Talk:Atlas Shrugged

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.

Additional possible source for criticism

I am wondering about the possibility of putting several links from a Patheos long review of Atlas shrugged in the Reception section. Because I think that they are certainly in-depth, and help give some context and additional criticism to the section. Not putting every single one, just a few select that might work best. Links included. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/series/atlas-shrugged/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2013/06/atlas-shrugged-how-to-build-a-railroad/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2014/06/atlas-shrugged-pump-and-dump/ https://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2014/05/atlas-shrugged-the-gini-coefficient/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2015/06/atlas-shrugged-the-colossal-contradiction/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2016/04/atlas-shrugged-the-galtocaust/ -MarvelAge91 (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

They would need to be reliable sources. Blog posts are typically not considered reliable sources unless the blog is edited by a media organization, or the blog belongs to the subject of the article (the latter is impossible in this case because the novel Atlas Shrugged is not a person or organization). --RL0919 (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

movies

There seems to be more about the film adaptations here than on the page about the films actually made. That being the case, I'll leave my comment here. In the movies, real prominent conservative individuals appear in cameos. Should(n't) this be mentioned? 98.45.190.70 (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Setting

I have been told that in addition to the setting being generally dystopic, the common people in Atlas Shrugged are shown as extremely incapable, more so than could reasonably be expected of normal humans. Something terrible has apparently happened to the people of the setting that helps account for the economic malaise (since too many people are too dumb to keep the economy healthy).

If this is accurate someone with better knowledge than I should expand the Setting section of the article. 2601:441:8381:CAC0:C073:D754:79E9:7410 (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

IP addition to lead about political influence

A series of IP addresses (presumably the same individual since they all geolocate to the same city) has been adding into the lead variations of a claim that the novel's influence on politicians has been "to justify selfishness". This uncited addition is not supported by any statements in the body of the article. The novel's political influence is typically associated with its critiques of socialism and government intervention, not with Rand's views on egoism. Since the IP has inserted this for the fourth time in a week, I am opening this discussion to ask if they have some explanation for this commentary. RL0919 (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Lack of sourcing aside, it's a creative value-laden opinion / spin by one person and as such does not any information or anything useful to the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The IP is back at it and doesn't seem to grasp the significance of edit warring notices, so I've reported it to WP:AN3. --RL0919 (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)