Atlas Shrugged is a complete story with an ending that suggests that no sequels are needed. No, AFAIK she had no intentions of writing a sequel.

I would not have encouraged her to write a sequel, but I would have loved to have seen her write another novel.

I think it was a pretty complete story actually. If there was to be a sequel, it should be on the subject of how you bring back a civilization from the destruction of socialism. This is what Venezuela and Greece need today- and not some high handed intellectual work. Practical stuff is what they need.

When I describe Atlas Shrugged to people that don't know about it I call it the greatest book ever written, but not the greatest literature that was every written.

People constantly complain about flat characters and naive actions, and I remind them of Rand's intent when writing the model and that she used archetypes, or at least narrowly developed characters, because that's the best way to explain her philosophy.

It has been suggested to me that if I knew her I might not have liked her. I have no clue on that point because I haven't read any of the books that describe her and her life. That is separate from her philosophy and those books are low on my reading list.

My first reaction to the question was, "Yes, of course!" Then I read the first post and changed my mind. AS, in spite of its completeness, is a difficult and confusing book for many people. They're either not equipped to understand what's being said or they're unwilling to understand it. So then I thought of her non-fiction, such as The Virtue of Selfishness or Capitalism: the unknown ideal, and how they are a collection of mostly short essays that address one aspect of Objectivism or how Objectivism applies to a certain area of life.

It's fine to have a philosophical system but not always apparent how it applies to driving down the road. For instance, people ask me to describe libertarianism at it's most basic level. I think the defining nugget is "non-initiation of force." But that's too basic for a layman, so I usually go with, "I should be allowed to live my life in any way that I see fit as long as I don't infringe on the right of my neighbor to do the same."

That statement is hard to disagree with, but how does it, or the non-initiation of force principle, explain why welfare, public housing, social security, food stamps, the FDA, the EPA, the CDC, the minimum wage, etc are all very, very bad things? All of that stuff exists specifically to protect us, right? Are we going to allow the children to starve? How heartless and cruel!

Many of you are currently wondering, "Why does Timelord write so damned many words? I wish he'd get on with it!" An Objectivist would have to ask, "In my hierarchy of values, is reading all of this going to lead to a payoff that's worth it?" I hope so.

My recommendation to Ms Rand, if she would have tolerated my input, would be to write short stories or shorter novels that presented a more narrow issue and the Objectivist reaction or solution.

The above was the payoff. I hope I didn't overexplain my reasoning in the preceding monologue.

The 2nd payoff begins now. Ms Rand has left us, an occurrence which was ill-conceived since I believe she had a lot more important fiction and non-fiction that should have been written for her benefit and ours. However, we have two brilliant writers who have taken up the task, and those are the Hallings.

Their Hank Rangar (that's "Ranger," with an A) novels are well written, have characters who are developed, have great plotlines, suspense and action. There's even, shudder, ROMANCE! The protagonist, Hank Rangar (that's "Ranger," with an A), has ample opportunities to discuss why the central issue of the novel is immoral and he addresses it while both following Objectivist principles AND giving us a hell of a ride in the process. If I believed in the initiation of force I'd make every person in the country buy those novels and read them.

(D and K, you may now do the dead drop of the agreed-upon amount at the agreed-upon location. Turn the coyote skull to face directly east when you've done it.)

If she was indeed contemplating a sequel to the book or as one commenter suggested part 2 or the "Rest of the Story", and I was fortunate enough to know her personally, I would urge her to do so.

Yes to the sequel. Start with the bridge dropping in the river and rebuild the USA with a tougher constitution and more iron clad rights!

Atlas was not intended to have a sequel and even those minor alterations in the movie in order to bring it up to date jarred a bit. I don't think she needed any urging to write as writing was, no doubt, her life. I think she would have loved writing with a computer or tablet and she'd probably turn out work faster than it could be published. That leaves it up to the inheritors of her works.

If she ever did plan a sequel to AS may I suggest a title?

"SEE, I TOLD YOU SO"

There should have been a sequel, showing how the Gulchers rebuild society. They were all working on correcting the mistakes of the past. The only conclusion would be to find out if those solutions could work in a new world, free of the moochers.

I think AS is a perfect novel, beginning, drama, climax, denouement and completion. But, it would have been great to see the success of Galt's Gulch!

Ken Krawchuk already wrote a comedic sequel: http://www.atlassnubbed.com/

What Ayn Rand told the world is that in order for prosperity to exist we must have businesses of all sizes and no interference from government. As we see and have seen for over 100 years in the usa is the creeping of government into businesses which is a copy of what has happened in europe and where has it left the europeans; in the sewer, that is where and we are following suit. I suggest that those of you who have thus far not read all of her writings do so and you should ultimately begin to understand that she said it all. There is no more that could be said after AS.

Evidently Ayn Rand was contemplating another novel before she died (see last sentence):
http://www.gradesaver.com/author/ayn-ran...

And her "lost" novel is due out in a week:
http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/...

For the first question, I have no idea.

For the second question, I say no.

What sort of sequel could she write? AS left us with the start of total collapse. So a sequel would either continue through the collapse and to rebuilding after, or jump to the rebuilding straight off.

