Since one of the ongoing comment threads has gotten into a discussion of Ayn Rand, since she was in the blogs a lot this week because of this Stephen Moore article for the WSJ, and since few if any intellectual figures have done as much to shape the secular right in modern America, let’s make her the topic of a (polite, civil) open thread.
Rand famously did not want opposition to organized religion to be regarded as one of the defining aspects of her thinking, not because she was the slightest bit apologetic about her stand, but simply because other battles interested her more. As one writer notes, she aimed her fire on numerous occasions at pronouncements of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and the Vatican, while saying little that was specific to Protestantism (or Eastern Orthodoxy, Judaism, Islam, etc.). At any rate, some resources on Rand’s views of religion and faith can be found here, here, here, and (video) here.
I just flipped through the first 150 pages of the paperback of ‘Atlas Shrugged’ and confirmed my memory: there are no “speeches,” yet, though in its thousand-some pages ‘Atlas’ contains a number of them, e.g., one on love and sex, another on the soul of an artist, another on the moral meaning of money, and, of course, a very long one outlining Rand’s entire system of philosophy.
These are tightly integrated with the action of the story which is actually an otherwise lean and fast-paced mystery of epic scope, containing effective thrills and chills — and much subtle, beautiful and profound poetry, so often missed by many who think they already know what to expect. It is poetry of the kind the ‘New York Times’ appreciated in ‘The Fountainhead’ when that novel first appeared, but before the Rand-mythology was formed. Speaking of poetry, I love that of Emily Dickinson and Yvor Winters. Rand, the artist, must be approached with the same kind of demanding eye, and there have been few literary craftsmen as exactingly self-demanding as Ayn Rand.@Heather Mac Donald
@Jeff
Understood, and don’t get me started on John Dewey; but I have been engaged in an ongoing good-natured debate for over a year with an old man who was once a luminary in the LP. Anytime I suggest a course heretical to LP orthodoxy, he accuses me of being a Pragmatist, in the sense of willingness to abandon a (not all) cherished principle in favor of doing “what works.” We drive each other ’round the bend over it. 🙂 ◄Dave►
“…and much subtle, beautiful and profound poetry”
LOL. Rand’s writing is as “subtle” as a blow to the head with a baseball bat.
I don’t get the trashing of Rand qua writer.
Compared to Rand, Dickens’ characters are cardboard cutouts. He never gives us anything nearly so unexpected or as paradoxically deep as, say, Dominique Francon. In fact, Rand’s psychological depths are comparable only to Dosteovsky’s.
What people seem to want of Rand is not just complex shades of gray, but for her to color even her noblest heroes or worst villains in MORAL shades of gray. Well, Rand rejected this view of REALITY.
She is every bit as clever as Thomas Hardy, and her use of symbols every bit as refined as Joseph Conrad’s, only she isn’t the actual chore of reading that they are. Sure, Conrad, at times, gives me an experience of dark and terrifying majesty, but Rand can manipulate emotions with far greater skill in my judgment, and provides us moments of majesty Conrad could never have reached.
There is also in Rand’s work that smile, that sheer benevolence, unmatched by any of these other writers. So, if “deep” or “beautiful” is, for you, a necessarily grim matter, then Rand is not for you.
Rand’s enduring popularity — the life-changing emotional impact reported by so many of her highly intelligent readers — the out loud laughs and the genuine tears I have witnessed in those reading her fiction, and from folks not given to excessive sentimentality — all suggest that it is a profound mistake not give Rand the kind of demanding read that she deserves.
Poor Grant…
Subtle is so often just missed.
I get the trashing. It is amusing to me.
Jim, look at it this way, it is a marker. I usually find that those who outright despise Rand’s writing style are of a completely different aesthetic philosophy, a significant marker that they are of a different metaphysics/epistemology as well. For instance (see above) they think “Existence exists” is trivial. In other words, they don’t get it. Different sense of life altogether. Some of the people I meet personally who vilify Rand love Joyce, Camus, Salinger, Proust and of course Gabriel García Márquez, all of whose style and subject matter make me want to blow my brains out. I would place a bet that everyone who thinks Rand’s novels are thrilling has their own list of putrid authors that are heroes of postmodern literature and the New York Times Review of Books.
Now that is not to say that passionate Objectivists all thrill to Galt’s Speech, etc. Frankly, I have only read it through in a sitting once; I refer to it, yes. But when I am in the mood for the action of Atlas Shrugged, I skip it. Same with the pitch right before the tunnel blows up.
