How long atlas shrugged

Somehow, people still rave about this book. I will say, however, that the chapter where they kill everyone by putting a steam engine through a tunnel was incredibly well done. She could have cut the rest of the novel and simply published that chapter because all the major points are present and for a brief moment the book felt worth reading.

I also loved the bits about the pirate and the scene where the government takes over the mines to find them desolated. There are some great 'fight the man' moments but they are buried under a god-awful plot that puts the plot and politics before the writing and told through characters that are so two-dimensional that I can't even believe the scenes that have them walking down a street.

There's some politics here I guess some people could get down with, and I do understand that this is a response to the horrors of Communist Russia, but she did this so much better in Anthem though even in that she contradicts herself often.

Right after a large discussion on freedom and not letting others think for you, the man names the woman character. He just tells her, this is now your name. Which seems suspiciously not like the freedom the man was fighting for and others have tackled the issue in a much more agreeable and artistic manner. All sarcasm and jokes aside, I simply do not think this book is well written.

I could honestly not care less about the political aspects, its the literary aspects that cause the low rating. I came, I read, I shrugged. However, the office had AC, heat and tons of paid vacation. Perhaps I'm just bitter about the time I was sent home for listening to a DFW interview on Bookworm because it was 'spreading liberal propaganda in the workplace.

Sorry, I'm most likely the asshole in this situation. There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

Nov 20, Manny rated it really liked it Shelves: too-sexy-for-maiden-aunts , science-fiction , blame-jordan-if-you-like. In some ways, this is a very bad book. The style is stiff and clunky, and the world-view she is trying to sell you has holes you could drive a train through. There is a nice putdown in One Fat Englishman. The main character has just been given a precis of Objectivism.

He says "I bet I'm at least as selfish as you. But I don't why I need to turn that into a philosophy". Thank you, Kingsley Amis. But on the plus side, the book is a page-turner; it does a great job of helping people brought up in a In some ways, this is a very bad book. But on the plus side, the book is a page-turner; it does a great job of helping people brought up in a left-wing tradition to understand the right as not just deluded or evil my friend Gen said she had the same experience after reading it ; and it is good at voicing the frustration that competent and honest people feel when they are surrounded by incompetent and dishonest ones.

And the romance between Dagny and Hank is emotionally very satisfying. I was so disappointed when she But I fear the author's desire to push her philosophical agenda got in the way of the story. I haven't exactly changed my mind on any of the above, but, as Jordan persuasively argues, it's kind of missing the point. And, with all due respect to the other reviews here, most of them are also missing the point. Well, because we're answering the wrong question. Some people uncritically adore this book.

Guys, dare I suggest that you might want to broaden your reading tastes just the tiniest amount, and see if you still feel that way? A rather larger group of reviewers can't stand Ayn Rand, and point out various obvious flaws: lack of feeling for English prose style, lack of character development, lack of realistic dialogue, interminable sermons on Objectivism, and sundry other charges.

Of course. All of that's clearly true. But here's the question I find more interesting: if the book is so terrible, how come it's been such a gigantic success? It's been said that only the Bible has had a greater influence on 20th century American thought.

It must have something going for it. So here's my second attempt. I think the book is dishonest, but it's dazzlingly dishonest, on a grand scale, and that's what readers find fascinating.

As everyone knows, the basic thesis is that people should be more selfish, and that this will in some mystical way be good for society as a whole; a boldly paradoxical idea, and, at first sight, it's complete nonsense. I can well believe that my selfishness might be good for me personally, but why on Earth should it be good for anyone else?

It flies in the face of at least two thousand years of Western ethical thought, which has been largely focused on making people less selfish, not more.

As has been widely pointed out, Objectivism is pretty much the antithesis of Christianity. Which does suggest the question of why many people on the American Right claim both to be Christians and at the same time supporters of Rand's ideas, but let's not get into that right now. I don't really understand how the American Right thinks, so it'll be more productive to consider my own reactions to the book, which were by no means all negative.

In particular, I find Dagny a sympathetic main character. Yes, she's the Mary Sue to end all Mary Sues, but that's exactly it. Rand believes in her so completely that I can't help being swept along. I am aware that few real women are hypercompetent technical and managerial geniuses, who think nothing of working 48 hours straight and then looking drop-dead gorgeous in a designer gown.

