mental_floss magazine
SUBSCRIBE >
GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS >
DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS >
subscriber services >
by Greg Barnhisel
It’s a novel! It’s a philosophy! It’s the instruction manual for a crazy cult! Atlas Shrugged could be all of those things. Then again, maybe it’s just about a little Russian girl who really hated growing up around Bolsheviks.
Ayn Rand was a woman who knew how to sell philosophy. As the founder of Objectivism—a belief in the power of the individual and “the virtue of selfishness”—Rand had something going for her that great thinkers like Aristotle and Kierkegaard didn’t: She got her start in Hollywood.
After immigrating to the United States from the Soviet Union in 1926, Rand managed to sign on with famed film producer-director Cecil B. DeMille as an extra in his movie The King of Kings. An aspiring screenwriter, she soon had the connections she needed to begin hawking her wares. By 1932, she’d sold her first screenplay and overseen the production of one of her plays. In other words, Ayn (pronounced “Eye-n,” not “Ann”) knew how to produce for a general audience—not just the intellectual elite. So when she delved into philosophy and began to formulate the ideas that would eventually become Objectivism, the resulting works (namely The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged) read more like blockbuster melodramas than philosophy dissertations.
The Rise of John Galt
Rand’s ability to write for a general audience is certainly one of the reasons Atlas Shrugged landed the No. 1 spot on Modern Library’s readers’ poll of “100 Best Novels of the 20th Century.” But just like the crowd-pleasing popcorn flicks that don’t have a prayer of winning an Oscar, literary critics often treat Rand’s novels like something the cat coughed up. Atlas Shrugged was nowhere to be found in the “official” Modern Library ranking, and in 2000, a columnist for the liberal-minded Salon.com slammed it as “a novelization of Mein Kampf by Barbara Cartland.”
Whether you see it as a 1,200-page doorstop or the book that changed your life, Atlas Shrugged is a good introduction to Rand’s philosophy. The story takes place in what is essentially the author’s vision of the future America. After liberals gain control of the government, federal officials immediately begin imposing regulations on businesses that are intended to help the weaker members of society. As a result, the main character, railroad executive Dagny Taggart, is forced to give up her company’s most lucrative route to a smaller operator. Meanwhile, steelmaker Henry Rearden is prevented from selling his latest metal invention because the government believes it might hurt his competitors by giving him an advantage. Laws are passed that require all patents to be signed over to federal officials, and businessmen are no longer allowed to focus their companies on profits. Instead, the government tells them they must work to benefit society, even if that means running their operations at a loss.
Soon, all of the capitalists have their hands tied. The so-called “looters” take charge, causing the natural order of the economy to be subverted, and millions are given jobs because they need the work, not because they can actually perform the labor. With incompetents and slackers staffing important positions, America’s infrastructure begins to fall apart. Railroads stop, bridges fall, cities go dark, and a mysterious pirate named Ragnar Danneskjöld pillages the few ships that still carry goods to America.
Willing to abandon their assets for the government to squander, America’s executives and businessmen begin to disappear altogether. When Dagny finally finds the “striking” industrialists in a secret Colorado valley, she sees they’ve created their own society based on pure selfishness and greed. The valley has banks, mines, artists, oil producers, engineers—everything that made America great in the first place. Its founder and guiding spirit, John Galt, is also there, serving as a kind of magnetic prophet and the leader of the strike. Later, Galt is arrested and subjected to torture after he takes over the airwaves and speaks out against the government. But the strikers—now joined by Dagny—rescue him and return to the valley. Eventually, the collectivist practices governing the country lead to total collapse. Galt, Dagny, and the rest of the strikers, safe in the valley, prepare their return.
The Author as An Icon
Atlas Shrugged, and the philosophy of Objectivism itself, is an impassioned, individualistic response to what Rand saw as the evil of collectivism—the wastefulness of human beings expending energy to help the weak and the lazy. That might sound harsh, but it’s important to understand that Rand came by her hatred of collectivism through painful personal experiences. Born in 1905 in St. Petersburg, Russia, a young Ayn Rand (her birth name was Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum) grew up in the midst of the Russian Revolution. As part of the government’s many efforts to promote the socialist cause, she witnessed the Bolsheviks confiscating her father’s pharmacy—thus taking away the fruits of all his labor and using them, at his expense, for the collective good.
