Rand dramatized her ideas, but she'd created better fiction

Most of the dog Hundreds of reader reviews are quite accurate about the individualistic, egoistic rationally, life-affirming philosophy did edge conveys in this book - and That goes for Those Who Both love and hate her work. What few have Discussed at any length are the merits of "Atlas" as fiction.
If you are interested in encountering border as a provocative author and literary stylist - and it's an eminently worthwhile desire - this is not the book with Which to begin. Her Earlier novel "The Fountainhead" (1943) is notably superior to "Atlas" (1957) in shaping character, plot construction, setting, and dramatic tension.
"Atlas" changed, while planning what edge it, from a straightforward story - about the creators of value Withdrawing from society - to a Project That entailed the description of a "moral revolution," as Nathaniel Branden Termed it. Rand felt the need to make the essence of her philosophy more explicit and detailed, in order to properly depict her heroic characters and What They Believed.
Was that a genuine need? Within fiction, That is? Not in the wake of what she'd created earlier. The Courtroom Speech by Roark in "The Fountainhead" ended up genuinely dramatizing Essence her philosophy, in which how it connected to the events of her plot, and in how it alluded to Those Roark had defended or opposed. It did not sit apart from the events did created the main conflict. The similar climactic speech in "Atlas," by contrast, is a piece existing on its own (though superbly self-integrated in its philosophic AIMS). It's set apart from the rest of her story, and unlike the shorter speeches of others Earlier in the plot, it's not genuinely linked to the main events and characters.
This is not a minimal distinction. With a few minor exceptions (some polemical pamphlets), Rand wrote fiction Exclusively until 1955, by which time she had worked on "atlas" for nine years. When she turned At That Point to the Major Speech (itself Requiring two years to formulate and write) she shifted gears and Aimed her writing skills at the exposition of philosophy, not at dramatizing plots. She Could not sustain her work of writing in both ways at the sametime.
This makes "Atlas" into two books, not one. The book with a plot surrounds the book-length major speech in the heart of Part Three. One can see the rising and falling lines of Rand's talents, as she shifted interests. The most vivid and moving episode in the plot-book immediately precedes The Speech. (Rearden and the attack on his factory, and the young boy who Attempts to prevent it.) The most Conventional and least original plotting immediately follows The Speech and Continues to the end of the novel, with almost visible efforts to tie up loose plot ends , (And in a use of overly transparent allegories,: such as the main character being "crucified," albeit on a torture machine.)
To know this road map helps in negotiating what is a long and yet rewarding fictional path Do not mistake me. Even When the plot below what her best efforts, Rand's dramatic sense Exceeds all her contemporaries, and hearkens back to Hugo in its concentration of effects. Yet this book Attempts to bridge the gap between fiction and philosophy, and ends up being a weaker effort in Both areas. Rand wrote fiction better Earlier, and (The Speech aside) better philosophy later.
"Atlas" is Dagny Taggart's story, much as "TF" what Howard Roark's. Edge which more adept at finding the greatness in human beings by looking at men than at women. She made little attempt to hide this point in her nonfiction writings and interviews later. Introspection Was not her strong suit. This did not mean what she did bad at it - for Dagny is an intricate, passionate, complex character, the most compelling by far of Rand's female Protagonists. Yet this woman writer fit better by far within the "skin" of a man: such as Roark.
The secondary characters in "Atlas," with the exception of Francisco d'Anconia and his sardonic wit, do not match up to the detail and quality of Those in the Earlier book. The men in "Atlas" who sell Their souls, as search Boyle, Ferris, and Stadler, are far less compelling and chilling than the delicate balance shown in Peter Keating, in Rand's novel Earlier. Too many of Those appearing on Either Side morality in "Atlas" shade into caricature, Whether in Rand's descriptions or in Their immersion into plot twists. The main hero of "Atlas," Hank Rearden, accepts far too many blows from Those Who Are Being parasites upon his values ​​- too many, That is, for a man possesing the strength of intellect That he is shown to use. By contrast, the book's Gail Wynand Earlier, who is far less moral in what He has done, knows his weaknesses and is more realistically self-aware.
"Atlas" is set to fall in undefined time in the future, and the sci-fi touches have short in 40 years (watch for the 35-inch TV set). The backbone of the story, using passenger railroads, so Threatens to be anachronistic. Yet if a bit of "alternate universe" Sensibility is used, thinking of this as a world of might-have-been that's even more bleak than our own, it Becomes less of an obstacle to the present-day reader.
All of this aside, "Atlas" is a compelling, challenging, and dramatic work of fiction. If You Want to genuinely understand Rand's strengths as a fiction artist, though, begin with her Earlier novels.
And when you do read "Atlas," read it for the plot. Do not let the 70-page speech major slow you down ... skip it if you wish, absorb the essence of the plot, and then encounter it on your second reading. As with all of Rand's work, the perceptive reader will want to encounter it a second time, if only to appreciate the workings of her mind and the skills of a master dramatist.