If the movie ever does get made, though, you must admit that Angelina Jolie was a shrewd piece of casting. Even if Dagny doesn't exist, I want her to, and I've seen many worse role-models for young women. That mixture of beauty, intelligence and passion is appealing. And sure, most of the other characters are one-dimensional stereotypes, but, when you're as self-centered as Ayn Rand was, that's how you see things.

It's a subjective view, and I find it interesting to look at the world through her eyes. Now that I've admitted that I love Dagny - I must admit that I can't decide whether I want to be her or sleep with her; probably a bit of both - let's get on to analyzing Rand's big con. A large part of the book is a lavish, over-the-top, melodramatic romance. Will Dagny get her guy? She's hopelessly in love with Hank, who feels just the same way about her. But Hank's ghastly wife, Lillian, seems to be an insuperable obstacle to their happiness.

Hank's got all these mistaken principles , see, which mean he has to stay with Lillian, who doesn't appreciate him one bit, rather than go off with his true love. The best scene in the book is the confrontation at the party. Hank has created his new miracle alloy, which is a thousand times stronger than steel and a cool blue-green color to boot.

The very first thing he makes from is it a bracelet for Lillian. And is she grateful? Of course not! She's actually going around complaining to the other women about this ugly thing her dumb husband has given her to wear on her wrist.

Why couldn't he give her a diamond bracelet like a normal guy? But Dagny, in a blazing fury, goes up to her, and in front of everyone says that she'll be so happy to swap her own diamond bracelet for Hank's unappreciated present.

Honestly, if you're not on Dagny's side at this point, I fear you have no heart at all. I was certainly cheering her on, and given the general success of the novel I assume I was one of millions.

Rand has stacked the deck, but she's not exactly the first author to do so. The reasonable point she's making here is that, in romantic matters, people should often do what they want to do, rather than than what they feel they ought to do.

Straightforwardly selfish behavior is better for everyone; people need love, which makes them happy, rather than pity, which ultimately makes them miserable. At least, it's true in this particular case. You're sitting there willing Hank to understand what's so blatantly obvious. And, once she's got you to buy into her idea, she switches the cards right under your nose. In just the same way, she argues, people should always act selfishly! See, if you're given something you haven't truly earned whatever that means , it won't make you happy.

Moreover, the people who are actually entitled to it will feel hurt and frustrated, just like Dagny, and in the end they'll lose their motivation. And thus, um, if you tax multi-billionaires at more than whatever the fashionable rate is, civilization will collapse. I may have condensed the argument a little, but I think that's roughly it. As already mentioned, this is nonsense, and shows that romance authors, even quite good ones, shouldn't try their hand at political philosophy.

But that needn't stop you from appreciating their romances, and I certainly did. Next week, I will be reviewing Barbara Cartland's commentaries on Kant. To be continued. View all 87 comments. Mar 30, Mario the lone bookwolf rated it did not like it Shelves: facepalm-trash-bin. The premise: Everyone is stupid except the faith and ideology I want to spread with awkward, bad writing and glorifying sociopathy with a touch of ethical thoughts to make it not look even more inhuman.

Great, beautiful misogynist vs ugly women. Any kind of wonderful fascism-, eugenic-, master rac The premise: Everyone is stupid except the faith and ideology I want to spread with awkward, bad writing and glorifying sociopathy with a touch of ethical thoughts to make it not look even more inhuman.

Any kind of wonderful fascism-, eugenic-, master race- driven lunatics vs all other humans. Wise feminists vs bad men. Environmentalists vs evil bureaucracies.

Ingenius racists vs the inferior population. The good political party vs the evil political party. One understands the sheer stupidity much better in such an ironized context and it shows the immense main problem of misusing fictional literature to implement agenda and bias in a work of fiction to manipulate so many people in real life to think that destructive ideas are great.

Why so many adjectives and extreme contrasts in her writing you may ask? Well, if an author is unable to explain things by showing, not telling, and being an objective and talented storyteller, there have to be many little helpers to make it understandable. I mean, what about dialogues or interacting with the world instead of endless, boring inner and outer monologues? Looks like some people never get out of pubertal defiant phase.

So many people saying that they got influenced by this piece of capitalist propaganda show how the misuse of literature can be instrumentalized to promote an inhuman and disturbing point of view. In the contrast, I tend to feel ashamed about my first world problems, lack of motivation, procrastination, all these luxury problems, and have a strong attitude towards improving the world by spreading the knowledge about the good, proven, logical, human, alternatives to the stupidity that ruled the earth for millennia.

