If you enjoy reading Ayn Rand, and are thinking about learning some key facts of her "philosophy of Objectivism": don't.
I read "The Fountainhead" last year, at the recommendation of a friend. Only a small number of pages into the book I was already hooked, and finished the whole 700-odd pages in the course of three or four days. I enjoyed it immensely and still count it among my top five favorite books of all time.
As the back pages of the book were filled with quotes about Rand's Objectivism I became curious and consulted the Web.
The term Objectivism is not derived from objectivity, but rather from objective, as in aim, goal. Objectivism is a collection of ideas on the character of success. One example of such an idea is that you need to free yourself from the burden of other people in order to achieve greatness, which of course everybody can agree on who has ever been part of a committee. But Rand takes it much further and makes her collection of ideas a basic premise for a successful life.
In modern terms, Ayn Rand would be the ultimate Getting Things Done author, except that she has no intentions to be satisfied halfway through. Why build a collection of tips when you can just as well build an ideology?
Just to make myself clear: I'm fairly indifferent towards the actual ideas of Objectivism. It's a nice collection of insights into human nature, slightly twisted and elitist, but fine by me. But knowing the subject makes you aware of what it is that Rand is actually writing about, of what drives her plot.
I have just started another of her very popular books, "Atlas Shrugged", and while I'm only on page 50 (of 1100) I believe I won't be able to enjoy this book as much as the last one; Objectivism has spoiled it for me. I simply can't shake the idea that she's not so much interested in writing a great novel as she is interested in telling the world about her ideas.
This novel starts off as a one-dimensional and very one-sided vessel of propaganda, including ridicule for non-believers. Virtually every character in "Atlas Shrugged" seems to serve Rand as a showcase to get her point across.
There is nothing wrong with basing a novel on a philosophy. But I've grown up in the 80s and 90s when advertising was forced into us from every angle, and this has reflected on my attitude towards its methods. This novel is but a printed form of televangelism.
It doesn't help that the book came with a brochure of the Rand foundation, which appears to be a crazy mixture of book club, cult, and self-help seminar...
Comments
You wrote:
"The term Objectivism is not derived from objectivity, but rather from objective, as in aim, goal. Objectivism is a collection of ideas on the character of success. One example of such an idea is that you need to free yourself from the burden of other people in order to achieve greatness, which of course everybody can agree on who has ever been part of a committee. But Rand takes it much further and makes her collection of ideas a basic premise for a successful life."
I don't know the source of that understanding of Objectivism, but it's completely wrong.
The term "Objectivism" does derive from the central concept in the Objectivist epistemology, namely objectivity. It is not "a collection of ideas" but a systematic philosophy. It does not claim that "you need to free yourself from the burden of other people," but rather that your own life and happiness should be your own highest purpose. (Did Roark "free himself" of Dominique in _The Fountainhead_?)
There's lots of information on the internet. Some of it is even true. Whatever you read wasn't, unfortunately. Try http://www.aynrand.org. Or just keep reading _Atlas Shrugged_.
Diana Mertz Hsieh, 2005-09-14 05:52 CET (+0100) Link
Diana,
thanks for the cool comment!
As I'm reading this book mainly while on trains and having my morning coffee I'm progressing rather slowly; but I found that it's getting more fun as I initially thought.
Still, I find lots of places where things are described rather simplistic. Most characters still seem one-dimensional paper figures designed to get a point across; this hasn't changed from my initial impression, and by now I simply take it as a characteristic of Rand's style. She's writing about "people as personifications of ideas", not about people; and her strictness at that makes her writing a bit old-fashioned. In reading Rand I find that I like realism better.
Anyway, to address your comment: I really could take some time to actually get a better insight into Objectivism. But the thruth is that what I've seen so far of it doesn't really interest me that much, and I don't actually think it would add to my experience of the book.
So for now I'm not planning to dive more into Objectivism than I already have. But your comment did reveal something of its nature to me that I hadn't seen yet; and maybe my ignorant response will spur you (or someone else) on to correct me once more, and teach me again.
And I'm sure by the time I'm reading the third Rand novel I'll be even better prepared ;)
martin, 2005-09-14 06:27 CET (+0100) Link
Status update: still reading, slooowly.
Today I've picked up American Psycho again, don't know yet if that means I'll stop reading Rand.
martin, 2005-10-13 02:01 CET (+0100) Link
Status update 2: I finally stopped reading Atlas Shrugged after I was well into American Psycho, and next on the list is Microserfs (haven't read that one in years, and it's such a great novel).
martin, 2005-10-29 17:49 CET (+0100) Link
Comments are closed. You can contact me instead.