5 ms·

>> Atlas Shrugged is a fine novel [..] No it's not. It's really not. I don't want to get into a big AS bashing here, but if you're looking for a good Ayn Ran

by mpk 18y ago

>> Atlas Shrugged is a fine novel [..] No it's not. It's really not. I don't want to get into a big AS bashing here, but if you're looking for a good Ayn Rand novel on individualism I suggest you try 'The Fountainhead'.

unalone 18y ago
Okay, let me clarify, because I like The Fountainhead much more. But you make a very good point. The Fountainhead is the better book. It's better edited, the characters are better, and the plot is much more secure. Atlas Shrugged isn't nearly as good if you don't have Roark and Toohey and Dominique fixed in your mind, because Rand doesn't spend time making her characters realistic in Atlas. She just assumes that you can make the leap from her Fountainhead characters. That said, Atlas is the more epic novel, and it's a conclusion in a lot of ways to the battle started in The Fountainhead. It's poorly-written, but in terms of pure pulp enjoyment there's nothing to beat it. That's why people get addicted to it: it lays out a fairly complex philosophical idea and attaches pirates, Spanish conquistadors, sci-fi weaponry, mad scientists, and - of course - all-American capitalists into the fray, and lets it culminate in lots of really fulfilling scenes that are terrific fun if you're okay with ignoring poorly-written stuff. It's a quagmire of a book, with several awful chapters leading up to two or three incredible moments - the ribbon-cutting of the train, the court scene with Rearden, the Galt's Gulch chapter - and those are the moments that stick in mind, especially the first handful of times you read the book. So I say "fine" meaning "not terrible", which I know is a horrible corruption of the idea behind "fine". Atlas is worth a read for people who liked The Fountainhead, and it offers stuff that book doesn't have to offer, even if it's not as good a novel.
- grandalf 18y ago
  I thought Atlas Shrugged was better, clearer, and a more focused novel of ideas with fewer distractions. Both were great, though.
  - unalone 18y ago
    It's better in terms of encapsulating her philosophy. However, it's a worse story, the characters are more shallow (and the more interesting ones, like Fred Kinnan, get lip service at most), and the writing is atrocious at points. It deserves the satires of it, because it's got a lot of weak points.
- 3pt14159 18y ago
  When I was 19 I first came across an Ayn Rand quote about subsidies. It so perfectly captured my own views that I went to the campus library and asked for the largest fiction book by Ayn Rand. So I started off reading Atlas Shrugged with nothing more than a single quote on a single topic by her. The first 25 pages were BRUTAL, but after that I was hooked. I finished the book in less than a week then bought the book for myself and read it again. I didn't need to make the leap from Fountain Head at all.
  - unalone 18y ago
    You might find that The Fountainhead still has a lot to offer you.

by mpk 18y ago

unalone 18y ago

Okay, let me clarify, because I like The Fountainhead much more. But you make a very good point. The Fountainhead is the better book. It's better edited, the characters are better, and the plot is much more secure. Atlas Shrugged isn't nearly as good if you don't have Roark and Toohey and Dominique fixed in your mind, because Rand doesn't spend time making her characters realistic in Atlas. She just assumes that you can make the leap from her Fountainhead characters. That said, Atlas is the more epic novel, and it's a conclusion in a lot of ways to the battle started in The Fountainhead. It's poorly-written, but in terms of pure pulp enjoyment there's nothing to beat it. That's why people get addicted to it: it lays out a fairly complex philosophical idea and attaches pirates, Spanish conquistadors, sci-fi weaponry, mad scientists, and - of course - all-American capitalists into the fray, and lets it culminate in lots of really fulfilling scenes that are terrific fun if you're okay with ignoring poorly-written stuff. It's a quagmire of a book, with several awful chapters leading up to two or three incredible moments - the ribbon-cutting of the train, the court scene with Rearden, the Galt's Gulch chapter - and those are the moments that stick in mind, especially the first handful of times you read the book. So I say "fine" meaning "not terrible", which I know is a horrible corruption of the idea behind "fine". Atlas is worth a read for people who liked The Fountainhead, and it offers stuff that book doesn't have to offer, even if it's not as good a novel.

grandalf 18y ago
I thought Atlas Shrugged was better, clearer, and a more focused novel of ideas with fewer distractions. Both were great, though.
- unalone 18y ago
  It's better in terms of encapsulating her philosophy. However, it's a worse story, the characters are more shallow (and the more interesting ones, like Fred Kinnan, get lip service at most), and the writing is atrocious at points. It deserves the satires of it, because it's got a lot of weak points.
3pt14159 18y ago
When I was 19 I first came across an Ayn Rand quote about subsidies. It so perfectly captured my own views that I went to the campus library and asked for the largest fiction book by Ayn Rand. So I started off reading Atlas Shrugged with nothing more than a single quote on a single topic by her. The first 25 pages were BRUTAL, but after that I was hooked. I finished the book in less than a week then bought the book for myself and read it again. I didn't need to make the leap from Fountain Head at all.
- unalone 18y ago
  You might find that The Fountainhead still has a lot to offer you.