Fore more urdu books visit www.4Urdu.com

More oxford books @ www.OxfordeBook.comFore more urdu books visit www.4Urdu.com172WHO IS JOHN GALT? 1957–1968Man, asking her to write about “A Faith for Modern Management.” 10The many executives who distributed excerpts from Atlas Shrugged orsent copies to their friends further spread her message.When professional reviewers looked at Atlas Shrugged, they tended tooverlook this celebration of business and the tight philosophical systemthat Rand had woven into her story. Instead they focused on her bittercondemnation of second-handers, looters, moochers, and other incompetents.Atlas Shrugged inspired a shocking level of vituperation. Reviewswere often savage and mocking commentaries rather than literary assessments.The New York Times Book Review, which had generously praisedThe Fountainhead, featured a scathing article by the former CommunistGranville Hicks, who declared, “Loudly as Miss Rand proclaims her loveof life, it seems clear that the book is written out of hate.” For the mostpart, reviewers did not primarily object to Rand’s political or moralviews, or even her adulation of the superior man. What they focused oninstead was her tone and style. “The book is shot through with hatred,”wrote the Saturday Review. Others complained about Rand’s repetition,grim earnestness, and utter lack of humor. 11Reviewers were right to notice that alongside its reverent depictionof capitalist heroes, Atlas Shrugged had a decidedly misanthropic cast.In many ways the novel was the final summation of the theory ofresentment Rand had first formulated in Crimea. It was also a return tothe mood of her earliest unfinished fiction. Once again Rand let looseall the bile that had accumulated in her over the years. Particularlywhen John Galt takes center stage, Rand’s text seethes with anger andfrustration and yields to a conspiracy theory that sees the world as abattleground between competence and incompetence. Galt tells hisradio audience, “What we are now asked to worship, what had oncebeen dressed as God or king, is the naked, twisted, mindless figure ofthe human Incompetent. . . . But we—we, who must atone for the guiltof ability—we will work to support him as he orders, with his pleasureas our only reward. Since we have the most to contribute, we have theleast to say” (688). Rand’s Manichaean worldview comes through inGalt’s speech, with a competent elite facing off against an ineffectualcommons.