A kind of obligation to be thankful, mindful, positive, and progressive. Because they are superior. Extremism is always the same, boring concept, look at all the great historical examples with the same mentality, I live in a country with a history lesson around that you might have heard about. View all 36 comments. Jan 03, Stephen rated it liked it Shelves: audiobook , science-fiction , , philosophy , classics-americas , epic , literature , classics , world-in-the-shitter , polly-sighs-and-pubic-policy.

A review many minutes in the writing and several hours in the photo finding. A review so important that one Dr. Hyperbole had this to say upon seeing it This review will pull no punches as it discusses all aspects of the novel and includes opinions that run the gamut from 5 stars of love to seething cauldron's of 1 star rage It is a book of new and radical ideas being passionately expressed by someone who believes deeply in them.

Whether you agree or disagree whole-heartedly or belong somewhere in the middle, it's right and proper to respect the passion and conviction that Ms. Rand feels for her subject. Call it controversial, call it inflammatory, even call it wrong, but it is impossible to call it irrelevant.

There is little question that as a book of ideas, Atlas Shrugged is a monumental book and deserves its place as one of the most important books of the 20th Century Ain't I right there Normie.

Among these detractors was one P. Whether or not you believe her vision is skewed or biased, there is still much that her book can add to the debate on the proper role of government in the life of the individual.

People are people and everyone is entitled to being judged for who they are. Walk around your house and pick up the products that you use every day and that make your life easier and ask yourself how many of them were made by people who made a lot of money off them my guess is most of them. The world we be a lot worse off without the inventors, the builders and the risk takers and they deserve our thanks and not our animosity There were additional negative reactions raised about Atlas Shrugged and this review promises to tackle them in depth.

One very controversial subject deals with attacks on Ayn Rands views on sexuality which are certainly on display in the novel. This does nothing but preach to the converted and has all the persuasive power of a political attack ad. State your opinion once and that is laudable. If it is overly complex, maybe you repeat it a second, even a third time.

One disgruntled reader stopped reading the novel halfway through and said simply Many found the prose less than noteworthy but were very taken by the plot. Still others liked the passion of Rand's convictions but found her message lost in a myriad of meandering speeches. Until then View all 34 comments. When my mother gave me this book and said, "I think you will like this; I read it over a vacation in a week when I was your age," I took one look at the massive text and couldn't believe it.

She also said that I reminded her of the characters And that is exactly what I learned from this book: that pride is most beautiful thing, and to live on this earth means that one must understand its reality, and learn to use one's mind to make it what one wants When my mother gave me this book and said, "I think you will like this; I read it over a vacation in a week when I was your age," I took one look at the massive text and couldn't believe it.

And that is exactly what I learned from this book: that pride is most beautiful thing, and to live on this earth means that one must understand its reality, and learn to use one's mind to make it what one wants it to be. It is about truly loving life and all that it means to 'live' it. It is the reason why I understand myself as a man who belongs on earth It is very long almost pages , so get ready for an epic. I won't try to say it is great literature, though if the style fits the person who is reading it, it will certainly be an amazing read.

It can be long-winded and wordy at times, but what philospher isn't? My advice: stick with it through the first half of the first section: it takes it bit to get going in the book, but once it starts, it is worth it To the proposition that we all have inside of us the inherent values to be heros: we just need to learn the virtues that will bring those values out of us View all 12 comments.

Mar 09, David rated it did not like it. This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. The first false premise is that there are only a dozen or so people in the country who are worth a damn.

The second false premise is that every government employee is a lazy no-good who has nothing on his mind but pillaging the bank accounts of the lucky dozen. But beyond that, the government is inherently evil, to the point of passing laws that inflict major economic damage and suffering on virtually everyone in the country with the exception of the privileged government leaders. This evil government is all-powerful and has total control over every newspaper, television and radio station.

Fat chance. She has no concept that other governments have not tolerated the oppression that she found there. The third false premise is that the rest of the people of the U. Further, they have no ability or process to provoke change. They wander around like a bunch of sheep being led to the slaughter. The country has a middle class composed of about 24 people who are the trusted, loyal assistants of the elite.

