An unobjective reading list
Two new biographies of Ayn Rand were published recently, and I have no intention of reading either. But I find I can’t get enough of the reviews and essays they’ve occasioned. I’ve rounded up my favorites below — but first, a little background on my own encounter with Objectivism.
In the latest New Yorker, Thomas Mallon writes: “Most readers make their first and last trip to Galt’s Gulch — the hidden-valley paradise of born-again capitalists featured in ‘Atlas Shrugged,’ its solid-gold dollar sign standing like a Maypole — sometime between leaving Middle-earth and packing for college.” That was certainly true for me, except that I never made it to Galt’s Gulch. For me it was The Fountainhead, and I don’t mind saying I had no idea what I was getting into. I’d never heard of Rand when my eleventh-grade English teacher handed me a brochure with information about this essay contest sponsored by the Ayn Rand Institute. I’d surprised her earlier that year by winning another, compulsory essay contest (alas, not worth $10,000), so when she got the announcement about this one she passed it along to me. “I don’t usually bother with this,” she said, “but you might be interested.” I have a feeling she didn’t know much about Objectivism either. She just knew that prize money could go a long way.
When I bought The Fountainhead, I remember being impressed by how light — literally lightweight — the book was, despite its tremendous thickness. If I were a character in an Ayn Rand novel, that impression would have been symbolic. But since I’m not, I’m forced to admit that the book sucked me in. I had never read anything like it at that point – no economic or political philosophy, and not much didactic fiction. Animal Farm and Brave New World bewitched me in junior high, and this book appealed to the same eager but underdeveloped parts of my brain. Plus, of course, there was the sheer satisfaction of reading all those pages. Even before you get to its endorsement of untrammeled egotism, The Fountainhead flatters you by being so long and so deadly serious. You must be smart if you can conquer it! The essay contest, I now realize, operates on the same principle – make teenagers feel important and intellectual by offering them truly fantastic amounts of money for absorbing your ideology and regurgitating it in 1,600 words.
A lot of teenagers are taken in by Rand, at least for a few months – many people have admitted it in the course of reviewing these books. Why? I can’t put it better than this comment I read on Matthew Yglesias’s blog, from “tomemos”: “Ayn Rand has the most straightforwardly understandable, didactic philosophy of just about any twentieth-century thinker, which is probably one reason why young people are into it. It has the disadvantages of being obviously false and morally monstrous, but it is clear.” It’s also immensely flattering, as it suggests that feeling misunderstood and underappreciated is a sign that you are, in fact, superior to those around you.
I didn’t know any of that in high school, but I embraced the challenge. I lugged The Fountainhead around, taking notes that I hoped would lead me toward one of the prescribed essay topics. As I read, I couldn’t quite shake the impression that Rand was endorsing selfishness. That can’t be right, I thought. But the comeuppance I expected for her egotistical heroes never came; it was almost as though she wanted me to think the impulse to help others was bad, something to be resisted. In retrospect I think my reaction to the book was similar to what Commonweal film critic Philip T. Hartung wrote about the movie adaptation in July 1949: “The Fountainhead, based on Ayn Rand’s humdinger about lust and architecture, has the most pretentious combination of sense and nonsense to appear in a supposedly serious movie in a long time. While it offers a glowing defense of integrity and high standards in art, it also asks us to be impressed by a group of characters whose morals sink to a new low.”
Unfortunately I didn’t have Hartung’s help in working through my confusion. By the time I got to the end of the book I thought I must have missed something important. I took a stab at writing the essay anyway. I haven’t looked at it since – even if I could track it down, I’m too embarrassed to read it. But I’m pretty sure I wrote about how Rand obviously didn’t think altruism was bad, even though it might seem that way; she just wanted to say that, under certain circumstances, self-interest could sometimes be a good thing.
Clearly I was not a promising disciple for the Ayn Rand Institute. I didn’t win anything, of course, and when I read the winning essay I discovered how off-base I had been. (Sample sentence from this year’s winner: “Roark’s life affirms that a collective entity, no matter how hostile to those of ability, is impotent against the primacy of the individual.”) And so I was one of those for whom Objectivism didn’t “take.” Was it my firm grounding in the Gospel that kept me pure, despite all the near occasions of sin? Ayn Rand would say my faulty premises prevented me from comprehending the truth. Whatever the reason, I couldn’t manage to have a proper Ayn-Rand phase. I never even picked up Atlas Shrugged.
