Atlas Shrugged and Shrugged and Shrugged -- By Matty Jacobson

Matty Jacobson is an extraordinary
shrugger. He also owns and operates
The Skewed Review.

ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT - I actually finished "Atlas Shrugged" (the book) many years ago, but I thought I'd revisit the review since the second part of the movie is set to come out next year.

The book was so long. Ayn Rand's libertarian manifesto is intriguing in that it captures what the world would be like with unprecedented government rule. In the world she's created, where accomplishment is frowned upon, the tyrannical characters in the form of bureaucrats force society to conform.

However, there are a few problems with the book.

Ms. Rand is the queen of 20-page monologues. The first and second monologues by separate characters were so redundant that on each monologue following I simply skipped to the end. I found I didn't miss a thing. There were no plot points I hadn't picked up because when the characters begin talking, their entire speeches are summed up in their first and last paragraphs. Everything in between is just reiteration; they make the same points in different words.

Another reason I had to skip through some of those pages of monotonous speech was because they were blatant lectures to the reader. The only problem is the type of person who is actually reading Rand's book is not the type of person who needs to be swayed by her lectures. If ever there were a "preaching to the choir" instance, this would be it.

Rand writes extreme characters either on the far left or far right of the political median. Each has a political view and deep-rooted psychological issue of some sort. All characters seem to be mad all of the time and participate in what can only be described as angry sex.

I think Rand had serious inner turmoil.

The other thing I didn't care for was that no characters were (or could have been) swayed. There was nobody who would or could listen to reason and change his or her point of view. There were those who had the point of view the author held but didn't identify it as such until later. But there were no "bad guys" who would change their minds about any subject whatsoever.

This tells me Rand believed that her view wasn't convincing. There were no arguments that could make a person believe what she wanted the person to believe. You either agree or you don't. No discussion.  I think it would have been interesting if Rand would have written someone who was capable of change just to attempt to prove she had an argument worth winning.

The book is great if you have about three months of spare time. I suggest you read it not for the political or philosophical views, but for the story underneath it all. It's a vivid imagining of a world where great thinkers go on strike.

Without Rand's constant tactic of beating the readers with her philosophy, this book reads like a futuristic doomsday story akin to "1984" or "Brave New World." When you subtract Rand's loathing for the middle and lower-middle classes, there's a decent plot buried in there somewhere.