Some thoughts after finishing Atlas Shrugged

Some novels may fail to be great by any literary standard. Even so, they manage to stick with you, and even if you find yourself at odds with the novel at times, you find yourself feeling rewarded that you took such a task head on and completed it, finishing the good course.

Such is the case with Atlas Shrugged. The critics of this novel are right in many ways: the depiction of the characters is generally unrealistic and wooden; the prose feels lifeless and bloodless for the most part (with some good portions interspersed in the fairly passable and bland style); many things about its depiction of a collectivist society seen unrealistic (I say this as a libertarian who would go farther than even Rand on issues of politics); and it seems to have some sociopathic tonality to it that even I was frankly disturbed by.

Having said that, I would still consider it a "good" book in a sense, in part because of the heroic scope that Rand uses. The heroes are unrealistically heroic in a way, but even in the unreality they give their own compelling nature. Francisco D'Anconia, John Galt, Dagny Taggart, Hank Rearden —*all of these have their own heroism that I find very difficult to disdain. All the villains are, of course, comically evil, and Wesley Mouch almost comes across as a bureaucratic Jar-Jar Binks (don't believe me? ponder on all the times he complains about unfairness and all the exclamatory tone with which he complains; it's cringe-worthy). But the most compelling of them, Dr. Robert Stadler, provides an intriguing foil to the main hero, John Galt. If anything, I would consider Stadler the true villain (not necessarily antagonist; James Taggart has that role).

As for the philosophy, let's just say I agreed mostly on the politics and with parts of the philosophy expressed. However, I still am not an Objectivist. I believe in charity to others (though not via the welfare state). I believe that greed is not particularly good (though money isn't evil). And there is a great detriment to pure selfishness (though self-interest and individualism per se aren't evil). As a result, I would likely be more inclined to be positive toward this book than most.

Anyways, I gave it 4/5 stars because, even with all its great flaws and unskilled unreality, Atlas Shrugged managed to be a satisfying trek through such a long journey. As a piece of writing, it's mediocre and third-rate, with some choice passages and beautiful speeches. As a piece of pop storytelling, however, it's strangely compelling and beautifully paced considering how massive it happens to be. My 16-year old mind was able to get through this (though, to be fair, I also did get through Lew Wallace's verbose and plodding 19th century novel Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ). Plus, while I would consider Rand a mediocre writer in many ways, she does manage to give some hues of Romanticism along the likes of her hero Victor Hugo. While I think Hugo is leagues above her in style and complexity, Rand does manage to take the heroic quality of Hugo's best work and augment it to fit her own mold. Readers who wish to understand further Rand's own ethos of storytelling and fiction would be advised to look to her posthumous collection of essays The Art of Fiction, which I believe effectively sums up her literary values and has helped me appreciate her fictional magnum opus in this light.

Now let me say that I am not a Rand fanboy. I appreciate much of what Rand did in terms of political philosophy and even in terms of the big questions, but I have grave misgivings with her cultish traits and her atheistic views. I also happen to be opposed to her rabid pro-Israel stance (though in all fairness she was way more anti-war than most of her followers are). However, I would recommend that everyone read Atlas Shrugged at least once in a lifetime. It's ponderous, it's long, it's psychotic in many ways; but its story is strangely compelling, its 1950s soap-opera tone is nostalgic and evocative of the most entertaining pulp fiction, and its work is still influential (for better and/or for worse) in the minds of many. It's not a "great novel," nor is it one of the greatest of the 20th century, but it's a "good" novel in its own way.