Why, then, am I so fascinated by all the ink spilled over the release of these two biographies? It’s not just because I’m grateful that I passed through the valley of the shadow of Objectivism unharmed. It turns out reading about Rand and her cult of personality is also extremely entertaining. Here are a few of my favorite review-essays, each with its own approach and its own collection of outrageous anecdotes.
Thomas Mallon, “Possessed,” The New Yorker, 11/9/09 [subscription required]
This was the last one I read, but I recommend starting with it if you’re a subscriber. It’s the most genuine “book review” in the bunch, and it spends a lot of time discussing the shortcomings of Ayn Rand’s fiction as well as the merits and drawbacks of the new bios. In Mallon’s eyes, Rand is a pathetic figure undeserving of even her very limited reputation for literary greatness. A sample of his criticism, on The Fountainhead: “The thematic repetitions are such that this novel about architecture becomes a kind of Levittown, with chapter after chapter hammered together to establish exactly the same point that was made in the one before. …The novel’s dialogue is never even accidentally plausible.”
Sam Anderson, “Mrs. Logic,” New York, 10/18/09
Sample insight: “After reading the details of Rand’s early life, I find it hard to think of Objectivism as very objective at all—it looks more like a rational program retrofitted to a lifelong temperament, a fantasy world created to cancel the nightmare of a terrifying childhood. This is the comedy, the tragedy, and the power of Rand: She built a glorious imaginary empire on that nuclear-grade temperament, then devoted every ounce of her will and intelligence to proving it was all pure reason.”
Jonathan Chait, “Wealthcare,” The New Republic, 9/14/09
Chait barely mentions the books under review; he takes their publication as a jumping-off point for an analysis of how Rand’s toxic ideas still influence politics and economics. “Rand pioneered this leap of logic–the ideological pity of the rich for the oppression that they suffer as a class.” Alan Greenspan makes the most extended (and disturbing) appearance here. Chait makes Rand out to be a hypocrite and a villain, not to mention a bona fide cult leader.
Andrew Corsello, “The Bitch Is Back,” GQ, 10/27/09
I should warn you, this article is the crudest of the bunch, and the presentation is about as delicate as you probably expect from GQ. But I found the complete lack of decorum refreshing, in the midst of all this semi-serious discussion. At the end of the day, what are Ayn Rand’s novels for if not to be made fun of? Corsello does that; he also focuses on the adolescent experience of getting swept up in Objectivism, and labels those who fail to outgrow this phase “Ayn Rand Assholes.” How can you identify such a person? “If a panhandler asks him for a little money or food, [he] says, ‘I could, but then you might live longer, so you see my dilemma.’”
Commonweal, to its eternal credit, seems to have ignored the publication of The Fountainhead and Rand’s other books completely. But my search of the archives did turn up an “et cetera” item headlined “Charity Fraud Alert,” from February 2000. It’s a reaction to a mail solicitation from the Ayn Rand Institute, which warned Americans not to fall for “the phony idea that you have a moral duty to serve others…. Real morality means pursuing your own happiness and interests.” To spread that gospel, the ARI needed money — money it would use in part to attract “eager young minds” via its essay contests. “Once imbued with Objectivism,” the Commonweal editors noted, “the students will eventually ‘put that philosophy into action as they take control of our country’s institutions of government and the private sector.’” And what happens to students who, despite their best efforts, fall short of Ayn Rand’s ideals? Now you know: they grow up to be Commonweal editors too.
