Golly gosh.

I finally finished Atlas Shrugged after what feels like a marathon of time. In fact, checking my Kobo, it has taken 32.6 hours to read all 1194 pages of Ayn Rand's magnum opus and to be honest, I felt every page after the 800th.

This book is clearly two books rolled together, a treatise on Rand's philosophy mixed together with a mediocre novel about the fall and rediscovery of civilisation. Rand's philosophy is self-described as take it or leave it, she accepts no compromise of her viewpoint. Any compromise is a breaking of her philosophy and thus, is not her philosophy.

The novel is told from the viewpoint of the heroine, Dagny Taggart, as she witness the last days of civilisation due to man kinds misguided philosophies. Dagny is a surprisingly strong, if single-dimensional character, and is somewhat before her time. Until we talk about sex. Which is a huge driver of the book. Dagny screws with one character, then another, then another. All fine in itself, but the approach this takes is one of ownership, as this distinctly strong character suddenly becomes a whimsy in the bedroom. It grates, and doesn't sit well well me.

Be warned: towards the end, one of the characters makes a radio announcement that he claims to be over two hours long. It is 80 pages in my edition, and I had to read it in several sections, taking s break between each reading. This is the core treatise on Rand's Objectivism, and it gets mighty preachy. If you're following the book for the novel aspect alone, for the sake of your sanity, you can probably skip this part.

The novel contains several aspects of the familiar. There are economic scenarios that are almost identical to today, the discussion on the media about social welfare is very similar and there are distinctive touch points that make this work feel as if it were written for today's audiences, not the audiences of the 50s. But just because the book is relational, does not mean the book is right. Some of the views presented do have merit, but Rand's philosophy is puritan and simplistic, and does not truly fit society. Her approach is surprisingly liberal, her view on governments is that their only role should be to act as enforcers of property, and stop one man taking from another man by force. Intentionally, or unintentionally, this philosophy could also be extended to views, beliefs, sexuality and gender, leaving us in a position where the role of government is simply to protect your right to your individuality, and to stop others taking it from you by the point of a gun.

I will probably never read this book again, but it does stand out to me as something important I have completed, and I will not forget it.