Not surprisingly, Ayn Rand came to admire the United States as a truly free land, and she immigrated in 1926. After her screenwriting stint, she started writing novels, beginning with We the Living in 1936. In 1943, she hit bestseller status with The Fountainhead—her first real public foray into putting Objectivist ideas into a fictional plot. Incredibly, the book was rejected by 12 publishers before finally being accepted. But the wild success of The Fountainhead only whet Rand’s appetite to delve further into Objectivism, so when she finally finished Atlas Shrugged in 1957, publishers were more than willing to pick it up.
Although a great financial success, Atlas Shrugged was also her last work of fiction. After its publication, Rand devoted herself fully to writing and editing Objectivist works and to running “The Collective,” her ironically named circle of close (some say cultish) admirers. And while The Collective broke apart in the late 1960s, when it became a little too “free-love” for some of its members, that hasn’t stopped the legions of Rand followers from growing. Today, Ayn Rand fans vastly outnumber the membership of The Collective, and they are a devoted bunch. The Ayn Rand Institute (a.k.a., The Center for the Advancement of Objectivism), founded after Rand’s death in 1982, publishes a wide variety of Randian works. And they all continue to inspire passionate devotion in their fans.
Atlas Shrugged continues to inspire new readers, as well. On one hand, it’s easy to read the novel as a period piece. After all, when it was published in the 1950s, liberal New Deal programs were growing steadily, and unions were at the height of their power. To readers, it must have seemed like the “looters” were taking over. But the book takes on a very different meaning today. With most politicians in both parties praising the efficiencies created by deregulation and privatization, Rand’s nightmare vision might seem increasingly remote. Many, however, see it as a sign that perhaps Ayn Rand’s ideas are starting to have the widespread impact she’d hoped for.
We Are Randian, Hear Us Roar
For a philosophy broadly known as Objectivism, there sure are a lot of subjective opinions out there about it. Plenty of people dig it and plenty dog it, but those in the former category definitely seem to have a common thread—they’re kind of a big deal. The following are just a few of the A-list Randians out there.
John Stossel, ABC correspondent and co-anchor for 20/20. Speaking to The Daily Princetonian, Stossel credited Rand with helping to lead him to his libertarian beliefs.
*
Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Thomas has spoken of being raised on an intellectual diet of Horatio Alger, Richard Wright, and Rand, but “I tend to be really partial to Ayn Rand,” he told Reason magazine in 1987.
*
Ronald Reagan, conservative hero. Reagan was drawn to Rand’s ideas early on in his political career, largely for their defense of capitalism and individualism. However, he admitted that he never read Atlas Shrugged. Still, many of Reagan’s advisers, both in California politics and in the White House, were also Randians.
*
Neil Peart, drummer for the Canadian prog-rock band Rush. An outspoken Randian, Peart acknowledged “the genius of Ayn Rand” in the liner notes to the band’s breakthrough 1976 album, 2112.
*
Angelina Jolie, movie star and Goodwill Ambassador for the U.N. Refugee Agency. Jolie has spoken of being “very into Ayn Rand” and is currently shepherding a film version of Atlas Shrugged through development. And, yes, she’ll play Dagny Taggart.
*
Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve and a member of Rand’s inner circle (The Collective) during the 1950s and 1960s. While he was never an orthodox Objectivist, he did agree with many of Rand’s free-market principles.
This article originally appeared in mental_floss magazine.
Comments (40)
Comment
“Those in the former category definitely seem to have a common thread—they’re kind of a big deal.”
Regardless of where you stand on Rand’s work, this sentence is completely ridiculous. Obviously, millions of people revere this book who aren’t a ‘big deal’ at all. And I’m sure there are plenty of ‘big deals’ who think this book is a load of hogwash.
This appeared in your magazine? Yeesh.
posted by Klinger on 12-4-2008 at 2:26 pm
Great article, nice to see Ms. Rand getting some props/exposure.