Hello Mollie (and All),
I think you might be interested to know that at both Caltech and Carnegie Mellon University, there are quite large and thriving Ayn Rand communities among the student body. I once taught at each of these universities and it surprised me that two of the foremost universities specializing in science and technology would have so many Ayn Rand devotees. (I think Ayn Rand’s stuff is worthless, as do most professional philosophers.) Not one Ayn Rand disciple ever enrolled in any of my courses, and I suspect that is because the Ayn Rand Institutes have done quite a good job of convincing these young people that professional philosophers like myself are trying to deceive them by teaching them the works of philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Kant and Russell instead of teaching them Ayn Rand. The representatives of the Ayn Rand Institute claim that Ayn Rand solved all of the problems of philosophy and that philosophy professors like myself want to suppress Ayn Rand’s thought because we want everyone to think that there are unsolved problems in philosophy and thereby to keep our jobs.
Some of my colleagues think that these students like Ayn Rand because she gives her readers license to act solely for egoistic motives. I’m somewhat more charitable. I think sometimes very smart young people who recognize that the questions of philosophy are interesting but don’t want to take a lot of coursework in philosophy find comfort in the thought of Ayn Rand, who has allegedly solved all of the problems of philosophy.
“Ayn Rand has the most straightforwardly understandable, didactic philosophy of just about any twentieth-century thinker, which is probably one reason why young people are into it. It has the disadvantages of being obviously false and morally monstrous, but it is clear.”
So, after reading these words, I busted out laughing. My soon to be 9 year old (middle son) wanted to know what was so funny. I insisted that he would not find humor in what I was reading, but he in turn insisted that I read it to him. Upon completion, he suggested that perhaps I read it too fast because he did not find it funny.
Maybe you need to be ten years old to appreciate Rand.
It’s depressing how easily Ayn Rand can get mentioned or posted about on any blog, even a liberal Catholic one. It’s probably because this is a right-wing corporate country and so you can only mention certain names, even if it’s to disagree with them, and still maintain respectability.
Mention the far weightier philosophies of other atheists such as Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Trotsky, and you’ll be immediately labeled as ‘pathetic’ and ‘off the deep end’. Anyone who wants to remain respectable just needs to keep cracking jokes about Randism, thereby maintaining its presence in the public mind.
You didn’t read the bios.
You say you won’t read them.
You say you read Rand’s novels, but only got sucked into her evil beliefs because they are didactic (isn’t that a sin?) and it let you feel superior to others for no reason (that has GOT to be a sin.)
You clearly do not understand her philosophy per your erroneous statements.
Yet you list ONLY the reviews that find Rand worthless or worse.
You wallow in the fascinating and “…extremely entertaining…” spewings of Rand’s un-validated history and wild speculation on her motivations and states of mind.
You throw the “cult of personality” smear. (I always laugh when Theists accuse others of ‘cults.’ Stunning, really.)
How are you anything other than a gossip mongerer? (sin)
Where is the Index, now that we need one?
I jest, but I wish the practice of handing out “negative reading lists” were more widespread. The Johns Hopkins literary critic Leo Spitzer used to distribute to his classes, along with a normal recommended reading list, another list warning about certain works that were popular, seductive to the untutored, likely to lead younger scholars into dead ends, and, if one wanted Spitzer’s considered view, generally to be avoided under pain of falling into the sin of literary bad taste.
I also find that a writer’s implicit negative reading list, to the extent one can surmise it, often reveals more about his position than the affirmations he makes. Likewise, one reason I like to hear authors in person is that they are more free-wheeling in their criticism of rivals than they are in print where politeness is the rule (I’m not speaking of blogs obviously).
Irreverent lists of overrated works are also welcome.
All of which is a long-winded way of agreeing that sometimes a lack of decorum can be refreshing in the midst of semi-serious discussion.
You don’t have to be a Christian to find libertarianism repulsive :)
Mollie, this was interesting, Thanks!
I read the Fountainhead in the summer after my junior year at college-I had to come back from heady college days reading Marx and Engels (whom I thought were fascinating) to a job as a “basket girl” at the local swim club to make money. (It was good for me–I think summer jobs are a good thing–they stop you from being spoiled.) A basket girl checks people in, and if they want to put their clothes in a basket in a secure room, while they’re swimming, you give them one. Lots and lots of time to read–there would be anyway, but this was the coldest, dampest summer in a long time in RI.
So one rainy day, I had no book–I poked around in the lost and found and found the Fountainhead–it looked serious. I started reading it about noon, and read it until about 4, when the manager closed the pool for the day–because there was no sign the rain would stop. Never picked it up again.