What those of a different philosophy don’t get is that this book is indeed a philosophical rant inside an action novel. This is the way Rand decided to do it. She probably knew she did not have the patience to “just” write a formal presentation of her philosophy. She was too excited and happy with the characters in motion in her head. I wish she had published more fiction sans tracts.
John Donohue
Pasadena, CA
P.S. By the way, I had to look up “perdures.” My spell check did not think it was for real either. Turns out there is such a word. And yes, even all Rand un-fans have to admit, Atlas Shrugged perdures.
And yes, there is a secret conspiracy of Objectivists who swarm blogs. When we see a juicy post, we 911-email each other and descend en mass to quash any blasphemy against our beloved teacher.
JD
i just did a word count, John Galt’s speech is 32,000 words long. I’m not sure in what universe that’s considered “lean” and “fast-paced.” Maybe the same one where Rand is the great torchbearer of Dostoevsky.
Look, I actually like Atlas Shrugged. it’s a tour-de-force in some ways. but come on, at least 50% of the book should be cut out and it’s silly to try to deny that.
I’m not so sure that such people are all that rare. Advertising is big business.
Advertising isn’t inherently dishonest. Yes, there are misleading ads, but the trade doesn’t have to be, and, really, dishonest marketing often only works once.
But what if you have information that, if your trade partner knew of it, he would never commit to the trade at that price? (I.e, the first person knows that the second has undervalued the object due to mistake or mere lack of information) Would that be free trade or, because it was not “fully informed”, was it coercion/fraud??
Funnily enough, St. Thomas Aquinas puzzled over that one, and his answer would probably satisfy Rand. When you go into a market, there are assumptions you make and accept. One is that the burden for finding the best price to buy is on the buyer. The burden for finding the best price is on the seller. So if the seller is undervaluing his product, then that’s a failing on his part. He really should have learned what he was doing before he got into the market.
Now, this doesn’t prohibit you from correcting your trading partner. Let me put it this way. If some poor schmoe came in selling a Mickey Mantle rookie ball card for $5, I’d feel pretty rotten taking that deal, and I’d let him know he was making a huge mistake. In fact, I don’t think any of Rand’s ideal characters would make that deal because it would offend their sense of integrity.
John Donohue: okay, whatever floats your boat. people have different tastes…
One of the most interesting character arcs in Rand is that of “Catherine” in The Fountainhead. Here is a bright, happy young woman full of promise and the upward glance. Yet she is without foundation. Unfortunately, her Uncle uses her more or less as a lab experiment to try out his various methods of ‘deprogramming’ a benevolent sense of life. She burns in his hell, basically, and emerges as a cinder of a human at the end.
Compared to Rand, Dickens’ characters are cardboard cutouts.
Dickens at his worst, at his Gradgrindian worst, is light years ahead of Rand in Atlas Shrugged. We the Living, on the other hand, that’s a much better work.
What people seem to want of Rand is not just complex shades of gray, but for her to color even her noblest heroes or worst villains in MORAL shades of gray.
Actually, what we’d most want of her is brevity.
Well, Rand rejected this view of REALITY.
Actually, in many cases she outright rejected reality all together. How many women do you know who cat around like Dagny and still command respect? How many men would be like Hank Reardon and slink away when Johnny G. and his somewhat creepily fawning professor show up? Give Rand credit, though, she did try to make things work that way in her own life. We all know how that story ended.
Look, I actually like Atlas Shrugged. it’s a tour-de-force in some ways. but come on, at least 50% of the book should be cut out and it’s silly to try to deny that.
You might as well argue about the literary merits of the Koran with a Muslim. For Objectivists, Rand is the last prophet, and not a jot or a tittle may be belittled or even compared to things of this earth.
When a site called “Secular Right” does a focus on Ayn Rand, a true mother of the secular Right, attention is to be expected, especially given the number of computer-obsessed Rand fans there are.
raft, I had written “otherwise,” but perhaps that was too “subtle”…
And on that score:
It’s not just ‘The New York Times”s review of ‘The Fountainhead’ (in the 1940s) declaring Rand to be a “subtle writer” — I personally know several PhD’s in philosophy who report discovering new ideas, connections and arguments with every read, and/or only after multiple readings. In lectures and essays, they are very cogent as to why they missed them on the first several reads… I know economists and historians with PhDs who report the same with ideas in their own fields. I know of published novelists who report discovering newly found technique only after multiple reads. Her ideas themselves are rich and complex, what Chris Sciabarra of NYU I think mistakenly identifies as the “dialectical” character of Rand’s thought.