I would argue that her philosophy was introduced in The Fountainhead and crystallized in Atlas Shrugged. Both are excellent reads – challenging the reader to examine the present through the window of the novel.
posted by jason on 12-4-2008 at 2:40 pm
Thanks for the great article! My book club tackled ‘Atlas’ a few years ago. We had a spirited debate that month, and it’s the only book we’ve considered covering a second time (possibly next spring.)
posted by Theresa on 12-4-2008 at 2:47 pm
Can you say puff piece? Can you say prpaganda? I knew you could!
Unregulated capitalism is equally as disastrous as Soviet collectivism. How many times does that have to be proved for the message to sink in.
Ooh! Angelina Jolie likes Rand! Must be something there!
Neil Peart also gets Tarot card readings.
Even Alan Greenspan has finally said that, gee, maybe unregulated markets aren’t so good after all.
Stossel, Reagan, and Clarence Thomas???
And the novels sucked before I fully understood their philosophical ramifications and that the author was a nut job.
posted by BassMan on 12-4-2008 at 2:55 pm
Ha! I had a very conservative political science professor in the mid-80s who made us read ‘Atlas Shrugged’ as part of an ‘American Presidency’ course. When asked why, he said, “This book has had more influence on our president (Reagan) than any other, and to understand him, we need to understand it.” I love learning that he never actually read it.
posted by Harold on 12-4-2008 at 3:04 pm
I always am suprised at the vitrol hatred some people like Bassman show towards Ayn Rand, I’m reading her for the first time and am enjoying the book immensely.
However I loath to see the movie. Angelina Jolie is the exact opposite of what Dagny was in the book. I always imagine Dagny Taggert as a plain Jane type, someone who would be beautiful to cetain people more due to her involvement in her work rather than having sex appeal, and Angelina Jolie is the opposite. I feel this is yet another attempt for Hollywood to make a buck off culture rather than taking the time to actually come up with their own ideas.
posted by Kinglink on 12-4-2008 at 3:13 pm
As a person who hasn’t read Atlas Shrugged but has read some of her philosophical works, I honestly think that her works of fiction are terribly misunderstood even by those that profess to agree with her.
True selfishness is terribly difficult to live by and achieve. It means shedding away every single bit of humanity one have and push away everything and everyone we love. In Objectivism, one cannot love only possess and be possessed.
People claim to agree with Rand’s individualism. However, that’s only true until others’ individualism interferes with theirs and not knowing how to deal with it they resort to pettiness.
It doesn’t impress me that “successful” people agree with Rand. It would impress me more to actually see them living Objectivism in a full and consistent manner where their words and actions are one.
posted by Frank on 12-4-2008 at 3:16 pm
John Galt merchandise
johngaltgifts.com
posted by Kevin on 12-4-2008 at 3:37 pm
I never got on the Rand train. I can’t help thinking that charity, compassion, and selflessness are virtues that make heroic people.
posted by Zach on 12-4-2008 at 3:44 pm
People that refuse to understand that selfLESSness is totally destructive to anything of value, fail to understand what the word means. It means directly “giving up something of value and morality for something of lesser value and lesser morality.” SelfLESSness is utterly negative, where selfishness is completely positive.
But, you cannot convince morons otherwise.
posted by Two Dogs on 12-4-2008 at 3:57 pm
Not to sound like the nerdy gamer here, but if any of you want to see Objectivism in action you really should play the game Bioshock. The creator basically envisioned a world where some wealthy industrialist decided to create his own Ayn Rand undersea utopia. While it has got its fair share of weird science and odd concepts, the underlying message is what would happen if you didn’t have a society that checked itself once in awhile. Very good, very weird, very fun.
posted by Nate on 12-4-2008 at 4:14 pm
i’m trying to get through this behemoth. it does make you think, whether you agree or not, about charity and capitalism.
while charity and mercy is a virtue, it can be disastrous for business. hard to keep your lights on if you give away all of your money. i firmly believe that competition makes businesses better.
sorry for the muddled post, i’m still trying to wrap my head around this giant book.
posted by the creature on 12-4-2008 at 4:23 pm
This post falls well below the standards of a Mental Floss Article. Its one sided-puff piece which dodges any and all legitimate criticism of Ms. Rand or Objectivism.