Boring. Didactic. Annoying. And did I say boring. And for me, forever damp and cold–but that could have been the surroundings. There is nothing more forlorn than an empty, cold and damp swim club -it should be warm and sunny.
I always wondered–Did Ricardo Montabaln’s character, Mr. Roark(e) on Fantasy Island, refer back to Any Rand’s character? And to answer the question: yes, my love of television is long-standing.
Nice story and post, Mollie. Worst than Rand’s writing are the people who follow her. The “me” generation. Did she mother that generation? This is one of the facets that made the 60′s so complicated. Some used useful self assertion therapy and developed it into a totally me world. So distinctions have to be made. While so many good things came out of the 60′s and 70′s, many wrongly center on excesses like this to mar a substantially beneficial era.
Ayn Rand is alive and well here in Michigan!
Some guys in our village held a John Galt Freedom Fest this summer: johngaltfreedomfest.com.
Their goal: To protest tax hikes and to promote capitalism.
Their leader: A pillar of our local Catholic church.
Their motto: “I swear by my life and my love of it, that I shall never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” –Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
Their turnout: Pretty fair. There’s not a lot to do in a small town, and the lure of free refreshments and bombast was more than most of us could resist.
A lot of these guys are under- or unemployed. They’re frustrated that whatever taxes they’re paying are going to provide benefits to even poorer people, benefits that they cannot afford for their own families. They don’t believe the answer is to expand the dole to the poor to include them, but to expand the dole to small business so they can keep and start their small enterprises.
What’s interesting is that these are the same guys who, 20 years ago, were marching around in Army surplus militia get-ups. Most of them abandoned that after the Oklahoma City bombing.
In their new incarnation as John Galters, they tried to be positive and inclusive, and I found that a refreshing change. All in all their Freedom Fest was an outlet for frustration and an appeal–if not a very coherent one–for people to band together and work through the system to improve the job climate.
Sadly, what they’ve overlooked is the fact that the prices small businesses have to charge to stay afloat just can’t be borne by the local citizenry strapped for cash. As long as Walmart offers stuff cheap, people will be willing to drive another 10 miles to get their stuff from the big box stores.
If the John Galters want jobs, they better learn to love the blue vest and say, “Do you need a cart today, folks?”
Many years ago, when I was attending a community college (purgatory for my youthful neglect of high school), I spotted a young man standing nearby with one foot on a briefcase to which was affixed a large yellow sticker that read, “Who is John Galt?” I had read The Fountain Head, and found it both interesting and stimulating, as well as humorous (for the author’s description of one of the hero’s antagonists). I did not, at that time, know that the author was an atheist, nor did I know much about philosophy, other than having read and enjoyed Plato’s Republic (by the way, and I really need to understand this, has anyone ever disentangled Socrates from Plato?).
I have since rejected Rand’s writings, as well as Libertarianism in general. To me, Libertarianism is simply Anarchism Lite.
I typed the following into Google: “greatest books of all time”. Check out the first result, which includes the 100 greatest novels as determined by what I presume to be both experts and regular readers ( http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html ). For regular readers, the works of Ayn Rand and L. Ron Hubbard occupy 7 of the top 10 spots. Wow….
Hello Bob (and All),
“by the way, and I really need to understand this, has anyone ever disentangled Socrates from Plato?”
I think the answer to your question is no. I specialize in moral and political philosophy and not Ancient philosophy, but I’ve learned enough about Plato from teaching Republic and Gorgias and working with some of the great contemporary specialists in Ancient philosophy to be able to safely say that we have never been able to figure out where Socrates ends and Plato begins. As I’m sure you know, we have very few written sources other than Plato’s dialogs telling us anything about Socrates and Plato always uses Socrates the character in his dialogs to present the “right” position whereas the other characters are the “fall guys”. A number of Ancient specialists trace an evolution in the arguments and doctrines in Plato’s corpus but we have no real way of knowing if the early dialogs reflect Socrates’ views and the latter Plato’s own views or it’s all Plato, gradually maturing from the “early” Plato to the “late” Plato.
