The Volokh Conspiracy

Parody is now obsolete.

I read Atlas Shrugged last year because I was worried that if I didn't I'd lose my libertarian "street cred". In retrospect, that was a risk I should have been willing to take. If you find it boring (and large, hundred-page chunks of it are) you shouldn't feel guilty if you decide to put it back on the shelf.

I predict that it will make a horrifically bad movie.

I don't find it boring, though I have been glossing over some passages - it is fairly interesting and a good read.

But the only likeable person so far is Eddie Willers and thus far he is a minor character. Jim Taggart and all the other folks like him in the novel are, I suppose, the antagonists of the book and are fine as such, but Hank Rearden, Francisco d'Anconio, Dagny Taggart...they are the heroes, right? After reading the passages about them I tend to feel dirty.

There's this, after Dagny and Hank sleep together for the first time:

He said:
"What I feel for you is contempt. But it's nothing, compared to the contempt I feel for myself. I don't love you. I've never loved anyone. I wanted you from the first moment I saw you. I wanted you as one wants a whore-for the same reason and purpose. [etc. etc.]"

I read that and thought: WTF? Ok, I liked Hank but now I hate him.

I'm a liberal democrat and it's one of my favorite books of all time. I'm surprised people found it boring.

The thing about liberterianism and objectivism is wonderful in theory. And it makes sense coming from Rand based on her experiences with communism. Her philosophy is what we should strive for, but, like many in today's partisan world, Rand paints a simplified view of the world to argue a point. She draws hyperbolicly black and white picture of her characters. Roarke is a God, while his opponents are so crudely drawn, the reader can't help but root for meritocracy.

Like I said, the real world is a little more complicated. Meritocracy is the ideal, but determining what that is is often not so easy to determine.

Also, it's wonderful read for architecture fans, particularly those of the Chicago School.

I've just started reading Atlas Shrugged; I'm about 250 pages in (my paperback edition is about 1100 pages). Does it get good at some point?

Yes.

It's a great book and I love it, but I will admit that it takes a bit to get into it. The whole "who is the destroyer" mystery gets pretty good. Rand does go over the top at points, and as much as I like some of her philosophy her idea of love is just strange.

That said, I think it will be a good movie. The underlying story of a strike by the innovators among us is good fiction, whatever you think about it in real life.

Also, all you future railroad moguls, remember it is easy to be a libertarian when you start out rich.

It's not that hard for the rest of us either. But thanks for the tip.

Why does this keep coming up? The movie is unmakeable. People have tried and failed repeatedly on this one. The problem is that the text is almost as long as the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy, but with a lot less action. Now, you could cut the Galt radio address down a lot, but do much more than that and you lose the story. And even if they can manage it, Angelina Jolie as Dagny? No thanks.

Wouldn't one of Rand's shorter books make a better movie? Maybe The Fountainhead or Anthem...

Now, it's been some time since I read the book or thought at length about objectivism, but it seems strange that Angelina Jolie-a celebrity who seems to increasingly advocate a duty of social responsibility--would be the central figure of an Ayn Rand novel.

As for the quality of the book itself, I was annoyed by the poor job Rand did presenting her philosophy in narrative. This can be done well, but just having your characters engage in pages long soliloquies seems like cheating.

My take on Dabney Taggart is that she suffered from a severe sexual dysfunction: frigid and unable to accept any form of sexual congress unless it was brutally forced. It's an interesting question whether Jolie is suitably cast for the role ;-)

The Fountainhead, as flawed a novel as it was, might actually be remotely interesting.

There already is a movie of The Fountainhead.

it seems strange that Angelina Jolie-a celebrity who seems to increasingly advocate a duty of social responsibility--would be the central figure of an Ayn Rand novel.

That's why it is called acting.

I kind of see Dagny Taggart as being the sister of the network executive female in Network, played by, Faye Dunaway?

Bob: Keep reading. When a college freshman I devoured the book in a couple of days. It's all I did, except sleep, eat and poop. Reading a chapter at a time might not do it. Also, if you are older, it might not flow the same as it does for younger readers. Gosh, I can still feel the magic now. And I don't even particularly like Rand anymore. But, dang, she could write.
Read on, and be amazed.

bob montgomery:
I've just started reading Atlas Shrugged; I'm about 250 pages in (my paperback edition is about 1100 pages). Does it get good at some point?

I enjoy reading it once or twice a year but that is probably as atypical. Then again, I do the same with Lord of the Rings. That said, even I have trouble reading Galt's speech which takes place near the end.

bob montgomery:
All the characters in the book seem so...ugly. And I can't really tell where the book is going.

But the only likeable person so far is Eddie Willers and thus far he is a minor character. Jim Taggart and all the other folks like him in the novel are, I suppose, the antagonists of the book and are fine as such, but Hank Rearden, Francisco d'Anconio, Dagny Taggart...they are the heroes, right? After reading the passages about them I tend to feel dirty.

Hehe. Of the characters you just listed only one is a hero for purposes of the book but you do not discover that until the last third. Jim Taggart is certainly one of the villains but the others except Eddie Willers and one other really are the antagonists. That may seem backwards but it will become clear well before the end.

bob montgomery:
There's this, after Dagny and Hank sleep together for the first time:

He said:
"What I feel for you is contempt. But it's nothing, compared to the contempt I feel for myself. I don't love you. I've never loved anyone. I wanted you from the first moment I saw you. I wanted you as one wants a whore-for the same reason and purpose. [etc. etc.]"

I read that and thought: WTF? Ok, I liked Hank but now I hate him.

