I'd sort of heard of Atlas Shrugged, but the movie made me curious--particularly because I can only recall seeing one commercial for it and then I never heard anything again until I saw it in the stores. I decided I would read the book more or less at the same time as I checked out the first movie.

My first impression was that I really liked Dagny Taggart. She was, in my mind, one of the best female protagonists I'd ever read about. I kept thinking, where is this kind of female larger-than-life heroine in our popular culture? Brilliant, confident, and successful without being bound to any man or disturbed by seeming like a sort of minority amongst all the men in the business world (at least in the context of the story, I didn't see any other female characters of her sort beyond maybe the actress who disappears to Galt's Gulch).

Hank Rearden also impressed me as a man devoted to his invention and his company, the sort of executive I feel like is the man of yesteryear, with so many executives today seeming more like free agents on a football team. Also, on a personal level, his marriage seemed to remind me so much of my own that it was painful to read. Of course, I'd hardly compare my accomplishments to those of Hank Rearden; I just felt like this was a conversation I'd had before with my wife as I was reading it.

Perhaps it may seem odd, but in Francisco d'Anconia, I felt like the closest comparison I could think of was sort of a Bruce Wayne/Batman persona. Except that doesn't really fit--in his own way, he's almost obvious in what he's doing, but at the same time, nobody notices. His speech about money was just plain riveting. It totally overturned my formerly held ideas about money (the Biblical verse about the love of money being the root of all evil). His speech to Hank was also a classic and well worth reading.

Once John Galt himself showed up...and that speech...I felt like my mind was on fire. It was like somebody finally figured it out and spelled it out so eloquently.

As someone who was raised in a cult (you know, the one that hands out Watchtowers and Awakes? Well, don't ever take one, believe me), I was very skeptical of a book that said on the back cover that it was "unlike any other book you have ever read". I figured, what kind of recruitment technique is on the table this time? What's the gimmick? I'd certainly wondered if there was some sort of personality cult around Ayn Rand, some shadowy agenda thus far unknown to me. But that seems difficult to reconcile with a philosophy that says when two men of reason disagree, objective reality should decide. That man's mind is his tool of survival. This all seemed the absolute opposite of what cults do--which is tell you NOT to think, not to question, simply to obey. Hugh Akston's words to Dagny were particularly poignant on that subject, when he said that they weren't trying to get her obedience, but rather her rational conviction. Providing proof rather than merely assertions--now that, I can agree with, especially after having baseless ideas shoveled at me for most of my life that I had to obey without question.

After being so thoroughly impressed with 'Atlas Shrugged', and pleased at a pretty decent effort at turning the book into a movie, I wanted to read more of Ayn Rand's work. I'm most of the way through 'We the Living', though it's a harder read than 'Atlas', of course. I look forward to 'Anthem' and 'The Fountainhead' as well, and maybe some of the nonfiction stuff someday...

I was just floating through YouTube the other night after the President's speech, and decided to look up some stuff on Ayn Rand on there. I was particularly disturbed at how the mainstream media seemed to dismiss 'Atlas Shrugged' as juvenile, like the sort of book you read in high school or college 'and then you grow up'. There was even one particularly disturbing ad hominem report on Rand herself that seemed to take some of her interview with Mike Wallace and asserted she was some sort of sicko who fixated on a serial killer. Coincidentally, I'd just watched the Mike Wallace interview in its entirety and I realized that they cut the clip so that her statements were taken completely out of context. (As an ex-cult member, this is a HUGE red flag for my brain--that was one of the first things I learned was common in cult propaganda, quoting sources out of context. It's a form of dishonesty that particularly bothers me.) I didn't know anything about the quote from her journal, so I'd have to verify it, but given that the argument against Rand as a person (which is irrelevant to the truth content of her ideas, by the way), I didn't find it likely that that quote was presented in context, either. I'll definitely look it up sometime.

I was hoping to get an objective perspective on why people seem to have such a negative view of Rand and her books. I suppose current politicians who reference her may be some of the reason? I don't know. I tried reading the YouTube comments under the videos I watched, and that wasn't too helpful, either. A very long (look who's talking) argument back and forth between one person who incoherently used ad hominem attacks against Rand and another who pretty much held his/her ground and tried to actually get the other guy to spell out specific reasons why he disagreed. No solid ones were ever offered from what I could tell with my limited knowledge.

I don't know what to make of it. I'm planning to do a more thorough study of philosophy and economics. I'm also planning to read that 'Free Market Revolution' book because I'm curious about it. But I'm woefully uninformed about politics, economics, and so on.

It seems no one I talked to about some of the issues raised in Atlas Shrugged seemed to agree with me. I still wonder about the moral issues involved in it all. Folks earning minimum wage are upset and demanding higher wages, like say in DC with that Walmart story, or the fast food workers striking. I've wondered, should businesses be paying these workers more? And with such a concern about the concentration of wealth in recent decades, what's the alternative? Will a free market actually lead to higher wages for everyone, or would give way to the wealthiest just earning more and keeping the increased profits without offering any kind of additional reward to the workers who helped them earn it? Is it naive to think that the market can fix itself if left alone? It seems to me that greed has been the biggest problem, and the distinction to me is that greed moves a person to get all he can however he can, ignoring the risks involved, whereas a rational self-interest means pursuing one's happiness but not at the expense of others, not asking others to live for you.

Well...I guess I had to offer a full set of my thoughts so far. But the bottom line question is, what is it? Why is there such a dismissive attitude by many towards Atlas Shrugged and the idea of individual freedom? I don't get it. I thought that was the whole point of being American--freedom. Not the freedom of the many to dominate or take advantage of the few, but the freedom of each person to achieve whatever he or she wants.

With all that said, I still wonder, when do we decide to help our fellowman? Aren't there some who cannot exist by trade alone, for whatever reason?

I still have yet to speak the oath in my life...but who knows? Still have a lot to learn...