. . . on Ayn Rand occupying the top two spots and that last and nary a glimmer on the other . . .
It’s because in their aesthetics (and other philosophical areas) religions and the collectivist Establishment Intelligentsia are Platonic and the real people are secular and Aristotelean. Rand puts them in touch what the root, the core, the fire of what it means to be free sovereign individuals un-enslaved by anyone and anything. That’s what people want. Not Plato’s Republic.
You see, while Plato and Socrates might be indistinguishable in ideas, Plato and Aristotle are not. No indeed, not at all.
I’ve heard that one of the reasons the books of people like Ayn Rand and L. Ron Hubbard are at the top of book lists is that their converts are urged to buy multiple copies of them.
the collectivist Establishment Intelligentsia are Platonic and the real people are secular and Aristotelean
I don’t think Aquinas, who so appreciated Aristotle, could be called secular, and it’s not as if Aristotle didn’t believe in God. I did read, though, that Rand thought there were only three good philosophers – Aristotle, Aquinas, and herself :)
Mr. Cimorelli,
The readers poll was not a scientifically done poll with an accurate representation of a cross section of the American or world public but one in which people self-selected to participate or not. As a result it is not surprising that partisans for Ayn Rand and L. Ron Hubbard were motivated and perhaps encouraged by the organizations promoting their views to participate. The polls is also more than a decade old. If you had clicked on the link describing how the polls were conducted, you would have seen the following: “The readers’ poll for the best novels published in the English language since 1900 opened on July 20, 1998 and closed on October 20, 1998, with 217,520 votes cast.”
Given that there were over 250 million people in the United States in 1998, a non-representative sample of 217,520 is hardly likely to produce meaningful results, except that both the Ayn Rand Institute and Scientology are both very good at getting their partisans to participate in these type of polls. The Board’s results do not list a single book by either Ayn Rand or L. Ron Hubbard in the top 10.
When will we realize that Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Acquinas, Augusitne and Hegel are such great distractions from the teachings of Jesus? The Greeks really messed up the gospel. Time to take note?
Hello Bill (and All),
Since I am a professional philosopher I think I should respond to your question. Sometimes I am asked why I left the corporate world to become a philosophy teacher, and in particular why I ended up not even specializing in Aquinas even though I am a Roman Catholic. I went into philosophy in order to try to learn to think, read, speak and write carefully, and I hope I help my students along their way to do the same. I’ve said before in this forum that I find it a tremendous challenge to be both a philosopher by profession and an orthodox Roman Catholic. That’s because of the amazing absence of charity and rigor I see in some of the most prominent voices in the Roman Catholic Church in North America. But though this is immodest of me to say, I worry that without the influence of philosophers the Roman Catholic Church might have become dominated by people with views way beyond those of the people I just complained about. Examples: (1) I recently learned that EWTN (which I have admittedly griped about in this forum before) is receiving some very nasty criticism – from people who think that in the last few years EWTN is no longer being hard enough on Protestants. (2) Somewhat by chance I came across a web site that had very harsh words for our friend Bill Donohue – for not being hard enough on gay people.
Peter,
I like philosophy very much – have a ba in that. An interesting video I’d posted a while ago on my blog – Keith Ward on Kant. I’ve read that Rand really hated Kant :)
” . . .their converts are urged to buy multiple copies of them. . . ”
1) The list was not based on “best selling”; it was a poll, so the purported ‘buy multiple’ clue is off base.
2) Why did you use the word “convert?” How does a person get ‘converted’ to Objectivism!?! Convinced, yes. Converted? That requires faith and denial of reason.
“I don’t think Aquinas, who so appreciated Aristotle, could be called secular, and it’s not as if Aristotle didn’t believe in God.”
True, except that Rand more than “appreciated” Aquinas; she credits his attempt to suture reason onto the mystical Augustinian church with re-introducing objective reality back into Europe. As you said, however, Aquinas was not secular. So that is one partial religious person with a nod toward reason. He did not accept reason as an absolute.
