Life, as it goes.

The second observation on Atlas Shrugged is about the characterisation in the story. There are 6 or 7 main characters and interestingly each character has his/ her conscience mirrored in another. Since the basic message of the story is that the world belongs to those who produce and sell for an adequate consideration and not for those who expect things undeserved and unearned, the characters are split into two main categories, one the industrialists and second the looters.

The industrialists are those who do not give nor desire anything unearned or undeserved and include Dagny Taggart, Henry Rearden, Francisco D'Anconia, Eddie Willers etc. The looters are those who live off as parasites of the industrialists and declare that need should govern everything irrespective of whether they earn/ deserve it or not and include James Taggart, Lillian Rearden, Weasly Mouch, Dr. Ferris etc.

Each of the industrialists' virtue is reflected with a corresponding evil in the looters. Dagny's determination as against James' indecisiveness. Henry's passion against Lillians' passivity, Francisco's beliefs as opposed to Mouch's brainwashing. Eddie's loyalty as opposed to Dr. Ferris' deception.

There are a couple of characters who sail in the middle. Not able to decide which side the virtue lies. I like the description of their confusion the most. Dr. Rober Stadler who is a brilliant scientist but is in the process of crossing over to the looter's side because of his quest for power and a government official nick named The Wet Nurse who goes through a metamorphosis and changes from the looter's side to that of the industrialists. There is also Cheyrl who believes in what the industrialists strive for but is unknowingly trapped on the side of the looters.

And then there is the man who stops the motor of the world, the one who denotes the Atlas, the one who deserves the last credit. John Galt. The man who has understood the looters game and is not ready to sacrifice himself at their altar. He indroduces the concept of "mind on strike" to the industrialists and creates an concealed ideal world for those industrialists who are like-minded.

I believe in Atlas Shrugged Ann Rynd has a winner in the ambit of characterisation because what I consider good characterisation in a book is when the reader has a problem in choosing his/ her favourite and thats what happens to me in Atlas Shrugged. I cannot choose one over the other because they are all so complete in themselves.

But there is something I would point out here. John Galt, the "hero" of the story appears in person in the last 1/3rd of the book. Till then we just see a reference of the name but don't see the presence of the man. In my opinion Galt scores a bit less than Rearden or D'Anconia, because one doesn't really know the guy too well. In a book of more than a 1000 pages, the characters with whom you stay the longest are obviously the most compelling. I don't know how the author could have changed this because this is a description of Dagny Taggart life in the third person and Galt's person enters in the last 1/3rd so this probably was the only way but still somewhere, somehow if Galt had a known story behind him like all the other disappeard prodigies had, it might have made a difference.

Another thing which I felt was uncharacteristic was Dagny's love for Galt. Maybe it is my liking for Rearden that makes me biased but somehow I felt that she falls for Galt a bit to fast. Rearden was a great guy and Dagny a strong woman, a woman of belief and will how could she switch so fast. I am not talking about sacrificing her real love for someone lesser, I am just saying the whole thing was not convincing enough, just seemed surreal.

Lastly, I cannot help comparing this with The Fountainhead. If we only talk of the "hero" I would vote of Roarke over Galt any day.

My mood to a certain extent depends on what I am reading in the train ride to office every morning. My current book is "Atlas Shrugged" and so my mood is mostly contemplative and sometimes contemptous. Around the same time last month I started to reread Ann Rynd's well known book which has an impression of being a cult classic. This one is the comparitively lesser liked booked from the two very famous novels by the author, the other being "The Fountainhead."

I had read "The Fountainhead" much before, in between CA exams and then read this one just after shifting to Mumbai a few years ago. Both books appealed to me in more ways than one. I decided to reread 'Atlas Shrugged' because in the first read, I had skipped all the unnecessary speeches which in different ways have reiterated the basic philosophy of the author. This time I am reading every word, contemplating on every single verbal and non-verbal interaction between the characters and analysing the various aspects of the philosophy that the author has tried to communicate.

Though I have reread almost all other books as well, the only difference is that other books like Dan Browns, Jeffery Archers, John Grishams etc. are not so forceful in what they communicate mainly because the message of these books is not very relevant to me and my circumstances as such and so they are read with the interest limited to its style of writing and at times even borders just being time-pass reading. For example when I read the Da Vinci Code, I was quite intrigued by the story of Jesus that he had managed to recreate and reinterprete but that was all, it didn't shake me up or push me to think about its impact on the basic premises of Christianity because I am not a Christian so all I was analysing was how he had presented the story interwoven with history, religion and suspense.

Coming back to Atlas Shrugged, there are few remarkable things in the book that have struck me almost as if the were a physical connection. At times a punch in the stomach and others a skip of the heartbeat. I plan to write them down one at a time in various posts. The first thing that always caught my attention and was the name of the book. Ann Rynd must have been really smart to think of this. All through the beginning I was trying to figure out its relevance which is revealed much later when we near the end of the first half. The dialogue goes,

.... his voice solemnly calm, "if you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater his effort the heavier the world bore down on his shoulders - what would you tell him to do?

"I.... don't know. What ... could he do? What would you tell him?"

"To shrug."

This was the analogy for what happens in the story. Imagine what would happen if Atlas Shrugged? The world would end and that's what happens, the world the characters lived in ends because their Atlas shrugs.