Rand’s writing actually embodies a rich and complex theory of esthetics, one you can get at least some idea of by reading ‘What Art Is: the Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand,’ by Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi, even with that book’s own limitations.
Actually, it will take numerous volumes to adequately explain all that Rand was up to in her novels. A good start has been made: ‘Essays on Ayn Rand’s We the Living,’ ‘Essays on Ayn Rand’s Anthem,’ and ‘Essays on Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead,” all edited by Robert Mayhew, PhD, and published by Lexington, are each an important first step in this regard.
But, you are absolutely right, John, one’s values necessarily shape one’s tastes.
If a work is of monumental importance and excitement to you, you don’t want it to end, you wish it were longer and deeper. Readers of Tolkien have said so many times, for instance.
Polichinello what really long work by any author do you like and wish were longer?
Generally and not specifically directed at any posts here….
As the decades have proceeded, I hear complaints about the length of Atlas Shrugged more and more. This is either a case of people who don’t really subscribe to Rand’s philosophy having to read it, or perhaps the forward march of reading-challeneged fast twitchers educated under progressive education whole language. Those for whom it is a huge thrill skip the speeches when they don’t want them and wish the story were even longer. I know I do.
John Donohue
Pasadena, CA
“Cat around like Dagny Taggart and still command respect”?
That’s amusing: Dagny had a total of three sex partners in her whole life and each involved a serious, long-term and exclusive commitment.
To describe anything Rearden does after “John G.” shows up — including saving “John G.’s” life — as “slinking away” is even more amusing.
BTW, ‘Atlas’ is, by far, Rand’s most highly crafted — and subtle — work of fiction.
raft: Yes, being in work of fiction, the speeches in ‘Atlas’ are very long indeed. As philosophy, those same speeches are as tight, per word, as anything out there. (And Rand was a great admirer of Dosteovsky, and, yes, for those who’ve made study of the matter, one of the greatest influences on her writing.)
@Jim Valliant
Now, that is an interesting perspective. I, too, skim the soliloquies when rereading the novel for pleasure. Now, I am of a mind to skip the novel and go reread the lectures. Those who find them tedious, should just go breeze through Peikoff’s “Objectivism:…” 🙂
I appreciate your thoughtful comments, Jim. ◄Dave►
@Polichinello
that was classic
“Honor” is an explicit value for Rand’s heroes, and for Rand herself, see, e.g., her speech to the graduating class of West Point in 1974, which is also the title essay reprinted in the Signet volume ‘Philosophy: Who Needs It.’
However, Rand’s concept of honor is entirely non-altruistic, and her sense of honor, she believed, was of enormous “practical” benefit to its practitioners.
Pingback: THOUGHTS ALOUD » Ayn Rand and Maria Montessori
Polichinello what really long work by any author do you like and wish were longer?
That’s sort of a silly question. The work’s quality is often determined by its length. I wouldn’t cut anything from The Brothers Karamazov, despite its many digressions. OTOH, I wouldn’t add anything to a short work, like The Stranger or The Bridge of San Luis Rey.
To be clear, Rand can make a well-paced novel with the right length. Her first outing was quite good.
If you’re going to dismiss criticisms by ascribing them to bad faith, well then you’re going to inure yourself to them altogether.
Topic of Discussion: Did Ayn Rand rip off the New Testament?
Consider the following:
1. Like the New Testament, the central hero is smug, self-righteous and thinks he’s God, though he’d deny it if openly confronted on the point.
2. Said protagonist surrounds himself with adoring followers, performs (technical) miracles, demands they abandon their worldly goods to follow him, is betrayed by follower (okay, by accident), tempted by the book’s version of Satan, and suffers unto death (almost) and emerges from the tomb-like structure.
3. Protagonist has his own John the Baptist, except he’s a self-satisfied, hash-slinging professor.
4. Good people snatched away to a paradise, just like the Rapture.
5. Earthly society subjected to apocalyptic judgment for its many sins, just like the Tribulation.
6. Story ends with promise of a renewed world, just like the Millennial Kingdom promised at the end of Revelations.
There it is. Rand was ripping off the New Testament. But if you’re going to plagiarize an author, I guess you can’t do much better than God Almighty.
“What people seem to want of Rand is not just complex shades of gray, but for her to color even her noblest heroes or worst villains in MORAL shades of gray.”