The problem I had with Rand’s writing is that everying is so darn convient to the point she’s hammering into the reader’s skull. The Heros are always dashing, beautiful and genius, while the villians are always wrong about everything. Its the Supermen vs. the Strawmen.
As to the list of “big deal” Rand fans:
I find it wholly fitting that Reagan admitted to never actually reading Atlas Shrugged.
Isn’t Angelina Jolie always doing humanitarian work, urging “successful” nations to expend energy helping the weak and poor? Isn’t she a goodwill Ambassador for the UN? How does this mesh with being an Objectivist?
And of course its already been mentioned that Mr. Greenspan has recently questioned the infallibility of free markets.
posted by Steve on 12-4-2008 at 4:57 pm
@Creature
Charity and Competition are not mutually exclusive, and I don’t think that even Rand would try to argue that they are.
posted by Crash on 12-4-2008 at 4:59 pm
I have no doubt that charity and mercy is difficult- in the words of Chesterton “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.” The article lists “banks, mines, artists, oil producers, engineers” as the things that made America great. Capitalism trains its citizens to admire these things- it must do so to survive. But none of those makes a country great- many nations have built great buildings, become rich, and made beautiful art, yet all of them turn to dust sooner or later. Simple acts of love and justice may not build great countries or build great businesses- but they make great people.
posted by Zach on 12-4-2008 at 5:20 pm
But it was SOOOOO boring. I mean, she made her point 50 pages in — why make it again a hundred more times over the next 1200 pages??
posted by Ryan on 12-4-2008 at 5:42 pm
Perfect timing, I actually finished reading The Foutainhead last night, and I read Atlas Shrugged a few months ago. I didn’t originally set out to read Rand because of her philosophy, but because of the literary aspect- though I ended up being captivated by her thoughts. The basic gist is wonderful- work hard, stay true to your dreams, don’t give up in the face of hardship, be a straight shooter. If you think her books are a piece of crap (after reading them) and weren’t influenced by this article… well, I think that’s exactly what Rand would have wanted- an independent thought.
posted by Audrey on 12-4-2008 at 5:52 pm
I’m a huge fan of reading Ayn Rand debates. As soon as I saw this title, I yearned for the comments section. The article does seem lopsided as hell, knowing that there is this huge base of haters out there.
posted by Johnny Cat on 12-4-2008 at 5:58 pm
I completely agree with Ryan. The book could have been about 400 pages long and still told the same story. I had to quit reading it because it was so dull.
posted by Norkio on 12-4-2008 at 6:30 pm
A couple of notes: the terms like “selfishness” and “ego” take on a different meaning in Rand’s books than the accepted impressions people have of the terms. You can say that selfishness is bad, and be right, but also that selfishness in the Randian sense is good, and also be right.
The funny story: There are speeches in The Fountainhead by politicians that are trying to get power by appealing to the people. The language is classic socialist in the Stalin mold. When I read the quotes and asked the students who they thought Rand was referring to, they responded “Lincoln! Jefferson! Roosevelt!”. Whether you agree with Rand or not, it is probably important to be able to distinguish between the philosophies of Stalin and Jefferson.
posted by Steve on 12-4-2008 at 8:55 pm
I’m grinning because not two hours ago my boyfriend and I were arguing about Ayn Rand.
It ended with a mild shin-kicking.
captcha: now Crippled
Ha!
posted by Amused on 12-4-2008 at 9:32 pm
I’ve always loved Rand’s fiction; indeed it changed my life to read The Fountainhead as a teen. But as I grew to know more about her as a person – the choices she made, and how she lived the last of her days – I came to understand that even she could not herself be truly objectivist. Like journalistic objectivism, it’s just not possible. Her characters (both ‘good’ and ‘bad’) were fantastic, mesmerizing, even epic, but not really realistic.
I now believe that the way to live and love is more in the middle – not too selfish, but not too unselfish either. It’s far more challenging and rewarding to suss out life from shades of gray, not black and white.
