In Defense of Flawed Things
Ross Douthat says you should read Atlas Shrugged. I agree. Its author, Ayn Rand, asserted that her insights were to be embraced wholeheartedly or not at all, which helps to explain why the novel is so celebrated by some, and loathed by others — both camps foolishly buy into her premise that fiction should be judged based upon whether it affords a comprehensive moral framework for understanding society and how best to live one’s life.
By that metric, Atlas Shrugged is a failure — and it is a flawed novel in other senses too. The prose are uneven, breathtaking in their clarity at certain moments, cloying at so many others. I’d defend certain of her characters, namely Dagny Taggart and Francisco D’Anconia, but many others aren’t believable humans at all, for though Ms. Rand was a gifted observer, she was also a Romantic extremist. “If one saw, in real life, a beautiful woman wearing an exquisite evening gown, with a cold sore on her lips, the blemish would mean nothing but a minor affliction, and one would ignore it,” she wrote. “But a painting of such a woman would be a corrupt, obscenely vicious attack on man, on beauty, on all values—and one would experience a feeling of immense disgust and indignation at the artist.”
Apply that aesthetic sensibility, and you get a hero like John Galt.
So why is Atlas Shrugged worth reading, despite its aesthetic shortcomings, if it is a self-consciously philosophical novel, and the ideas animating it are ultimately flawed? Beyond what Ross and Meagan say, I’d point out that we read all sorts of people — Marx, Rousseau and Freud come to mind — whose worldviews are disastrous if taken as gospel, but nevertheless useful for all sorts of keen insights that help us to better understand the world, so long as they are separated from the flawed frameworks of their originators.
Anyone grappling with altruism, capitalism, or the just distribution of wealth ought to read Atlas Shrugged, for although the particular philosophy its author espouses is ultimately wrongheaded, the way she grapples with those issues — originally, audaciously, intelligently and uncompromisingly — helps us to think them through ourselves, to assimilate her best insights, and to reach better conclusions than would otherwise be possible.
shaking fists at the heaven: But why, Matoko? WHY?!
But seriously, dude, when will you silly scientism rejects learn a little epistemic humility?
Ahem.
— Philip Marlowe · Mar 6, 12:23 AM · #
There is a strange sort of relevance in Matoko’s comment, since from almost any comment of Matoko Chan’s, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding the sub-sapient socons: “To a gas chamber — go!”
P.S. LOL!
— Kate Marie · Mar 6, 01:14 AM · #
But what I really want to know is if you have to read the radio speech. When Herb Mayes, the editor of Good Housekeeping (yes, GH, where A.S. was serialized) suggested editing it, Rand told him it would be akin to editing the Bible, which for an atheistic objectivist was an unusual retort, I must say.
And Kate Marie, I have no idea who you are, but you made my day. I thought I was the only one hearing the clink of the cell door close behind me.
— Jeff Wentling · Mar 6, 03:16 PM · #
Thanks, Jeff!
I stole the lines, of course, from Whittaker Chambers’ review of Atlas Shrugged, but they do seem to fit Our Lady of the Substantial Substrate, don’t they?
— Kate Marie · Mar 6, 03:55 PM · #
A note of caution from the wee, sleekit, cowrin, tim’rous beastie to Our Lady of Substantial Substrate. I’d advise you, if I were in a charitable mood, to take heed of this warning from one of your fellow human beings:
“But Mousie, thou art no thy lane,
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men
Gang aft agley,
An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
For promis’d joy!
Still thou are blest, compared wi’ me!
The present only toucheth thee:
But och! I backward cast my e’e,
On prospects drear!
An’ forward, tho’ I canna see,
I guess an’ fear!”
I won’t clutter up the comments thread any longer by engaging you on subjects which are far afield from the original point of this post.
P.S. LOL!
P.P.S. ;)
— Kate Marie · Mar 6, 04:21 PM · #
Holy Cow! I did hear the clink of the gas chamber door behind me. Where will I hide? Well, in a completely rationalistic world, you and your ilk won’t need to tolerate deviant thinkers, so there won’t be any place to hide. I’ll just lie in my cell wondering: whence comes beauty, virtue, courage? And why do I know these things are important?
Kate Marie, I got a taste o’ the haggis in my mouth with your last entry (I missed the great man’s b-day this year—his 250th!). And I recognized the Chambers’ quote. One of the finest book reviews ever written. Thx. You’re good people.
— Jeff Wentling · Mar 6, 09:03 PM · #
Thanks, Jeff. It’s lovely to talk to you. Any friend of Robbie Burns, Dickens and the Inklings is a friend of mine.
— Kate Marie · Mar 6, 09:22 PM · #
Kate Marie –
It is possible, I assure you, to be utterly convinced that you and your ilk are the most absurd and vulgar type of moron, and yet not think that you should be killed for it.
I know it’s hard for conservative-types to understand but we view people like you with pity, not with hatred. (I notice you quote a lot. It must be obvious even to you that your own thoughts aren’t worth a whole lot.)
— Chet · Mar 7, 03:07 AM · #
This has to be the worst comment thread in the history of TAS.
— cw · Mar 7, 05:59 AM · #
Here’s another little quotation for you, Chet: Nihil sub sole novum.
— Kate Marie · Mar 7, 06:32 AM · #
Yet, despite Whittaker Chambers’s fine turn of phrase, it has been the lovers of state power who have kept the concentration camps and gas chambers and endlessly, enthusiastically slaughtered men. To the tune of more than a hundred million in the 20th century.
— Tom · Mar 7, 02:30 PM · #