|Atlas Shrugged has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Art. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Atlas Shrugged article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4|
|This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.|
|This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to make it into the top 25 viewed articles of that week|
The weeks in which this happened:
|This talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 60 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
"The working title throughout her writing was The Strike. According to Barbara Branden, the change was made for dramatic reasons––Rand believed that titling the novel 'The Strike' would have revealed the mystery element of the novel prematurely."
She did this with all of her novels, giving them titles that would help remind her what the central theme was, but then changing the titles to something that would not be understood by the reader until after the novel had been read. This is explained in Anthem Centennial Edition with Introduction by Ayn Rand (ISBN-10: 0452286352 ISBN-13: 978-0452286351), at least.
The above sentence makes it appear it is a quality of the book, while it should emphasize it was really a quality of the author's style.
For example: Airtight became We The Living Ego became Anthem Second Hand Lives became The Fountainhead
"100 best novels of the 20th century" blurb should be removed [uncredible source].
The source being used is an Internet poll: http://www.modernlibrary.com/top-100/100-best-novels/
Which is highly sensitive to 'blitz voting', which is also why non-professional reviews on Metacritic are rarely used, and even looking at that list 4 out of the top 10 are Rand books, and 3 out of the top 10 are Hubbard's, showing a very high Libertarian slant. It's not nearly as subject-varied as the professional list on that same page (which doesn't include the book in its top 100). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Totally agree, some of the books on that list are laughable. The current one is a very minor and forgettable work of fiction. 51kwad (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC) 51kwad (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Atlas Shrugged. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110504111058/http://essaycontest.aynrandnovels.com:80/AtlasShrugged.aspx? to http://essaycontest.aynrandnovels.com/AtlasShrugged.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The old subpages
What happened to them, they are mentioned in archive 1 Comment 1 (and a few other places), but there was no resolution there. Can someone update? I'm guessing they were deleted. They would be cool to look though them though. Endercase (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, most were deleted long ago. The only one that survives as an independent article is List of Atlas Shrugged characters. --RL0919 (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Statement that Roark would reject the strike of Atlas Shrugged
I am writing in response to this excerpt from the article:
"Rand then began Atlas Shrugged to depict the morality of rational self-interest, by exploring the consequences of a strike by intellectuals refusing to supply their inventions, art, business leadership, scientific research, or new ideas to the rest of the world. The idea in fact already appeared in an embryonic form in Rand's earlier book, The Fountainhead, where the character Dominique Frankon repeatedly urges her lover, architect Howard Roark, to cease giving of his talent to an unworthy world ("scattering pearls in front of pigs"). However, in the earlier book Roark firmly rejects this course of action."
However, there is this passage in the John Galt speech which seems exactly intended to respond to this seeming discrepancy:
“I have done by plan and intention what had been done throughout history by silent default. There have always been men of intelligence who went on strike, in protest and despair, but they did not know the meaning of their action. The man who retires from public life, to think, but not to share his thoughts—the man who chooses to spend his years in the obscurity of menial employment, keeping to himself the fire of his mind, never giving it form, expression or reality, refusing to bring it into a world he despises—the man who is defeated by revulsion, the man who renounces before he has started, the man who gives up rather than give in, the man who functions at a fraction of his capacity, disarmed by his longing for an ideal he has not found—they are on strike, on strike against unreason, on strike against your world and your values. But not knowing any values of their own, they abandon the quest to know—in the darkness of their hopeless indignation, which is righteous without knowledge of the right, and passionate without knowledge of desire, they concede to you the power of reality and surrender the incentives of their mind—and they perish in bitter futility, as rebels who never learned the object of their rebellion, as lovers who never discovered their love." (pp. 1050-1051)
I think it would be best for the statement that Roark "firmly rejects [the idea of a strike such as Galt's]" to either be removed, or it should be put into context with Galt's own clarification. Galt's point seems to be that, without having Galt's philosophical and psychological insights to guide him--and without a realistic plan for "stopping the motor of the world" (as the rest of the strikers in Atlas Shrugged had), Roark would have been "conceding to [the looters] the power of reality". It seems that Roark implicitly understood this, whereas Dominique did not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjason1991 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- There is no "discrepancy" that needs addressing. Same idea, different characters in different books with different evaluations. This is only a discrepancy if the author is confused (identified) with the character/narrator. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
The whole point of Galt's clarification seems exactly to explain why it is not the "same idea". The difference in evaluations is between Galt and Dominique about the kind of strike by "silent default" that Galt refers to; it is not between Galt and Roark. Also, the reason why it would be a discrepancy is that Rand said on many occasions that both Roark and Galt speak for her own point of view in the novels.