As for Aristotle “not believing in God” hmmm….you’d better look into it. His metaphysics declared that reality consisted of only ‘this world of particulars.’ He did not believe in the personal God of later Christian systems, only the ‘prime mover’, an abstract, non-interacting, pure-thought being. Aristotle was driven out of Greece (he came close to being executed) on the charge of impiety. I read one account that the exact charge was that he taught that “prayer and sacrifice do not work [Will Durant].” This is consistent with his describing “God” as the prime mover who does not interact; things behave according to their nature.
As for that survey being old. . . oh man I would love to have it run over again, and sure, increase the sample. Have at it. Ayn Ran would be HUGE if that poll is taken again. Modern Library is not about to conduct it again; one can only imagine the blowback they got from the disjoint between their panel and the general public list.
Ms. Brown,
Thanks for your message. I am completely in agreement with you. 200,000+ votes would be statistically significant if the sample was representative of the entire population (though I doubt that’s the case!). Even so, it is alarming–at least to me–that that list will pop up given my search query.
Thank you Peter for the update on the Plato/Socrates conundrum. I wasn’t trying to hijack this thread by the way.
Bill Mazella: You can be so irascible! I would have to agree, in part, with what Peter Vanderschraaf said about why he immersed himself in the study of philosophy. And it is a wholesome and mentally invigorating pursuit, wouldn’t you agree?
As for Rand, to me, her downfall was rejection of God and thus, of Christ. By elevating the individual to absolute sovereignty, she abandoned any possibility to practice charity and compassion and any consideration of the other as having any rights that might supersede that of my own.
“my search of the archives did turn up an “et cetera” item headlined “Charity Fraud Alert,” from February 2000. It’s a reaction to a mail solicitation from the Ayn Rand Institute, which warned Americans not to fall for “the phony idea that you have a moral duty to serve others”"
Surely a committed devotee of Rand would refuse to serve others by donating money ot the Ayn Rand Institute!
Hello Crystal (and All),
Thank you for the link. I especially liked the cartoon.
I’m not a bit surprised to learn that Rand hated Kant, since Kant’s moral theory is not only not based upon self-interest but on most interpretations is not based upon what people want or what’s good for them, period.
I had a surprising moment as a freshman at Loyola Marymount University when I first heard of Kant’s categorical imperative from one of my Jesuit professors – who seemed not to care for Kant. I immediately thought that Kant’s moral theory seemed rooted in the Gospel (though Kant makes virtually no reference to Scripture in his work). Interestingly, the more I study some of the documents of Vatican II and some of the encyclicals of John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II (can’t yet say about Benedict XVI – need to read more) the more convinced I am that in its recent history the moral teaching of the Roman Catholic Church has taken a Kantian approach, even though the popes and the council fathers may not have been directly influenced by Kant. (Kant is never cited in any of these documents, which tend not to refer to the works of philosophers with the exceptions of Augustine and Aquinas.)
Peter, I’m glad I hung around…you’ve said something that could teach me.
I agree that Kant’s morals were not based on “what people want or what’s good for them, period.” This is highlighted by the “inclination” test; even if you think your act is selfless and “other-directed”, it is still not moral if you willed to do it, or followed an urge to do it, or derived any ‘warm glow’ for having done it. To be moral it is supposed to be such an extreme of non-attachment that it could only be described as ‘pure duty.’
Would you be willing to talk about
1) why you think your Jesuit instructor did not like Kant’s moral teaching;
2) why it struck you that Kant’s teachings were rooted in the Bible;
3) what is the essential quality that you identify in both Kant’s moral teachings and the recent moral teachings of the Roman Catholic Church?
Also, and I’ve asked this so many times over the last many decades… can you or anyone else interested put the Categorical Imperative in your own words and simply say what you think it teaches?
I want to assure you this request for information is not with the intention of baiting you so I can slam your answers. I give you my word on that. I really want to understand.
Thank you
John Donohue
Objectivist
“Even before you get to its endorsement of untrammeled egotism”
Ayn Rand never referred to her ethical doctrine as ‘untrammeled egotism’. To refer to it as such is a form of a smear tactic. The proper name of her ethics is Rational Self-Interest, or Rational Selfishness. Here are a few excerpts from Ayn Rand about her ethical philosophy:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfishness.html
In the spirit of Rational Selfishness, I am closing comments. Thanks all.