LOL. What people want of Rand is characters who aren’t cartoons, who have real human feeling, failing and, yes, moral complexity. Because regardless of what this woman’s philosophical beliefs were, the job of the artist is to tell the truth. And since real people are simply neither the one-dimensional “heroes” (all of which in Atlas Shrugged, by the way, were the same character with different characterizations) nor über-villains, she failed to tell the truth. Populating a work with mouthpieces to espouse philosophy may be effective to get the philosophy across and may be a defensible choice, but to pretend that it is great literature is laughable. (Almost as laughable as the scene were the judge is “flustered” by a non-cooperative defendant. Talk about fantasyland…)
@Polichinello
My comment about advertising was half in jest. Exaggeration and stretching the truth just short of lies does seem to be a common occurrence, though.
Now, this doesn’t prohibit you from correcting your trading partner. Let me put it this way. If some poor schmoe came in selling a Mickey Mantle rookie ball card for $5, I’d feel pretty rotten taking that deal, and I’d let him know he was making a huge mistake. In fact, I don’t think any of Rand’s ideal characters would make that deal because it would offend their sense of integrity.
But why? If the person is going to be so incompetent that he is freely exchanging this card for $5, why would they, being good Randian über-folk, have this offend their sense of integrity? It would seem to me that “enlightened self-interest” would require them to take the deal. Feeling pretty rotten for taking the deal suggests that one has a responsibility to others, even at the detriment to one’s own self-interest; a concept that seems pretty alien to that philosophy.
If Dominique Francon’s and Hank Rearden’s are not stories of “moral complexity,” then no stories have ever been “complex,” and certainly they possess a moral complexity beyond anything in the New Testament(!) Rand’s fiction addresses questions of ethics few, if any, other fiction has ever even taken on. (Thus, the tired “LOL” knee-jerk seems to display more than mere ignorance.) You may wish to check out the recent ‘Wall Street Journal’ article, “‘Atlas Shrugged’: From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years” to begin to appreciate the many dimensions of the “truth” of Rand’s vision.
Apart from all the other well-known differences, there is also, of course, more genuine compassion in Rand’s ~ fiction ~ than anything you can find in the New Testament.
Rand’s conception of “self-interest” was wider than a figure in a bank account.
I must add that, unlike Francon and Rearden, sometimes moral “complexity” has tragic results in Rand’s fiction. In fact, the mind starts to reel when thinking of the psychological and moral “complexities” within Rand’s characters. One of Rand’s most important, Gail Wynand, from Hell’s Kitchen to multimillionaire in ‘The Fountainhead,’ is a blend of great virtue and its darkest opposite, while the moral growth of the “Wet Nurse” in ‘Atlas’ comes too late to save him.
I could go on and on…
The critics need to actually read Rand, or, at least, pay some attention when they do.
@Jim Valliant
Hank Rearden’s story is not morally complex. What moral dilemma does he face? What part of his own personality does he question? The closest that Rand comes to even attempting to present a moral question, it is “Do I sleep with Dagny when my wife is a frigid harpy, plotting to destroy me?” Yeah, real moral complexity…
Like all the protagonists in the novel, Rearden’s story is “How is a superman supposed to cope when all the parasites and moochers and leeches of the world won’t let him be the superman he is.” That’s not complexity, that’s half sophistry/half propaganda.
The “LOL” indicates amusement at your repeated attempt to push third-rate writing which pushes second-rate philosophy as literary genius. (Kind of like asserting the supposed quality of a disposable T&A cop show, like Charlie’s Angels.)
“Rand’s conception of “self-interest” was wider than a figure in a bank account.”
So how does this “wider conception” play into the hypothetical situation presented?
Rand’s readers, I hope, will forgive the rough summarization of the enormous “complexity” here:
Hank Rearden must change his entire moral and emotional view of sex and human relationships altogether.
That’s all.
His emotional repression must be overcome, his emotional enslavement to his family, and his dissociation from his own deepest personal values, leading him to mistreat the woman he really loves. No, like many people today, Hank feels duty-bound to his wife. And, no, Rearden’s problem here is faced by many ordinary human beings whom I have known. In his case, Rand is observing that a man’s emotions, in this case, his love for Dagny, is the best part of his authentic self, not his explicit moral beliefs about human relationships which are dead wrong and causing his emotional repression. Hank’s anti-sex attitudes are a carry-over of Platonic and Christian dualism, and Christian altruism, something that he has unwittingly accepted in his personal life. A very common plight, indeed, although Hank heroically overcomes his emotional retardation in this regard. Indeed, Rearden, but for d’Anconia’s intervention, might have ended up like a tragic hero out of an Ibsen play. (He is ever bit as “complex.”)