This becomes clear later in the book and Hank's statement is definitely part of his characterization. Every character is there to illustrate a specific strength or weakness and for Rand this is also tied into their sexual relationships.

cirby :
If you want libertarian-infused fiction, read L. Neil Smith's science fiction novels. Much nicer characters, and some actual humor (sorely lacking in the Rand works).

Rand does tend to be pretty serious. While I do enjoy L. Neil Smith's work, I consider Victor Koman and Vernor Vinge even better.

Ragnar:
Why does this keep coming up? The movie is unmakeable. People have tried and failed repeatedly on this one. The problem is that the text is almost as long as the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy, but with a lot less action. Now, you could cut the Galt radio address down a lot, but do much more than that and you lose the story. And even if they can manage it, Angelina Jolie as Dagny?

I disagree only insofar as with rare exception, Hollywood is known for butchering books when turning them into movies. Cut the book down to the essential points, resist adding superfluous scenes, hire actors who understand the parts well enough to participate at a higher level in production, and find an appropriate composer for the soundtrack.

I could see Angelina Jolie playing Dagny Taggart but I am not clear how serious she could be.

Huh:
As an aside, I thought Pixar's The Incredibles was a very watchable film that did an efficient job alluding to and riffing on some of the same themes.

"I never look back. It distracts from the now."

None of the interviews I have read admitted to the character Edna Mode being based on Ayn Rand though.

AppSocRes:
My take on Dabney Taggart is that she suffered from a severe sexual dysfunction: frigid and unable to accept any form of sexual congress unless it was brutally forced.

There are a couple of places where I believe Rand was completely wrong and one was the generation and purpose of emotion. I can not hold this against her though since a complete understanding would have required science that had not developed during her lifetime. Even given that, considering Dagny's adolescent history her actions with Rearden may not be completely out of character.

Happy-lee:
When a college freshman I devoured the book in a couple of days. It's all I did, except sleep, eat and poop.

I read it this way the first couple of times in high school. Except for the first time I have read certain thrillers, only Victor Koman's Kings of the High Frontier and John Ross' Unintended Consequences have been like that for me.

I'm about 500 pages into it and it still pretty much sucks at that point. I haven't picked it up in about a month and I'm still debating whether I will or not. And it's not that the story isn't interesting; it's that the writing is so horribly melodramatic, simplistic, and disconnected from reality. I honestly can't remember the last time I read such lousy writing (in novel form that is; it is better then the Internal Revenue Code). And this is coming from a fairly hard-core libertarian. That said, I'm looking forward to a movie version of it: condensing and re-writing is exactly what it needs.

If you're looking for a massive, 1000+ page book that's worth the effort I'd suggest Independent People or Infinite Jest.

"Does it get good at some point? All the characters in the book seem so...ugly. And I can't really tell where the book is going. "

I found it really hard to get into too. I just felt like she was a terrible writer - but I pushed on. I never got over my disgust with her love/sex scenes, but I did begin to enjoy the plot and the ideas and the diatribe. Around p. 700 I got annoyed again because I felt like I had already gotten the point and now it was just going on and on for no reason - but I pushed on. I am glad that I did, the ending was still worth it and the last couple hundred pages are full of good quotes about the philosophy. There is a lot in there -- obviously -- and its worth the read.

Finally, if you wonder why her characters are so cardboard, I highly recommend watching the film based on The Fountainhead. It turns out that her character style is pure traditional Romanticism, and it makes a lot of sense in black &white.

Not sure how they will pull off Atlas today, if they do. Been hearing these rumors for a long time.

Steve: I went to Dang U.
One of the reasons I like Atlas Shrugged is because it has this curious effect on people. Those predisposed to respecting reason, justice and life tend to get a high reading the book. Those folks who are not predisposed to respect reason, justice and life just absolutely hate it. It's very similar to holding up a Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater glossy photo up to a test subject while monitoring his reaction. Pinkos will start foaming at the mouth. A very effective litmus test. Taps right into the hardwired part of the mind.
And you are right, aliens would fit into the movie quite well. Rand makes a point of seperating the truly human from the formerly human; kind of like CS Lewis seperating the humans from the formerly human in the Great Divorce. To drive the point home, we can have a character say "i see aliens all the time...they think they are human...but they are not..."
Cheers.

One interesting point about Atlas Shrugged is that all of the characters are adults who seem to have no children and no interest in having children. In fact, the only children that I can recall in the novel are in the segment about the Twentieth Century Motor Car Company in Rome, Wisconsin (Picket Fences, anyone?), and IMHO her writing in this section projects a vague sense of distaste for them as little parasites.

I suspect that Rand either (1) knew that her philosophy broke down if you factor into the equation the existence of incompetent human beings that you nevertheless love and are responsible for and who someday will be competent, or (2) she

...all of the characters are adults who seem to have no children and no interest in having children. In fact, the only children that I can recall in the novel are in the segment about the Twentieth Century Motor Car Company in Rome, Wisconsin (Picket Fences, anyone?), and IMHO her writing in this section projects a vague sense of distaste for them as little parasites.

When Dagny is meeting all of the different people in Galt's Gulch the first time she encounters a woman with children who are represented in a positive light. My paperback edition has the passage start on the bottom of pg 719 and it continues to midway through pg 720.

A prediction: Jolie will be surprisingly good, but the movie will stink.

Yeah, and Barbara Branden is Nathaniel Branden's wife, right? And he was Rand's lover-shrink, so that's a great little example of Rand, ain't it?

Rand was a mess. She certainly never lived up to the women-freaks she wrote as characters, no matter how hard she tried. Her characters don't reflect her as much as her most passionate desire--to be free of her own infirmities.

A movie about a bunch of rich and or elitist people who opt out and abandon the country, and one crazy terrorist. Hey, maybe they'll find a way to make it an anti-bush screed. He is a freedom fighter, after all....