About Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged"

File: shrugged.jpg (14KB, 178x283px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 178x283px

To be clear, I have not actually read the book. I was considering it, but decided to watch the movie first, to get an idea of what it would be like and was sincerely disappointed.

The first two parts were, in my opinion, rather compelling. The stage was pretty well set for an above average story that could still push a libertarian worldview. We had bad guys, good guys, well developed characters for the purpose of the plot, a romance that wasnt overly cliched.

The stage was set for a fairly good(but extraordinary) story at the beginning on the third movie. Dagny finds a bunch of worthless, superior fucks who decided to give up on the world, worst of all being John Galt, holed up in Atlantis. Sure their ideas are brilliant but she cant give up on the world! So she goes back, fixes things as best she can with Reordan's help. She convinces the aforementioned fucks to come back somehow, the government is overthrown, a libertarian system is put in place, and so the world is saved.

A little cliche, certainly, but not necessarily bad. You can have some self doubt, some redemption arcs, some side action with john which will throw a wrench into Dagny/Reordan's relationship and therefore their plans...

But instead of this, I sat through 80 minutes of relativist, absolute individualist, absolute isolationist propaganda put forth by a bunch of people who are supposed to be the heroes, but actually come across as selfish pricks? And then Dagny just randomly forgets about Reordan and starts fucking Galt? Who is slimy and selfish and manipulative and corrupted the people who had a chance to save the world? And then Dagny, who is supposed to be the story's hero gives up on the world as well????? I have to say, I read Sinclair's The Jungle in high school, and the preening over Sinclair's economic policy being an absolute moral compass that would usher in a Utopia seemed remarkably similar to my experience with Atlas Shrugged.

So a few questions, I suppose.

1: Do the book and the movie have the same ending? Does the last third of the book come off as preachy as the 3rd movie?

2. How the fuck does this push forward libertarianism as a good thing. I mean sure it can create utopia but anything not up to snuff just gets left to die, as if millions of lives arent worth saving?

And 3: Why would this book, assuming my analysis of the movie holds true to the book as well, hold any literary merit whatsoever? What could possibly be compelling about a book where the supposed heroes just give up. Is it fair that Atlas has to hold the world? No. Does that mean that shrugging is a reasonable course of action... I certainly wouldnt say so