This topic will contain lots of plot spoilers.
See also my:
I’m half way through a reread of Atlas Shrugged. Overall I’m enjoying it. I have some critical comments.
I don’t like how thin-skinned, fragile, emotional, short-tempered, violent or even murderous Rearden and Francisco are. There are several parts where they get angry over some sort of insult or slight, they look like they could kill, they restrain themselves from physical violence, etc.
I don’t see why Francisco had to imply that he had control over whether his copper shipment to Rearden was sunk or not. He could have just given no information away. The whole plot point about Francisco betraying Rearden is weird because Francisco told him not to do business with d’Anconia Copper and Rearden violated Francisco’s consent. It was Rearden who mistreated Francisco not the other way around. Note that Rearden had to hide his identity to do it. It’s weird for Rearden to feel so betrayed when he ignored Francisco’s warning – so he should have known he was taking a substantial risk – then didn’t get the outcome he wanted. I also think it’s unreasonable for Rearden to be so mad at d’Anconia Copper for making him late on an order for the first time when the reason he was doing business with them is that every other copper company was also unable to provide him enough copper on time – why single out for blame the last company you turn to over all the others that had also become unreliable?
I think everyone communicates, discusses, explains and debates way too little. I dislike the major plot point about waiting for over a decade for Dagny to discover things herself instead of trying to explain them to her. Meanwhile Galt persuades a lot of other people in a single conversation. And overall Dagny seems like the most rational, reasonable character in the book (from what we see, from the actual information available). And John Galt should have given a public speech years earlier.
I don’t like some of the exaggerations(?) about giving one’s life for something like a year doing a job, or about something mattering more than the whole of the railroad or mills.
A lot of the sexual relationship stuff is bad.
I’ve been paying attention to Lillian because someone brought up the concept of her as a domestic abuse victim. At the half way point, I’d say her story is compatible with her being primarily a victim of Hank, rather than the other way around as Rand intended it. I don’t expect this to change later because she’s already doing some mean and aggressive stuff, but it doesn’t matter much because it comes after years of marriage. It’s their courtship and the early days of their marriage that is primarily relevant. If she’s a mean bitch now after being mistreated for years, and she tries to harm him now, it’s not very relevant because it could be a trauma response. Anything she says about the past and her past goals could also be a coping mechanism; she’s an unreliable narrator now. What’s more relevant is Hank’s own account of his early behavior towards her. Their relationship is clearly bad now, and they’re both jerks to each other now; the issue is primarily about how it got that way.
I can imagine some people defending all of Hank’s present behavior, saying it’s actually good, not merely understandable given years of prior fighting. I’d really disagree with that. I fear Rand herself might take that position. Hank’s rather unkind to Lillian, and it looks to me like only their history of conflict can potentially excuse that, rather than it being a good way for anyone to treat their wife in general (even if she has some bad ideas, and even if she makes some rude and sarcastic remarks).
If Atlas Shrugged were published today, I would criticize it for being unrealistic regarding the bad philosophy the villains say. It doesn’t seem like a fair enough characterization of common bad ideas in our culture today. I don’t know whether it was realistic or not when it came out 70 years ago. In other words, I don’t know if Ayn Rand was straw manning some of her opponents or not.
If Atlas Shrugged were published today, I would criticize it for being unrealistic regarding the bad philosophy the villains say. It doesn’t seem like a fair enough characterization of common bad ideas in our culture today. I don’t know whether it was realistic or not when it came out 70 years ago. In other words, I don’t know if Ayn Rand was straw manning some of her opponents or not.
I don’t know either.
However, I do know that when it was published, some critics said it was unrealistic in that way.
For example, this blog (note: the blog is very hostile to Rand) reposts an old 1957 review of Atlas Shrugged:
The term “straw man” doesn’t show up in that review, but “caricatures” shows up a few times in a context very similar to “straw man”. For example:
The Children of Darkness are caricatures, too; and they are really oozy. But at least they are caricatures of something identifiable. Their archetypes are Left-Liberals, New Dealers, Welfare Statists, One Worlders, or, at any rate, such ogreish semblances of these as may stalk the nightmares of those who think little about people as people, but tend to think a great deal in labels and effigies.
I think it’s fair to say this critic thought she was straw manning her opponents.
Though it is also worth noting that the review is, in general, very negative and nasty towards Rand. So maybe the critic in 1957 was being unfair.
But I think it’s plausible that whatever you might criticize today as a straw man would have been fair to say when it was published.