When the elite disappear on strike , their trusted assistants are left behind to bear the misfortune of the rest of the poor slobs. These magic things were, of course, invented by the intelligent elite who use them to help wreak havoc and despair on the rest of the million people of the country in order to punish the evil government. Dagny Taggart, the heroine and only intelligent woman in the universe, has sex with three of the elite. She dumps the only real relationship with Rearden in favor of the demi-god John Galt who she barely knows along the lines of a teenage girl throwing herself at one of the Beatles.

Her favorite encounters are sado-masochistic. They think the only path to change is to take their football and go home. You have to wonder how brilliant these people really are. The author spends great quantities of print describing and re-describing thoughts and feelings of the characters ad nauseum. The redundancy is overwhelming. This poor attempt at science fiction with a supposed moral message demonstrates how a page book can be padded to become a page behemoth.

Elitists, libertarians and others paranoid about the government will undoubtedly enjoy this book. Paramilitary groups will love it.

View all 24 comments. Sep 28, Nandakishore Mridula rated it did not like it Shelves: general-fiction. I read this book as a teenager while recovering from a long bout of viral fever which had left me bedridden for almost a month: I had exhausted all my other books and forced to rummage through old shelves in my house. Ironically, I read The Grapes of Wrath also at the same time. My teenage mind was captivated by the "dangerous" ideas proposed by Ayn Rand.

At that time, India was having an inefficient "mixed" economy comprising all the negative aspects of capitalism and socialism, and Ms. Rand I read this book as a teenager while recovering from a long bout of viral fever which had left me bedridden for almost a month: I had exhausted all my other books and forced to rummage through old shelves in my house. Rand seemed to point a way out of the quagmire. Almost thirty years hence, I find the novel if it can be called that - Ayn Rand's idea of fiction is a bunch of pasteboard characters put there as her mouthpieces to be silly beyond imagination.

The premise is laughable; the characters entirely forgettable; and the writing, abyssmal. The idea that governments governing the least and allowing a "winner-take-all" economy to flourish will solve all the world's woes "Social Darwinism", a word I've heard used to describe her philosophy will not wash anywhere today, I would wager - even with the hard-core adherents of the GOP in the USA. Especially when we look at Europe, where capitalism has gone into a downward spiral. Rand, sorry to say, Atlas didn't shrug: Atlas collapsed!

View all 30 comments. Apr 13, Monica MizMiz rated it it was amazing Recommends it for: Any reader interested in philosophy or just a good story. Shelves: favoritesforpleasurereading. The Concept: Rand follows the lives of society's movers and shakers first-handers, in her words, and business men, scientists, inventors, and artists in her novel as they resist the societal pull to become second-handers and to remain true to themselves and their live's work.

Meanwhile, something is happening that is shaking the very foundation of society. Applying Rand's ideas t The Concept: Rand follows the lives of society's movers and shakers first-handers, in her words, and business men, scientists, inventors, and artists in her novel as they resist the societal pull to become second-handers and to remain true to themselves and their live's work.

Applying Rand's ideas to my own life has made my mind clearer and has helped me to acchieve goals I thought were unreachable. Rand's ideas have been a big part of "growing up" and getting through the "quarter life crisis" for me. While I read Rand's books for her ideas and to better understand the application of her philosophy, they can also be read on many different levels.

Through reading them, not only did I read an amazing story, carefully crafted and well rendered, but I also learned so much. However, one does not have to delve deep into Rand's philosophical background to enjoy The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged -- they are also great stories about human endurance, individualism, freedom, relationships, and integrity. The Fountainhead is a more straight forward place to start that study. I highly recommend this book, and I have a copy to loan if you're interested.

When you're reading, we can go out for coffee to talk about the book -- there is much to think about in this one. View all 7 comments. May 30, Ken rated it did not like it Shelves: masochism , fiction. This book was the most overrated piece of crap of the twentieth century. It spars only with Dianetics and in its absolute absurdity.

The characters are absolutely idealized 'heroes of capitalism' action figures. I wonder if Rand imagined some of these great barons of industry coming to her rescue when she immigrated away from the vile pit of communism that she left behind. You know, during the time where she forged her citizenship papers and depended on the generocity and kindness of a liberal, o This book was the most overrated piece of crap of the twentieth century.

