. So if you'd like to correct me on what "Going Galt" means, please feel free. It looks to me like a total cop-out abdication of responsibility that would change precisely nothing - because everyone's replaceable.

grandalf 16y ago
You're taking the "Going Galt" concept out of context. In the context of the book it's at the end of a long dystopian spiral. The significance of it is that the characters have already been broken by the time they arrive there. Frankly, the ending is a bit unsatisfactory on a few levels. First, it's not a prescription for how to run a society (it's a small utopian community in the mountains) and yet the book ends quickly at that point so we're left wondering how it turned out. It was necessary as a plot element, but it's really the denouement rather than the climax of the book. I recommend you buy the unabridged audio version of the book and give it a read while driving, commuting, etc. It has fairly good production quality and is a fairly effortless read on audio. When I re-read it my reaction was that Rand uses some hyperbole in places where I (if I were the editor) would have recommended a slightly softer touch... but of course she is writing to the first time the reader encounters the story and she wants to be sure to lay down a solid plot foundation early so that the rest of the book can progress. What I found remarkable about the book was that it's a pure novel of ideas. One can only imagine (while drooling) how amazing it would be if all the world's great thinkers had written a few books of quality fiction to help illustrate their ideas. So in my opinion Rand should get points added for the fiction work, not points subtracted.
- jbooth 16y ago
  I'm not taking it out of context. I'm pointing out how unbelievably stupid the context is. Is the book in the fantasy section? Does it have a disclaimer "this context is nothing like the real world so don't apply any of these philosophies"? As I understand it, the book is attempting to make a point about the real world. I'm saying that point is totally ignorant of how the real world works, particularly how leadership works.
  - grandalf 16y ago
    I don't think it's fair to make that criticism if you haven't read the book. The book is a novel of ideas and is, as such, an abstraction. You should not try to interpret it as a prescription for how society should work. I think what you're looking for is some sort of political treatise or pamphlet. Atlas Shrugged is an argument about the morality of capitalism. If you are looking for more than that in it you'll be disappointed. I do recommend you take my advice and read it though... I generally have a policy of reimbursing people in beer for the amount they spend on a paperback version. I'm sure that I or someone else would happily extend that offer :)
Tycho 16y ago
The tycoons in Atlas Shrugged went on strike because it was no longer moral for them to continue - which in Rand's context means it was no longer in their interest to conduct their business with the American public. On other occasions Rand explicitly said the strike in AS was a 'if, and only if' situation and not applicable to the present world (ie. not justified. ie. not in anyone's interest). The point was that socialism/altruism had taken such a firm grip of the nation (and the rest of the world) that any grand enterprise that still existed merely prolonged the agony by feeding the ruling parasites. Once the protagonists finally realized this, they went on strike. The strike worked because society had reached a point where those producers genuinely were irreplaceable, in that their likes were no longer being bred/trained by the industries. The book (and history) is littered with examples of the types of laws/systems responsible for this talent drought, and the young people who find themselves on the resulting scrapheap.

by jbooth 16y ago

grandalf 16y ago

You're taking the "Going Galt" concept out of context. In the context of the book it's at the end of a long dystopian spiral. The significance of it is that the characters have already been broken by the time they arrive there. Frankly, the ending is a bit unsatisfactory on a few levels. First, it's not a prescription for how to run a society (it's a small utopian community in the mountains) and yet the book ends quickly at that point so we're left wondering how it turned out. It was necessary as a plot element, but it's really the denouement rather than the climax of the book. I recommend you buy the unabridged audio version of the book and give it a read while driving, commuting, etc. It has fairly good production quality and is a fairly effortless read on audio. When I re-read it my reaction was that Rand uses some hyperbole in places where I (if I were the editor) would have recommended a slightly softer touch... but of course she is writing to the first time the reader encounters the story and she wants to be sure to lay down a solid plot foundation early so that the rest of the book can progress. What I found remarkable about the book was that it's a pure novel of ideas. One can only imagine (while drooling) how amazing it would be if all the world's great thinkers had written a few books of quality fiction to help illustrate their ideas. So in my opinion Rand should get points added for the fiction work, not points subtracted.

jbooth 16y ago
I'm not taking it out of context. I'm pointing out how unbelievably stupid the context is. Is the book in the fantasy section? Does it have a disclaimer "this context is nothing like the real world so don't apply any of these philosophies"? As I understand it, the book is attempting to make a point about the real world. I'm saying that point is totally ignorant of how the real world works, particularly how leadership works.
- grandalf 16y ago
  I don't think it's fair to make that criticism if you haven't read the book. The book is a novel of ideas and is, as such, an abstraction. You should not try to interpret it as a prescription for how society should work. I think what you're looking for is some sort of political treatise or pamphlet. Atlas Shrugged is an argument about the morality of capitalism. If you are looking for more than that in it you'll be disappointed. I do recommend you take my advice and read it though... I generally have a policy of reimbursing people in beer for the amount they spend on a paperback version. I'm sure that I or someone else would happily extend that offer :)

Tycho 16y ago

The tycoons in Atlas Shrugged went on strike because it was no longer moral for them to continue - which in Rand's context means it was no longer in their interest to conduct their business with the American public. On other occasions Rand explicitly said the strike in AS was a 'if, and only if' situation and not applicable to the present world (ie. not justified. ie. not in anyone's interest). The point was that socialism/altruism had taken such a firm grip of the nation (and the rest of the world) that any grand enterprise that still existed merely prolonged the agony by feeding the ruling parasites. Once the protagonists finally realized this, they went on strike. The strike worked because society had reached a point where those producers genuinely were irreplaceable, in that their likes were no longer being bred/trained by the industries. The book (and history) is littered with examples of the types of laws/systems responsible for this talent drought, and the young people who find themselves on the resulting scrapheap.