Changes

Branden's third criticism, both of [[Objectivism]] (in theory and practice) generally and in the particular expression of it that was ''Atlas Shrugged'', was the consistently condemning tone that Rand sounded throughout the work. If Branden were not an [[atheism|atheist]], and did not know Rand to be one, he might have called this tone "preachy." Branden took considerable time to explain that such a tone was not likely to convince anyone that what he thought, felt, or did was wrong. Perhaps it was actually a symptom of Rand's decision to assume the omniscient point of view in her novel, a practice that many professional authors avoid today. Perhaps also it was a symptom of another flaw that Branden found in Objectivist practice in general, or at least Ayn Rand's own practice: that she could be excessively dogmatic, both in her theory and in her presentation, and this dogmatism inevitably affected her writing.

Branden's third criticism, both of [[Objectivism]] (in theory and practice) generally and in the particular expression of it that was ''Atlas Shrugged'', was the consistently condemning tone that Rand sounded throughout the work. If Branden were not an [[atheism|atheist]], and did not know Rand to be one, he might have called this tone "preachy." Branden took considerable time to explain that such a tone was not likely to convince anyone that what he thought, felt, or did was wrong. Perhaps it was actually a symptom of Rand's decision to assume the omniscient point of view in her novel, a practice that many professional authors avoid today. Perhaps also it was a symptom of another flaw that Branden found in Objectivist practice in general, or at least Ayn Rand's own practice: that she could be excessively dogmatic, both in her theory and in her presentation, and this dogmatism inevitably affected her writing.

== Harold Leinedecker ==

== Harold Leiendecker ==

Harold Leinedecker's essay, for the ASPEC Writers' Workshop, is more recent and, as it happens, more favorable. He suggests that the work succeeds magnificently in demonstrating that reason and productivity are two human virtues that have been unfairly maligned.<ref name=Leinedecker/> Also, in marked contrast to Chambers (see above), Leinedecker finds no fault with the dialog, having observed that many characters do in fact talk and act after the manner of the novel's villains. He does, however, suggest that many of the situations in the novel are excessively contrived. The most striking contrivance, of course, is the incongruous suggestion that the government officials would actually put John Galt to torture in order to force him to accept a position of dictatorial authority. (This might, however, be an example of what [[Rush Limbaugh]] has often called "to illustrate absurdity by being absurd.") Leinedecker also criticizes Rand for suggesting that a certain character might stand for election to the [[United States Senate]] from a State in which he had no history as a resident. (That he wrote his essay prior to the successful Senate candidacy of [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] should, of course, be obvious.) Lastly he denounces as heavy-handed the symbolism of the dollar sign, and especially John Galt's tracing of that symbol in the air as he tells Dagny that "the road is cleared" and that the strike is now settled, if only by default.

Harold Leiendecker's essay, for the ASPEC Writers' Workshop, is more recent and, as it happens, more favorable. He suggests that the work succeeds magnificently in demonstrating that reason and productivity are two human virtues that have been unfairly maligned.<ref name=Leiendecker/> Also, in marked contrast to Chambers (see above), Leiendecker finds no fault with the dialog, having observed that many characters do in fact talk and act after the manner of the novel's villains. He does, however, suggest that many of the situations in the novel are excessively contrived. The most striking contrivance, of course, is the incongruous suggestion that the government officials would actually put John Galt to torture in order to force him to accept a position of dictatorial authority. (This might, however, be an example of what [[Rush Limbaugh]] has often called "to illustrate absurdity by being absurd.") Leiendecker also criticizes Rand for suggesting that a certain character might stand for election to the [[United States Senate]] from a State in which he had no history as a resident. (That he wrote his essay prior to the successful Senate candidacy of [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] should, of course, be obvious.) Lastly he denounces as heavy-handed the symbolism of the dollar sign, and especially John Galt's tracing of that symbol in the air as he tells Dagny that "the road is cleared" and that the strike is now settled, if only by default.

Concerning the characters, Leinedecker found the villains remarkably true to life, and the heroes and anti-villains less so. In fact, "stilted" was his word for much of the dialog, and especially monologs, of the heroes and anti-villains. But the villains spoke in a manner that he found readily recognizable.

Concerning the characters, Leiendecker found the villains remarkably true to life, and the heroes and anti-villains less so. In fact, "stilted" was his word for much of the dialog, and especially monologs, of the heroes and anti-villains. But the villains spoke in a manner that he found readily recognizable.

Leinedecker also noticed that, like [[Charles Dickens]] before her, Rand gave most of her villains certain surnames, utterly unknown to [[genealogy]], that are intended to suggest the character of those that possess them. To the list of such Dickensian surnames as Murdstone, Creakle, Chuzzlewit, Spottletoe, and especially Scrooge and Pecksniff, one can now add the Randian coined surnames Mouch and Slagenhop, and her creative use of such common surnames as Boyle and Ferris.

Leiendecker also noticed that, like [[Charles Dickens]] before her, Rand gave most of her villains certain surnames, utterly unknown to [[genealogy]], that are intended to suggest the character of those that possess them. To the list of such Dickensian surnames as Murdstone, Creakle, Chuzzlewit, Spottletoe, and especially Scrooge and Pecksniff, one can now add the Randian coined surnames Mouch and Slagenhop, and her creative use of such common surnames as Boyle and Ferris.

Leinedecker found the time setting of the novel difficult to assign. From the titling of [[Mr. Thompson]] as "Head of the State" instead of [[President of the United States]] (and the total lack of appearance of Mr. Thompson's first name), and the division of the civilized world into the United States and the various People's States throughout the world, Leinedecker concluded, or cited certain anonymous sources who concluded, that the action of the novel occurred between 1980 and 1984.

Leiendecker found the time setting of the novel difficult to assign. From the titling of [[Mr. Thompson]] as "Head of the State" instead of [[President of the United States]] (and the total lack of appearance of Mr. Thompson's first name), and the division of the civilized world into the United States and the various People's States throughout the world, Leiendecker concluded, or cited certain anonymous sources who concluded, that the action of the novel occurred between 1980 and 1984.

== Summary ==

== Summary ==

# The refractor-ray screen that provides concealment for [[Galt's Gulch]].

# The refractor-ray screen that provides concealment for [[Galt's Gulch]].

Harold Leinedecker notices these inventions but mentions them without comment, leaving no clue as to whether he found them plausible or not. Branden, Chambers, and the rest do not mention these inventions at all. (Chambers does rather severely criticize the notion of Ragnar Danneskjold's privateering activities, but that would qualify as a contrivance of an entirely different kind from science fiction.)

Harold Leiendecker notices these inventions but mentions them without comment, leaving no clue as to whether he found them plausible or not. Branden, Chambers, and the rest do not mention these inventions at all. (Chambers does rather severely criticize the notion of Ragnar Danneskjold's privateering activities, but that would qualify as a contrivance of an entirely different kind from science fiction.)

In short, ''Atlas Shrugged'' is ''not'' a perfect example of the novelist's craft. Probably no such work exists. But, as in any other endeavor, one must evaluate criticism critically. This is especially true when that criticism is of a work that must necessarily engender great controversy, and which, one might almost say, is deliberately calculated to embarrass, offend, and annoy the very persons most likely to be asked for their critical appraisal.

In short, ''Atlas Shrugged'' is ''not'' a perfect example of the novelist's craft. Probably no such work exists. But, as in any other endeavor, one must evaluate criticism critically. This is especially true when that criticism is of a work that must necessarily engender great controversy, and which, one might almost say, is deliberately calculated to embarrass, offend, and annoy the very persons most likely to be asked for their critical appraisal.