In either case, what philosophical point of Objectivism would she be illustrating. All her writing in and around AS were to use the story to illustrate the philosophy.

The underlying question really comes down to.
What philosophical points does she still want to make?

I am still trying to digest Atlas so a sequel would just put me farther behind. I read AS when I was about 27-28 having never read anything she had previously written. An intern that had been with me all summer handed me a copy as he was saying goodbye and suggested that I might like it. I was well into the book before I realized what was going on. Viewed as a work of fiction, it did not seem to be realistic to me. The characters were extreme and I did not understand them and I could not identify with their larger than life personalities. Frankly, I didn't get it and didn't think it was very good.

Slowly I began to see how the "story' was related to real life and the book was a teaching tool and it became more interesting. I was a little busy at the time designing control systems for steel making processes and I had just finished grad school. In addition, my wife and I just had twins so it took several weeks for a first reading. Somewhere along the way, the Penn Central went bankrupt which was the largest failure in US history at the time. Rand's story suddenly seemed real and the message of the book took on more significance to me.


I was still confused by the characters and their meaning. There was considerable discussion at that time about "The Great Man Theory" and it seemed that she was pushing that idea but not everyone can be great and great things can be accomplished by ordinary men if properly focused. I was involved in a book discussion group, led by our CEO but he dismissed AS in the usual way as a fantasy philosophy for immature adolescents. I was not willing to accept that but didn't have anyone to discuss the ideas presented. Before the internet, searching for information was much more difficult and time consuming so my development as an Objectivist came very slowly.


After many readings and the addition of her other writings, I have a completely different view of AS and the characters. I think she used the fictional story to present her ideas and did a very complete job of it. I am much more impressed with the philosophy than the fiction and am satisfied that she completed her task so I would not encourage her to write a sequel to find out if Dagny and John lived happily ever after.

I have often thought a follow on book that told AS from Ragnar's point of view would have been interesting. I believe She also was supposedly working on another novel when she died.

with her mental horsepower, she could have described
the formation of the New U.S.A. incorporating objectivist principles,
and we could use it for our future!!! -- j

p.s. to your questions:: no, I don't think so,
and yes, according to the comments above.
.

No and no. From what has been said she had started another book dealing with unrequited love. Never finished. Ideal is a novel version of a story she made into a play.

I also felt that Eddie needed better treatment, but he was written as a person of integrity but not a genius and his fate would be undecided. He is part of the group like Cheryl Taggart and Tony (the Wet Nurse) who could not survive without a better world. Most of us fall in that category, we would not exist without the geniuses who created our technological world.

Would you trade a few masterpieces like her books and her non fiction for a lot of wonderful shorter stories? she was a great story teller but there are a lot of those in the world and too few great thinkers.

If there ever was a sequel, it would probably about how someone discovered the Gulch and tried to raid it and bring forth people in it to "justice" for shirking their "duty to help their fellow man" gleaning the advances that members of the Gulch had made and mandated that it reproduced for the masses. The government while seeming benevolent to the masses, actually using this as a means of control and trying to sell it to Gulchers as being in a partnership. Gulchers, on the otherhand, see right through what the government would do with any newly acquired power/resources that they attain, and do not cooperate. Inevitability, the heavy fist of the government will do whatever they can to destroy any admiration/credibility the Gulchers have with the masses. The outcome becomes predictable.

Atlas Shrugged needed no sequel. The last scene made clear: the residents of the Gulch were making definite plans to return to the world. Richard Halley was going to début his Fifth Concerto, Kay Ludlow intended returning to the silver screen, Ragnar was preparing to teach philosophy in a university setting (and likely run the department), Midas was getting set to invest in different companies in large cities, Judge Narragansett was preparing a thoroughgoing revision to the Constitution, Francisco was finishing his design of a smelter, Hank Rearden was looking forward to getting Rearden Steel going again...and John Galt and Dagny Taggart climbed all the way up to the lip of the valley, looked down at the lands below, and said, "We're going back."

That said, this book could use a sequel. I would envision several novels, each complete in itself, making a longer story arc. Start with a "Quest for Atlantis," in which an independent scout--a concept that really will give Eddie the willies--will stumble upon Eddie, pick him up, and set out to take Eddie to a place where Eddie can thrive again. And in the process come to terms with his own state.

For you see, Ayn Rand never once treated the case of the independent scout, one of several who first entered the Old West and made their living trapping furry animals, killing them, skinning them, then bringing the pelts to "trading posts" to buy supplies to sustain their total lone-wolf existence. If Eddie despaired when he saw a wagon train, let him see an independent scout, the first "white presence" in the Wild West. Better yet, let him see a tribe of Apache or Ute or Arapaho who have, in the great collapse, walked off the reservation and resumed The Old Ways!

What more do you think she could have said?

Nope, no Sequel we KNOW how it ends.

The world burns to a cinder, the Gulch survives as a utopia where genius and value reigns supreme, then expands after the rest of the human race has killed itself off in anarchy or starves from its ignorance.

Another reason for no sequel is that it restricts the new work. You are expected to use some of the same characters and have them act consistent with the previous works. AR would not want restrictions like that on her writing. Her focus was Objectivism, the story was always secondary to that.