Day Two: Least Favourite Book
by Jacqueline Winter Thomas
Day two of the thirty day reading challenge was surprisingly easy. I have read a lot of bad books over the years—Nicholas Sparks, The Twilight Saga, etc. etc.—but these don’t even really qualify for being discussed. It’s just general knowledge and not worth being mulled over. Ayn Rand, however, is worth being discussed because she is respected and honored in the literary community, and I am not quite sure why. I cannot really choose between The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged for my least favourite book, but it is one of the two, probably Atlas. Regardless, I am going to spend this post ranting about Ayn Rand rather than any of her specific works, because if you haven’t already noticed from my tone, I don’t like her—as a person or an author.
Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand. Where to begin? Well, I suppose in my opinion Ms. Rand represents a whole lot of what is wrong with today’s society, steeped in pseudo-intellectual excuses. If you haven’t ever heard of objectivism, it is the philosophy laden in all her works, and in simplest terms, it is about selfishness, “me-first”, greed, institutionalized social darwinism. What she seems to believe is that our sole purpose in life is “attain our own sense of happiness”. Rand states:
Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values.
Now, you might be thinking, what’s so wrong with that? Isn’t that a lot like existentialism? No, it is not. The former works under the assumption that any necessary steps needed to be taken to assure one’s happiness are permissible; it doesn’t really matter how others feel or are affected by your actions (you might very well be the only one who really exists anyway!).
Well, this is how we get the 1% who refuse to pay the same tax percentage as a starving family. This is how we get people living in 21 million dollar mansions who never think to question how many people they could feed or save with even half their money. This is how we get politicians pandering to the richest rich, only concerned with keeping their own affluence, at the expense of the starving, uneducated, and homeless. Because well, their happiness is all that really matters. They worked for their money—doesn’t matter how many people they trampled to get there—they owe nothing to back to the country. Those who need help, are obviously just riding the “welfare bus”, trying to live off the back’s of others. Now do you understand why I am so repulsed by the works of Rand? Existentialism, one the other hand, only asserts that we give life its own meaning; it makes no excuses for acting selfishly or greedily, in fact it states that the only way we will be remembered is through other’s perceptions—thus, we probably should treat other people well. Yes, both philosophies exist under the premise of an absence of God, but this doesn’t automatically assert their similarity. Ayn Rand uses a lack of God to behave without morality, conscience, or empathy, and these are the motifs carried on in her “fiction” (which is really more philosophy buried under a trite narrative). On the other hand, existentialism uses the absence of God as a means to higher morality: we should be good people because this life is all we have, not because we want to be rewarded in heaven.
So yes, I will proudly declare that my least favourite books of all time are Atlas Shrugged AND The Fountainhead (unless we read these works as satires of ruthless capitalism and darwinian politics, then they’re just fine). I think Ayn Rand is a bad author and a bad person; I think she misappropriates the philosophies of Nietzsche and Dostoevsky, and irresponsibly uses the guise of reason to promote immoral, narcissistic behaviour. If some of you reading this are great fans of Ayn Rand, I would love to hear your opinions, but I stand steadfast by my negative outlook on her work and philosophy.
— Beverly Penn
Three things:
Fist, I agree that Ayn Rand is a lousy writer (and all those other things);
Second, I read Anthem and was astute enough to reject anything else she wrote;
Third, isn’t it interesting that the philosophy of the current Republican party tracks so nicely with the teachings on Ayn Rand … think about it.
To your first point—I’m glad I am not alone in my hatred of Rand’s prose. Second, you were smart for stopping at the first book. Why I continued on to read Atlas after Fountainhead is beyond me. Thirdly, the correlation between today’s Republicans and Rand is very interesting, and also a bit scary. I find it ironic, as stumbling bear pointed out, that they use Ayn Rand as their political Goddess, but conveniently ignore her religious views. The only thing I can think of that is scarier than an objectivist government, is an objectivist government which claims it is also a “Christian” government…
Ah, that Ayn Rand, that awful thinker (if you can call her “philosophy” thinking). I was lucky enough to have escaped Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, having gagged my way through We the Living, which I was told was interesting historical fiction, before deciding to avoid her other novels. I have read the Nature of Government essay, and some of her other Objectivist work. I can see why she is an icon for the current Republican party – greed, selfishness and anti-communism all wrapped up in one! I’m sure they tisk about the lack of religion, but they just ignore that when it suits them.
I agree that she is a terribly overrated writer, and there is little of value in her work or her example. Thank you for summing up her work and belief so clearly.
Very astute comments, stumbling bear. You pretty much summed up all I wanted to say about Rand, except much more cogently and succinctly than I managed. I specifically liked your point about how Republicans conveniently quote Rand for their political benefit, but just happen to ignore her religious views whenever necessary.
What a wonderful post. Very well said. I can’t stand Ayn Rand, whether we’re talking about her, her writing, or what she passes off as philosophy. Like I said on my “day 2″ post, I would have written about her, but couldn’t stomach the task…
Again, great post! Let the challenge continue
I think you and I have briefly touched on the subject of Alice Rosenbaum aka “Ayn Rand” before. I can say here I only disagree with one thing you have written above: ‘and these are the motifs carried on in her “fiction” (which is really more philosophy buried under a trite narrative)’. A.R. is NOT a philosopher–nor is her work philosophy. As I once wrote in a work of mine, her “philosophy” consists of a shutting down of true philosophy, a categorical and dogmatic subordination of authentic inquiry to “man’s happiness” (which is conditioned by a concrete bound, superficial “rational universe” in which “man can be happy” precisely because he does not have to bother with inquiring into its actual nature or essence).
So, I basically agree with 99% of your argument . . .
Cheers,
~DS~
[...] refuse to continue playing the game. Every book I have ever read thus far has changed my life—Ayn Rand as much as F. Scott Fitzgerald. I am comprised of all that I hate and all that I love and, quite [...]