Now, let’s contrast this with, say, impotent Jake from Hemingway’s ‘The Sun Also Rises.’ No more “complex” than Hank Rearden, he wonders aimlessly through Europe, finally (somewhat) overcoming his obsession with the unworthy Brett. But, in fact, we are left “floundering in an emulsion of ennui and alcohol.”
Now, if people sometimes actually can achieve things, and if some people actually do have purposes, then, I fear, that it is Hemingway who is the comparatively shallow one, for Rand includes the aimless — and the results of such aimlessness – while Hemingway never addresses the realities of life Rand with which deals.
Yeah, real moral complexity…
For Rand, honesty is selfish. I will not recapitulate her entire metaethical and normative argumentation for you in this context, but that’s what’s required to answer your question. May I recommend Prof. Tara Smith’s ‘Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics – The Virtuous Egoist’ published in 2006 by Cambridge University Press? It’s a pretty serious work of academic philosophy, but the author is a very clear writer.
Also, Rand would have been concerned with how one’s actions create and shape his own character, and, here, one must address the psychological “complexities” of Rand’s thinking, but I hesitate to recommend more than one heavy tome at a time, much less to recapitulate it…
BTW, Rand said that she enjoyed ‘Charlie’s Angels,’ and I don’t believe that she ever compared it to Hugo or Dostoevsky, her favorite novelists. She also enjoyed ‘The Twilight Zone,’ ‘The Untouchables,’ ‘Perry Mason,’ and ‘The Avengers.’ Now, if you are incapable of such fun, then the more pity you.
I don’t think Rand would disapprove of lying because it eliminates others’ freedom – that’s silly.
She would be opposed to fraud because that method necessarily does not produce value, and helps to corrupt existing value counters. So the people engaging in it don’t make a true profit, they simply siphon value away from others.
As is pointed out in Atlas Shrugged, Dagny was given a check for a substantial amount of money as a reward for ‘betraying’ Galt to the authorities – she was unable to view it as a thing of value and discarded it as meaningless. And by Rand’s standards, that check really was worthless.
One last note before I’m finished here:
“Reputation is what other people know about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. Guard your honor. Let your reputation fall where it will.” — Lois McMaster Bujold (one of the better sources to understand what motivates people and the true nature of altruism)
@jim valliant
As I said, to the extent that Rand attempted moral complexity with the Rearden character, that is it. But to the extent that there is conflict in that storyline, Rand makes it a very easy choice for Rearden. Has there ever been a reader, ever, anywhere, in the history of this book who ever wondered, even for a millisecond, what choice Rearden would make?? Some precocious, but misguided eleven year-old, somewhere, maybe. No, we all know how he was going to choose, because Rand does not present Rearden with two moral positives (or moral negatives) and explores how and why Rearden would choose between them. What she wrote was not complexity, but the minimum necessary to recite on her ideas about people freeing themselves of the ideas which lead to what she saw as emotional repression. This isn’t moral complexity, it’s a morality play.
Jim Valliant,
Okay, but what about the $5 Mickey Mantle card scenario?? No fraud, no dishonsty, you’re just dealing with someone who is grossly incompetent. Do you Randians make the deal or not??
(And you philosophy doesn’t have much to say for it if it can’t answer a simply hypothetical like this without volumes of analysis…)
Okay. But I’ll give you only ONE dimension of the issue as Rand would see it.
As a former attorney, let me start with the law. According to Rand’s view, absent fraud, coercion or dishonesty, the transaction would be perfectly legal. If the “gross incompetence” stems from minority or someone being under guardianship for mental disability, of course, then we are talking about a less than voluntary transaction, and such a deal would be legally void. If, however, it merely a failure to research the matter, the seller cannot later legally complain.
This is a good thing. One who actually values the item for what is should posses it, rather than someone who might use it to light a fire.
On the other hand, the selfish dealer in such items would be wise to not to exploit the situation. If he intends to continue doing such business, his concern with reputation would inspire perfectly a selfish business practices which are quite common. If he wants his business to endure, that is. I would recommend that he join some organization, perhaps the Better Business Bureau, which certifies him as a dealer who adheres to such standards. Much more money — and a steady stream of continued money — will result. (Unless, of course, the law interferes with the free market for integrity, creating, say, a federal regulatory agency giving the consumer a false sense of security.)
