I would, but not because it's a good story. The book is worth reading for the warning story of the Bum's Speech alone, and Hank Reardon's testimony is also worthwhile, but one must have the full context to understand why those two speeches are worth listening to.
When Hank Reardon gave his testimony before the tribunal stating that he had no plea to enter because he hadn't violated any law. The entire book was worth it for that moment alone.
No, while one was able to get used to the performance after a while, the monotone, down-beat delivery of the performance left me wishing for a better narrator.
Ayn Rand's use of this book to convey her Objectivist philosophy suffers in two major areas:
First, she writes what is essentially a Self-Insert story where it's clear she's intending the Dagny Taggart character to be her proxy in-story, second is the obvious use of a Mary-sue level character in the form of John Galt. Self-insert stories need to be delicately handled, and Mary-sue characters never make good characters at all.
Second, Ayn Rand suffers from the core problem that most atheists suffer; allowing someone else to define God for them. There is no spiritual aspect to this book beyond the physical needs of the moment, resulting in no real driving goals being obvious to anyone, requiring the reader to intuit that there is supposed to be some great spiritual strength to John Galt's "Workers of the Mind" strike. A single charismatic opposition leader who understood the spiritual needs, as well as the temporal needs, of any human would have destroyed the "strike" without even knowing it was taking place.
This is ignoring entirely that Ayn Rand's so-called "perfect man" in John Galt is fairly two-dimensional and is fairly uninteresting.
Rand's logic used to present her ideals were superb.
Rand's ideas on capitalism, happiness, role of government and etc.
Too dramatic of a tone all the time made it weary after a while and took a long time to get used to it.
Self-Reliance Objectivism Philosophy
This is John Gault Speaking.
The preachy radio broadcast.
Too long, but didn't want to stop listening.
It is better than not reading the book, at all. Listening to the audio while reading along is best. There are points she makes that bare consideration. The pause button is important. This book is a feast to be slowly enjoyed and ruminated over.
Her use of descriptive titles for the 'Looters', the 'Destroyers', the 'Parasites' is especially good for youthful readers. She makes clear who the good guys and who the bad guys are. "The mind is the fundamental source of wealth." And her comment that 'individuals should pursue life enhancing values'.
Cautionary Tale to Modern Society
Someone very conservative who is fond of repetition may be fond of this book.
This story was annoying, the author beats you over the head over and over with the same themes and ideas.
Not my cup of tea, was very disappointed as it had so many high ratings.
Rand's individualist philosophy is one worth considering by today's American liberals and conservatives alike, particularly as our two dominant political parties compete to enlarge the federal government and extend its powers for their own purposes. Rand portrays an extreme scenario of the people handing over all responsibility to a government comprised of those whose only goal is to remain in power, even at the cost of the country self-destructing. As this fairly accurately describes our current political system, and the path we seem to be on, I would almost put this one on a required reading list for anyone of voting age in the US.
That said, Rand leaves no shadow of a doubt when articulating her philosophy via dozens of characters and their dialogs (and several epic monologs), to the point that I had most of the book on 1.5x and even 2x to just get through sections. "OK — I get it!" was a phrase I found myself almost uttering aloud at several points.
Scott Brick's performance was excellent, and I agree with another reviewer that his ability to read each character distinctly really helped me keep things straight.
For those who are on the fence regarding abridged/unabridged as I was, I'm glad I went with the full version, as the characters are complex and nuanced; I wonder if that might have been sacrificed in the culling of some content. You'd have to rely on the review of those who have read both, I suppose.
Say something about yourself!
What a great story! I had a uncle who was reading the book and raved about it, then friends at work were talking about the Movies and I decided to get it through audible. I did some research an Amazon and found that it was written in the late 40's and early 50's and was published in 1957. The similarities between the society in the book and today are astounding. I wish I had read the reviews about the narration before I purchased this version, But I liked all of Scott Bricks other work, but it sounds like a Dune Novel. The narration bothered me from the start, but I became used to it by part 2 and then is was all about a driving story and a great mystery, not the who done it, but what is going on and were will it all lead. This may be the best book I have listened to, I can't believe I never came across it before now. Try this book, I really doubt you will regret it.
Scott Brick is an outstanding narrator!
Ayn Rand's story is excellent, and her characters are engrossing. Her philosophy is in line with mine, but I'm much less radical.
However, Ayn Rand is l o n g w i n d e d !!! Holy cow! The 3 + hour dialog by the main character in the next-to-last chapter is a killer! When Rand makes a point, then goes on and on explaining it in a different light, you just want to scream: "I've got it! Move on!"
I really wonder if she was getting paid by the word? How did this get past an editor?