But what’s best about her books is that it compels people – both sides, against and for – to speak intelligently about IDEALS. Truly, her work generates valuable discourse, the sort of which doesn’t come up often enough!
posted by tona b. on 12-4-2008 at 11:28 pm
you guys are so stupid who are bashing her. do you read other works on philosophy and bash them? theres a poll somewhere (im not looking it up you can do it if you dont believe me) where they ask what the most influential book is. the scholars say the bible is number 1. the public says atlas shrugged and then her book the fountainhead. both are GREAT great books. they really are masterpieces. the majority of you probably havent read them and just hate the idea of her philosophy. read it and shut up either way, she has the right to think whatever she wants, no one FORCED you to leave your comments. apparently(as per the poll) many people do view it as a masterpiece.
posted by Tom Gibbons on 12-4-2008 at 11:55 pm
Tom Gibbons–your forceful post just blew my mind in the way that only the most clear and penetrating arguments can, brushing aside my previously held opinion with the same ease am 18-24 year old American man pounds down a hamburger. I had my own disagreements with Rand’s philosophy but in the face of your self-aggrandizing trolling, I realize that I am wrong, utterly wrong. I have only one point that needs clarification: where can I find you, Mr. Tom Gibbons, that I may drink at the font of your wisdom?
posted by Brendan Mackie on 12-5-2008 at 5:41 am
Also, real life comment: “do you read other works on philosophy and bash them?” Yes, in fact, I do. It’s kinda expected to read with a critical mind–or, ahem, ‘bash’ what you read. If kids just sat and agreed with every paper you read in your Philosophy 101 Class, life wouldn’t be much fun now, would it?
posted by Brendan Mackie on 12-5-2008 at 5:44 am
We can argue that the excellent individual is either selfish or selfless, but only Tom Gibbons would argue that the excellent individual mindlessly and uncritically accepts everything a particular philosopher says!
posted by Zach on 12-5-2008 at 7:51 am
Some points: 1) Atlas Shrugged is not an easy or fun read. But it was written in a time when TV, movies and the internet hadn’t shortened our attention spans to nanoseconds. 2) Many (if not most) critics of Rand and objectivism have not read her work, much less understand her concepts. They are operating on emotion, rather than understanding. 3) The article is incorrect in its assessment of politicians. We have just elected a President who sponsored legislation for Americans to pay an extra tax to the UN for redistribution “to reduce poverty.” Republicans in recent years have not been much better.
posted by Kyle on 12-5-2008 at 10:14 am
I love you Brenda Mackie!
posted by BassMan on 12-5-2008 at 10:38 am
In my opinion, it would be a much more beautiful world if millions of people were reading and intensely debating the ideas of Spinoza, Burke, Hume, Leibniz, Berkley, Heidigger, Derrida, Russell, Wittgenstien, etc, etc, etc….
If any of them had even 1/10th the literay talent Rand had at her command, we would be…
Bottom Line: Most philisophical texts are poorly written, obtuse writings that are barely even read by philosophy students, let alone the average man.
Regardless of what you think about Ojectivism, or even Rand as a person, she will clearly stand among the giants of philosophy for this reason alone.
And naturally her work is both worshipped and demonized, because people actually give a damn about it.
Of course the intellectual cream of the philosophy world loathes her…people are actually reading her work and not theirs….
The treated a little fella by the name of Socrates the same way too…
posted by Rajal V on 12-5-2008 at 10:47 am
and zack i dont believe in her philosophy. you take everything from the bible to rand with a grain of salt. its just a good book.
posted by tom on 12-5-2008 at 10:59 am
So I suppose we can soon expect to see an equally biased fluff-piece on The Jungle or a good bio of Debs?
posted by Katie on 12-5-2008 at 11:03 am
Katie: Clearly this “Masterpiece” post is in the same vein as the Feel Art Again series: simply a brief general introduction to an artist’s work along with some brief history/highlights associated with it.
These posts aren’t meant to be critiques, or to debate the quality of the work they introduce to the public. There are other more indepth places for that discussion….
PS- IMO, mental floss as a whole is a collection of fluff knowledge (which I love) I mean “the history of untensils” was the headline post today….
posted by Rajal V on 12-5-2008 at 11:20 am
I have read Atlas Shrugged twice and thoroughly enjoyed it both times (except the last 100 pages where she switches from fiction to blatant philosphical preaching). It definitely occupies a place in my Top 10. And as an engineer working in manufacturing that leans right for fiscal reasons, I agree with SOME of the ideals of Objectivism. But I enjoy her work for the charcters she develops and her literary style, not the philosphy behind her work.
