What does lit think about this book?

I also want to know

>>7725988
The predictable responses to this book's mention, push button automation responses, really, are indicative of the existential threat it poses to all forms of collectivism, including the current lurch to the left occurring' in the United States' democratic party.

It's really two texts. A yeoman novel of middling prose quality about a remarkable inventor who rejects the fundamental tenet of victimhood forged into all forms of collectivist thought.

The second text is an interminable, insufferable, repetitive, self-impressed close philosophical polemic which completely ruins the novel text, similarly to how songs ruin the narratives of musicals.

It is the novel text's story and ideas which are so dangerous to phase-passing leftists - without producers they would starve in about 8 days. Without producers they would freeze, in the dark, surrounded by broken machines they are ignorant to operate themselves.

All of which is true, and that is why the book is so hated. Witness:

I enjoyed it for the story and ignored the philosophical bits. It really was interesting and worth reading

>>7725988
Among the literary highlights - the chapters in which the young ignorant naif marries the heroine's brother, and her slow realization of his true nature, which she ultimately finds so abhorrent that the only possible escape from the monumental mistake of her marriage is to jump from a high window.

The descriptions of the series of events which leads to a railroad tragedy which is preventable at several key decision points, each of which is passed on by incompetent boobs who all believe that the "system" will take care of itself and who are they, in their diminished and belittled agency, to intervene. That passage is genius.

The depiction of post-Appalachian despair in the country side, during Dangy's search for the motor is completely accurate and rings true in all its aspects. Especially the salvage of formerly advanced mechanisms for primitive uses.

Praise is also due to the depiction of Rearden's relationship with his family members, each of which is prickly and painful and riddled with guilt in ways that any similarly disposed son, brother, and in-law will recognize.

File: atlas shrugged.png (934KB, 1600x600px) Image search: [Google]

934KB, 1600x600px

>>7725988

>>7725988
Among the literary criticisms which limit themselves to the narrative -

Dagny's sexuality is decidedly more masochistic than the average American woman would ever admit, or is likely to approve. When she gets it on, she prefers a partner whose assertion borders on assault.

The treatment of Eddie Willers disturbs all but the most devoted Objectivists, and even then, they merely repeat the Strictures of the Dogma. I agree with the majority of critics that his case stands out as a failure both of the implicit contract between novelist and reader, as well as a failure of her philosophical project. Eddie did not deserve what he gets. He was loyal and competent in every way, and throughout, with unwavering devotion to his boss. His fate is completely unearned and unexplained, even within the internal logic of the polemic screed which interrupts the narrative for at least 200 unnecessary pages.

Rand's haughty self-superiority badly damaged her legacy further by leaving the book too long by a third, and not just for those polemical rants, either. The novel begs for a red-line treatment similar to what You Can't Go Home Again got from Edward Aswell, and which Wolfe surely smiled upon, from beyond.

>>7726052
This is spot on. I love the aspects of what you called "The first text" but overall found that the book really suffered from what you described in "The second text"

I do love The Fountainhead as a whole though and I believe that to be her strongest work.

>>7725988
I think Atlas Shrugged is like Bioshock or Alienware in the sense that it's like, if you've never read a book like it or played a vaguely philosophical video game or used a higher end PC you'll probably think it's the best thing ever but generally if you're more experienced you'll probably think it's pretty bad

>>7726052
>>7726158
Someone should point out that it is possible to read this by skipping over the philosophical discursive passages altogether. Like just page forward until you find the last paragraph of, for example, Galt's "radio speech" (which would never, ever, in any era of American radio, ever be allowed to continue on that long, if only for the violation of the FCC's requirement for station identification every 30 minutes) then just continue reading from there.

Nothing is lost.