You know, during the time where she forged her citizenship papers and depended on the generocity and kindness of a liberal, open society. If only she had us all her irritating, long winded, repetative tales of woe for the monied class of brilliantly handsome, powerful super geniuses.

She bases all of this on her objectivist claptrap, claiming rationality as her own private high ground. But this is a general critique of her works. Specifically this book is completely overwritten and serves as flak cover for all the wrong people. The Jack Welch's and Phil Knights that imagine themselves to be the heroes of this book. This book has done more to create a generation of self interested greedy mindless zombies than any other book I can think of.

View all 11 comments. Feb 23, Ian "Marvin" Graye rated it liked it. In this novel, she dramatizes the shortcomings of her unique Objectivist philosophy through an intellectual mystery story and magical mystery tour that intertwines sex, ethics, sex, metaphysics, sex, epistemology, sex, politics, "Shagged at Last The Sequel " Written while she was still alive, but published posthumously after her death in , "Shagged At Last" is the posthumous sequel to Ayn Rand's greatest achievement and last work of fiction, "Atlas Shrugged" not counting "Shagged At Last".

In this novel, she dramatizes the shortcomings of her unique Objectivist philosophy through an intellectual mystery story and magical mystery tour that intertwines sex, ethics, sex, metaphysics, sex, epistemology, sex, politics, sex, economics, sex, whatever and sex.

Reconsidering her worldview, she concludes that, in order to be truly beneficial to society individuals, sex must not be just the fun bit between the serious parts, it requires serious love action between the private parts. In this sequel which is the equal of the prequel to the sequel , Ayn Rand abandons Objectivism and embraces Sex Activism, without endorsing either Active Sexism or Subjectivism.

Where Have All the Objectivists Gone? Set in the near-future [30 years after the time of writing in ] in a U. Spoiler If you want to know who the female protagonist has deep and meaningless sex with, read the book or open the following spoiler at your own peril to avoid disappointment, don't view the spoiler.

Anyway, read the book. Disclaimer: The televisualisation of the hysterical perspective is currently subject to the formalisation of contractual relations with Manny and Jessica Rabbit.

View all 66 comments. May 06, Amy rated it it was amazing. After working on this book for several months, I finally finished it and loved it. I've learned that I rate a book highly when it forces me to think and broadens my perspective. Rand definitely accomplishes this in Atlas Shrugged and earns five stars. I am amazed at the depth of her philosophy, her intelligence, and her ability to write and communicate her ideas through strong, entertaining fictional characters.

In Atlas Shrugged, she shares her philosophy which she calls Objectivism, which in a After working on this book for several months, I finally finished it and loved it. In Atlas Shrugged, she shares her philosophy which she calls Objectivism, which in a word is a system of justice.

Before reading this book, I always viewed justice as cold, distant, and inferior to mercy, but Rand helps me view the essentiality and virtues of justice. In a few other words, Rand is an advocate of reason, logic, accountability, production, capitalism, agency, human ability, and she believes that working for one's happiness is essential and each person's personal responsilibity.

She is against pity, mediocrity, taxation, seizing wealth and production from those who produce to redistribute to those who are unwilling to work hard. In the story, she illustrates what would happen to the world if incentive to produce is removed from the intelligent and able - the motor of the world would stop.

I love how Rand's character Dagny Taggart is such an example of intelligence and ability. She will move heaven and earth to accomplish her purposes and she approaches life with such passion.

She runs the leading transcontinental railroad in the country, and Rand created this character in the 's! Despite my love of the book, there were a few drawbacks for me. Rand believes that one's professional work, what he is able to produce, is THE purpose of life, definitely a "live to work" approach.

Also, I didn't find any thread of mercy in her philosophy, which makes me wonder her view on caring for those who cannot care for themselves. Rand also has a sexual theme that emerges several times in the book which I didn't know I was in for when I began the book. Be forewarned that it's there, and she has a strong theory on sexuality that you'll be exposed to in reading the book. Reading Atlas Shrugged reminded and empowered me to work hard for what I want in life, to stop making excuses, and to hold myself accountable and responsible for what I do or don't acoomplish.

View 2 comments. Ironically, when one mulls it over, one may find that it's Galt and his band of strikers and dropouts who prove to be driven by their passions. Galt especially, who, despite his ultra-handsome looks and heroic self-understanding, can't muster up the gumption to just go up to the woman he has a massive crush on and ask her out for a drink -- or at least just talk to her -- and instead sits around chatting up her poor, love-struck assistant, hoping to catch a glimpse into her life.

