Shake n Stomp

This entry is a review of Atlas Shrugged. One of the longest novels in the English language, which posed quite a feet for me as one not used to reaing long works of fiction. Strange that I have little trouble reading dense volumes of equally dense language (Braudel's Mediterranean and Smith's Wealth of Nations are general bed time reading).

Atlas Shrugged probably isn't the greatest written of all novels. The characters are fairly black and white, the premise isn't entirely convincing, and the story line is captivating but not ingenious.

However as a work of philosophy Atlas Shrugged is a "must read". The concept that man's own self satisfaction through a just and rational persuit of happiness is one I can appreciate. However, I do find that in asserting itself so strongly Rand's novel is intended as an attack. This makes it often aggressive in it's defiance of certain principles. I do not disagree with any of the fundamental concepts, or even with the majority of conclusions (although the concept of abolishing paper money strikes me as questionable) however I would be hesitant to advocate them in quite such vitrolic language.

In particular the book has a largely negative attitude towards charity and sacrifice. There is important passages where Galt (the great protagonist and epitome of Rand's philosophy) argues that giving up for the sake of a loved one is rational because their welfare is of immediate concern to you. Even charity is rational assuming it is done with genuine concern for the cause. It is only really coerced sacrifice that is criticised.

There are also some minor points on which I might disagree with the novel. And I certainly find the world Rand creates too simplistic, to apply rationality in the real world sometimes requires a more flexible aproach. But overall I would definately reccomend this book to everyone. Or if you do not think you can manage the whole book at least chapter seven which lays out Rand's philosophy.

I will copy here another illustrative passage in which Danneskjold explains how he is the antithesis of Robin Hood.

"It is said he fought against the looting rulers and returned the loot to those who had been robbed, but that is not the meaning  of the legend which has survived. He is remembered, not as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor. He is held to be the first man who assumed a halo of virtue by practicing charity with wealth which he did not own, by giving away goods which he had not produced, by making others pay for the luxury of his pity. He is the man who became the symbol of the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights, that we don't have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does."