Never read the print version.
n/a (This is a non-fiction book about checklists)
n/a (Never listened to other performances by John Bedford Lloyd)
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.
Report Inappropriate Content