No, I think not. And aside from being somewhat creepy, it underscores the true impotence of Rand's hero. And it's not only with Dagny. When faced with the "communist" takeover of the motor factory, Galt doesn't seek out the banker Midas Mulligan and ask for a loan so that he can develop his motor on his own or attempt a run for political office; he just takes his toys and goes into hiding, hoping by such action to help hasten the apocalypse.

This seems to me to be more like the behavior of a petulant adolescent than of the "highest man. Despite all of their speeches and protestations, these people are not so much stern rationalists but romantics. Such characters make terrible role models for those of us who are forced to reside in the world, which just may not be the stage for the struggle between the looting mystics and heroic individuals, but a place infinitely more complex, and more interesting.

Also, we should keep in mind that it is people convinced of their superior rationality and gnostic insights into the direction of world-historical change that generally pose the greatest challenge to the stability of the political order. It is worth remarking, too, that there is no sense of tragedy, no sense of the ultimate fragility of existence, in Rand's work.

Her heroes regard suffering as something unnatural and unnecessary, and happiness as the only rightful condition of man. It is a strangely sterile world, one without sickness or disease or disability, where failure in business is merely an incentive to greater striving, and death takes only the villains, the marginal, or the vast unnamed.

Rand's heroes are unencumbered by finitude, however. They strive to overcome "the contradictory, the arbitrary, the hidden, the faked, the irrational in men," to recover, as Galt himself says, the spirit of their childhood. There is a word for people who try to escape from the contradictory, the arbitrary, the irrational and tragic dimensions of life that we all must face--that word is delusional. Bill Buckley once said he thought Whittaker Chambers had gone too far when he wrote in his review of this book, "From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged , a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: 'To a gas chamber -- go!

Skip to content Site Navigation The Atlantic. Popular Latest. The Atlantic Crossword. Sign In Subscribe. The Atlas Shrugged Book Club. Read the entire series on Ayn Rand's controversial classic. The only proper purpose of a government is to protect a man's rights which means: to protect him from physical violence.

A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man's self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contract from breach or fraud, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

Shortly after we are introduced to John Galt, he solemnly intones these words: "Ever since I can remember, I had felt that I would kill the man who'd claim that I exist for the sake of his need -- and I had known that this was the highest moral feeling. And I hate to be the outside-it-all religious one here, as always, but this really is a repulsive thing to put as the highest moral feeling. This is John Galt talking about the looters and moochers, the takers.

Shiftless employees, socialists, etc. His long speech is fascinating; it is also so humorless. None of these heroes has any lightness of spirit. They are so leaden. Galt eventually addresses his inferiors as "you who dread knowledge" and shortly thereafter informs them "You have nothing to offer us. We do not need you Are you not crying: No this was not what you wanted? Rand herself saw this struggle play out in the most traumatic way. Born into a Jewish family called Rosenbaum in St Petersburg, she was just 12 when she witnessed her father's pharmacy being seized by the Bolsheviks.

She never forgot that injustice and humiliation, says Heller, author of Ayn Rand and the World She Made, even when she arrived in the US eight years later. Her novel, The Fountainhead, about an architect, was a word-of-mouth success and made into a film starring Gary Cooper.

It drew a committed group of supporters to Rand, some of whom gathered every Saturday at her New York apartment to read extracts from her next book. Among them was an economic forecaster called Alan Greenspan, who became her close friend and eventually chairman of the US Federal Reserve.

Despite this dedicated following, reviews of Atlas Shrugged in were not favourable, and its message united both left and right in condemnation. Gore Vidal described it as "almost perfect in its immorality".

But this didn't stop it from becoming an international bestseller, as millions were drawn to her central message of individualism and unfettered capitalism, even if they didn't buy into her whole philosophy. And more than 50 years after publication, sales are booming. According to Nielsen BookScan, more than , copies were sold in the US in , pushing sales for all her works past the half-million mark that year. The extent of her influence was demonstrated this week when Paul Ryan joined the Mitt Romney ticket, although he has now distanced himself from her work.

In , Ryan told the Atlas Society how Rand "taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are". But earlier this year, he told the National Review that as a Catholic he rejected her atheism.