The writing stunk, The characters reminded me more of comic book characters than literature characters. If Ayn Rand wanted to write an ecomomic or social philopshy book she should have done so. And for all the people who love the characters because they think captialists are all heroes and socialists are all evil slackers, explain to me the heroics of Enron, the financial crisis, BP's disaster, and so on. The human race is not simple and it never will be. Ayn Rand wanted us to believe it was.
Sterling Hayden (General Jack Ripper) as Hank Rearden. Peter Sellers (Inspector Jacques Clouseau) as Francisco D'Anconia. And Kathleen Turner (Jessica Rabbit) as Dagny Taggart.
Is Mr. Brick's unrelenting and cartoonishly melodramatic breathlessness intended as malicious mockery? Or is it simply that the man was not right for the part? Has Blackstone been overrun by Bolsheviks? If this is not an act of deliberate demolition, why didn't someone who understood and respected this priceless work of genius put a stop to this audible farce?
By all means, you must read and understand Atlas. But by all means, find a way to acquire Christopher Hurt's rendition. It can be done. Just google "Atlas Shrugged Christopher Hurt." It will be well worth your effort.
I think the overall story is good. And, I do like Scott Brick as a Narrator. The message of the book is good, but kinda drummed into your head over and over.
It's an interesting book, but for me I can only go through it once.
No for Rand, yes for Brick.
After this, I listened to several economic texts including "Economics, 3rd Edition" and "Debt, the first 5000 years".
His narration shows determined characters with single minded focus. I think that's how Rand would have wanted it.
All of them. They were all caricatures for Rand to show off her philosophy. They had very little value in and of themselves. Rand would have been better off making the book a quarter of its length and just explained what she thought was right and wrong with the world instead of writing a novel. She wouldn't need any poorly written, unsympathetic, two dimensional characters in order to do that.
I need to put aside the value of her philosophy and just tell you about the book. It is not well written. The author doesn't understand her characters. She loves to hear herself talk. She wants to get her way. Her characters are like comic book characters, all powerful superheros or evil super-villains.
The people giving this book 5 stars are those who love her philosophy and willing to suffer through her writing to see their heroes triumphant at the end. You won't see any 5 star reviews from literary critics. Think of that as you contemplate listening to this for 63 hours.
I cannot believe this book is considered a classic. It's a two dimensional story that seems to send the message: There's only two types of people in the world, Those that think exactly like me and total idiots. If people disagree with you they are not worth listening to.
The antagonist in the story only exists to nag people and to get in the way. They are written badly, like a teenager trying to write about how someone thinks and they want you to know just how stupid these characters are and they should just wise up and agree with the protagonist.
She portrayed working class people as too stupid to look after themselves. Without a boss to tell them too, they wouldn't even know to throw rooting food away. They would live in squallier not even bothering to repair their homes. It just reeks of class prejudice.
The end because I didn't need to listen to any more. The only other part I even remotely liked was when John Gault is being tortured and the machine breaks and no one them know how to fix it and he ends up tell them how to get in running again. That was not worth 63 hours of my time though.
The only thing that might have saved it is if antagonist were better written. I cannot understand the motivation because their decisions make no logical sense. You have to understand the motivation of a character even you don't like the character. While I hate a character like Lord Voldimort of King Joffery, I understand what motivates them even thought the characters are horrible people doing things I would never do I can still understand why they make the decisions they do. James Taggart and Lillian Rearden only seem to exist to make problems and protagonists and nag them.
Also the pomposity of the protagonists needs to be removed completely. Dagney is particular is so pompous and condescending I want to smack her, also could we have one male character who doesn't fall in love with her.
If you think Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck are the great minds of our time, you'll love this book.
Yes, it is not only a great story but read like it is rip from today's headlines
There is not really any other book like this one
I have not
Yes, this book will help you define what type of person you are in life.
Should be taught in every school.
One of the most important books I have ever read./listen to Grants liberation even as I saw myself as living according to its philosophy even before. Beautiful story, important message.
I read so I can write
I first listened to Atlas Shrugged when I purchased it 10 years ago. That version narrated by Christopher Hurt is no longer available and when I tried to reload it on my Iphone it wouldn't load. Audible replaced it with this version.
I was not disappointed with Mr. Brick's narration.
What I really have noted about Atlas Shrugged is the timelessness of this novel. I first read it forty years ago, listened to it 10 years ago and now again. It is timeless. You cannot even guess when it is happening and know that it could be happening any time.
I recommend this book as a must have.
Great way to read great books on the go. Love Sci Fi especially Orson Scott Card and Star Wars.
No. This book was a pretentious, naive, and narrowminded look at the world.
I have not and based on this one will not in the future.
The narrator did an excellent job relating the material.
Perhaps, but I would not pay to see it.
Ayn Rand presents a view of the world that is not based in reality. While several of her assertions are interesting her presentation of a philospohy gives one paragaph meniotns during a monologue to the millitary and religion. No matter your personal opinion on these aspects of humantiy they are central to human realtions and cannot be dismissed just because you have a low opinion of them. An idealistic presentation, nothing more.