Last chance for those not wanting plot spoilers-
Atlas Shrugged is a book about trains
The Fountainhead is about Frank Lloyd Wright
First, I would recommend reading
Atlas Shrugged to people of all political persuasions - at least for Americans. Whether you agree with it or not, I think it's a book simply worth reading, for an understanding of both the times in which Rand wrote it and the philosophy. I don't know quite how to sum this up, but it was a really interesting experience for me - I'd read a fair amount (well, not like a for a college major but a regular person) of Adam Smith and Keynes and other economists throughout history so it's not like I hadn't been exposed to things, knew about the "principles" of the free market. But the
mindset of the whole "libertarian" movement was the one thing I couldn't get - I knew all the rhetoric but couldn't really understand where they were coming from. Not to say this relates to one particular other group, but it would be like knowing there's some religion out there with millions of followers, you hear what they say in political debates, but you don't know any of their scripture or traditional stories or culture or what not. And to be an American and not "get" the Objectivist/libertarian perspective you're probably missing out on something, at least that's what struck me reading the novel.
So here's the thing I took away from Objectivism - which makes some elements of its incorporation in our modern society completely, utterly baffling, but people are easily misled - it's an inherently atheistic, pseudo-rational doctrine. Outside of the novel itself, Rand's other writings/nonfiction are like stepping back in time, like a scientist reading about Lamarckian evolution or something. It's completely obvious Objectivism was intended as something radical - on the surface it seems enlightened to skirt issues of the time like racial interaction, women's rights etc....But at the same time it's incredibly different from any modern school of humanism. Despite removing God from the equation, the inherent rights are still there, the "free will" is still there, and the complete lack of the actual human nature, psychology/evolution is very evident, before things like game theory would even come into play. Some scholar (don't remember whom, but multiple have probably said things alone the same lines) put it well that it's immediately obvious why there are no children in any of Rand's novels. But it's funny to me how this school of thought can even persist - beset by the religious persuasion, of course, and on the other side by modern humanist types and traditional philosophy even older than Objectivism which actually make more sense (like Hobbes' quintessential observation of the natural human life being nasty, brutish, and short). Suffice to say "Randroid" was a very important addition to my knowledge of political terminology.
As for the book's story itself, boy, it's a fair bit of fun. I found it hilarious, both due to Rand's quirky and often poor storytelling, (though the writing isn't as bad, but it's still funny to see old phrases like "don't let's" and (in Fountainhead) "bromide") and it's potential uses in other debates. Rand alone provides like a refutation for like every angry feminist ever - maybe it's because I don't read juvenile fiction like chick vampire books or something, but Dagny as a female protagonist was outrageously funny and unlike any other book I've read. The social customs also seem hilariously antiquated - due to Rand's background (really, you gotta wonder, she seemed to have some of the worst misconceptions ever stereotyped about immigrants to America, not just from Russia but anywhere) and the the book being written decades ago; all in all, good fun. And yet the mystery holds some suspense; the characters are all about the modern gestalt of "pwnage" which simply makes for fun fiction. And you can tell people at its simplest that Atlas Shrugged is a book about trains.
Not to say there aren't some disappointing things though - parts of the book do ramble on way, way, too long, and of course some characters (especially Dagny) are just insufferable. The book also incorporates some really weird elements of sci-fi - not good sci, 1950s cheezy stuff. So some things are just lame like the "sound weapon" and of course the "engine," but some are wonderfully poetic- the hidden valley in the mountains, (mainly just said environment is naturally beautiful in real-life anyway) and some over-the-top yet funny (Ragnar as a pirate, and a lot of the minor "industrialists" and their companies). The entire set up of the government and of course James Taggart were incredibly funny - half-arsed charicatures of the evils of "socialism," Europe falling into collapse, etc... (really, more like an oligarchal lobbyist system we've had today for some time, corrupt companies competing government support
).
So all in all there was only one character I remotely felt any pathos for - aptly named Francisco "Dammit John would you take that Knife out of my Back" Sebastian d'Anconia. Galt himself is a harlequin - not a real character but an excuse for various plot development and shoddy philosophy ramblings, and also has the creepy factor to him, what with stalking Dagny for over a decade and all. But Francisco is as close as one can get to a hero, and ironically also seems to NOT be a real capitalist. He sacrifices his (inherited) wealth, fame, power, everything material, for the sake of love and peace with himself. Sure, it's romanticized and unrealistic, and possibly just appealing because I'm a teenage guy, but Francisco's the only character with any honor to his name at all. Of course, Rand didn't see that (common theme with her) the most profound and interesting story is not about the shameless mouthpieces for greed, but the character who most rejects materialism (though his pwnage of the whole of Mexico and South America is kinda hilarious, but that could hardly be taken seriously).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
On the other hand,
The Fountainhead was a horrible disappointment. Terrible characterization, very boring plot, and inconsistent philosophy - if you'd read that book without knowing more about Rand, it would hardly seem coherent with the rest of Objectivism. While Galt et al. at least try to express consistent ideals of utter independence, Roark, in essence, is a FAILED capitalist - he designs buildings which aren't popular and don't sell. He doesn't care about success, doesn't have many goals in life, and lets others have greater fame. If anything the message that could have been best conveyed in the novel is one about anti-materialism, enjoying the aesthetic qualities of life, all that jazz instead of that rat race, but of course that's not the message of the book.
The worst thing about the book personally though was a moment that was like spitting in an open wound - a real disappoint because I saw a way that so much could have been slightly redeemed. I'm sure everyone knows those times when they think they've got an ending/something that's going to happen in a story penned down. And then it's disappointing when you're wrong, not because there's a twist or anything, but just on seeming laziness or choice of the author. Well, here it is: I was
sure that the final skyscraper Roark was constructing - an act of defiance against how "the rest of the world" was doing things the old way, was going to be the "ultimate skyscraper" designed by his old (dead) mentor, the guy who "pioneered" the modern architecture. But no, Roark just fails.
And the Emmy for worst supporting cast goes to everyone in the
Fountainhead as well, even more shallow than some of the characters in Atlas Shrugged. Dominique is just sad, Peter Keating as well - I couldn't shake the feeling that I was reading the
Great Gatsby with the twist that it's a good thing modern society is rushing to its doom. And unfortunately this book just wasn't enough to be funny, the even greater lack of action and boring writing maybe contributing. The only thing that came close was the total, crazy, out of left field revelation of Ellsworth Toohey as an incredibly hackneyed villain. First you just know a little about him - he doesn't like Roark. Then a bit about him wanting to help the common people, rather than encourage lavish individuality - you think Rand is making her point here, but no.... All of a sudden he's Dark Lord Sauron in 1920s New York - evil purely for the sake of being evil, mwhaha, another failed charicature of "socialism." And of course there's no interesting dialogue, nothing special about how Roark relates to these characters either, outside of rather weird sexuality, like the fact that he is kinda a rapist, on top of the similarities to Frank Lloyd Wright and poor metaphors about architecture in general.
In short:
Atlas Shrugged could be fun to read even if you don't agree with the philosophy.
The Fountainhead is a complete waste of time.