I think what makes Atlas unique is how it shows the downfall of a purely socialist yet authoritarian government. I view it as a sort of anti-1984. Just as fictional and unlikely, but showing similar outcomes from the opposite extreme of a society without freedom of self.
I agree that the posted article falls below the standard I expect from Mental Floss. Instead of focusing on the controversy and discussions it has provoked over the past 50 yrs, the article exhorts nothing but praise.
posted by John on 12-5-2008 at 11:30 am
Well I guess I’m the only one who read this book about a quarter of the way before I wanted to tear out my own eyes and fry them.
posted by TamTam on 12-5-2008 at 12:10 pm
So just follow “Atlas Shrugged” with “The Grapes of Wrath”, and we’ll call it a day….
posted by Jim on 12-5-2008 at 12:57 pm
Once I saw the name Ayn Rand, I knew the flood gates would open and the Radian nut jobs would come pouring out. And, sure enough, they were able to sniff this little article out of the all the internet’s garbage.
The problem with Objectivism is that is all theoretical. It doesn’t exist in reality. Sure, in Rand’s books, Objectivism works out all fine and dandy and everyone’s enjoying the wonderful benefits of capitalism, but there’s a problem…..
The problem is that Rand’s books are fictional. They’re fake. Made up. They’re as fake as those screenplays she used to write.
Randians seem to have no issue living in their fictional world. They accuse people who don’t agree with Rand of not fully understanding Rand’s concepts, yet when one begins to investigate Objectivism (never mind Atlas Shrugged), one begins to realize it is as nonsensical as Scientology. Randians, including Rand herself, also seem to have no issue berating non-believers for not agreeing with their silliness. Apparently individualism is only a virtue when your free thought happens to the same as their free thought.
posted by Florida on 12-5-2008 at 1:36 pm
Florida- I think the argument stems from what you just did. “Radian nut job” I don’t think anyone in this comment section has said that they support objectivism, they have said that their good reads. Why do people attack and attack individuals who are just trying to say that its a good book. Read it, its impressive. I would never follow its philosophy but its still a good book.
posted by Scott on 12-5-2008 at 2:58 pm
Your biggest mistake was to name the article “Masterpieces: Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged”. That word “Masterpiece” was enough to make half the responders scream like scalded cats.
posted by T Parry on 12-5-2008 at 4:13 pm
“The problem with Objectivism is that is all theoretical. It doesn’t exist in reality. Sure, in Rand’s books, Objectivism works out all fine and dandy and everyone’s enjoying the wonderful benefits of capitalism, but there’s a problem…..
The problem is that Rand’s books are fictional. They’re fake. Made up. They’re as fake as those screenplays she used to write.”
My god this was a stunning comment. I am by no means a follower of Rand, just a someone who has read her work, but I would defend any piece of FICTION literature against such a ridiculous attack, that being to compare it to trash like Scientology :)
There is a one word answer.
FLORIDA – Taken directly from dictionary.com
al·le·go·ry (āl’ĭ-gôr’ē, -gōr’ē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. al·le·go·ries
1.The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form.
2.A story, picture, or play employing such representation. John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress and Herman Melville’s Moby Dick are allegories.
posted by Rajal V on 12-5-2008 at 6:04 pm
Speaking of Scientology and masterpieces chosen by the “public”, indeed Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead are #1 and #2 at the randomhouse reader’s list. Guess who weighs in at #3? Battlefield Earth by L Ron Hubbard. I’ve never read it, and it may in fact be a good read, but ALL-TIME? And, the reader’s top ten includes 4 Ayn Rand books and 3 of L Ron Hubbard’s. The Great Gatsby is #13, well behind the multiple selections of those literary heavyweights Rand and Hubbard. I’m not knocking Objectivism but claiming that “the people’s” choice of the greatest books of ALL-TIME is clearly a joke.
posted by Pete on 12-10-2008 at 4:24 pm