Now, even one who does not intend a future in dealing baseball cards can recognize the value of trust. For example, I value my friendships far more than the price of a single antique baseball card, and the ability of people to trust me generally has meant a continuous stream of on-going business and friendship, and more money in the long run. By making a habit of such honesty, I need never fear that what anyone might say about me could ever disrupt this flow of trust and money and friendship.
It is also more likely to inspire the trusting and honest behavior of others to me — something that often proves truly priceless.
The price of trust — a commodity of incredibly high value — is straightforward: honesty.
Range-of-the-moment, fly-by-night, quick bucks are the small, hidden and insecure bucks. The wealthiest man, in multiple senses, the one most secure in his wealth, both material and spiritual, is the man whom INFORMED people eagerly WANT to deal with — the man, if I may, with a known sense of “honor.”
Not sure if I’m Randian, but I think I’d try to talk him down from $5. I’ll give you $2 and a snickers bar.
@Jim Valliant,
What about if the purchaser was not merely a businessman, but a collector?
Your answer, stripped of all the high-sounding verbiage, basically says, “If people know I am trustworthy, my business will prosper more than I may have benefited.”
(Put aside for a moment the problem of whether people who actually view you in that manner, or whether people would be less likely to deal with you, because you have proven an inability to take advantage of a great business opportunity, so who knows what else you might screw up…)
Now that’s a fine, defensible position.
But what would the Randite do when there were no other consequences to a business, but was a one-off deal. What then? Do you make the trade?
No, we all know how he was going to choose, because Rand does not present Rearden with two moral positives (or moral negatives) and explores how and why Rearden would choose between them.
Bingo. No one in Rearden’s family has any redeeming values. They were rotten through and through. Most people Rand would call “altruists” would have advocated Rearden dumping the lot of them, too.
…while the moral growth of the “Wet Nurse” in ‘Atlas’ comes too late to save him.
There’s a character in The Hunt for Red October played by Sam Neil that dreams of living in Montana. Towards the end, he gets shot, and as he dies says, “I would have liked to live in Montana.” You always see these guys in action flicks. They come into the story with big dreams and then die tragically to extort a bit of sympathy from the audience. That’s what the Wet Nurse does.
Yes, he converts to the true gospels, and dies a good little martyr, like Stephen in Acts, but his conversion process is nothing more than recapitulation of things Rand stated time and again in the novel.
I don’t think Rand would disapprove of lying because it eliminates others’ freedom – that’s silly
I don’t think it’s silly. If you lie to me about a product, say it’ll do something it won’t, then you’ve taken away my freedom to evaluate it. You could argue that I should investigate it further, but through your lie you’ve forced me to check yet another thing. Granted, it’s minor and doesn’t require gov’t intervention, but that doesn’t change the moral value and the fact that it’s an imposition on my freedom.
I can’t remember if Rand herself said this (she’s not my one, true prophet, after all), but you can extrapolate that from her philosophy.
Grant:
So, what you want or require for “moral complexity” is a moral question that never gets answered, or one that is suggested to have no answer whatever? If Rand’s answers become really clear, even when others would find them ethically controversial, then this makes her a good writer.
What Rand is saying is that there ARE answers in ethics, that life need not be not a state of perpetual ethical angst.
For example, Hemingway’s Jake is not facing up to any question — he is evading and wondering and drowning himself in a self-imposed and pointless suffering.
Well, if you view ethical questions as being fundamentally unanswerable, or life as basically the plight of being stuck in the resulting ethical malaise, then you will think Jake’s ennui is the essence of life.
Rand disagreed.
And, of course, Hank Rearden is not alone in his “complexity” in Rand’s work. I have already listed a sample of others.
The Wet Nurse does not start with “Big Dreams,” but collectivist ones. These must and do CHANGE as his experience grows.
Jeepers, if Rearden’s family valued him, then they would probably have been a value to him, too, i.e., a healthy family.
Check.
The just mentioned Wet Nurse, though, is bad, but not beyond redemption, is he? Again, he is by no means alone in this.
Grant:
Having smuggled in a view that this would be a “screw up” of some kind, history has spoken loud and clear on this question.
“No other consequences” may only be ~ secured ~ in hypotheticals.
For example, even a “collector” presumably has an interest in continuing to add to his collection, no?
Okay, THIS collector wants nothing more than this one card and, being terminally ill and on his last leg, he doesn’t consider future business of any kind, or how he is shaping his own character, or how this will impact anything else whatever, and this brief possession of this one card will mean more to him than anything else… I’m trying, but science fiction isn’t my forte.
Excuse me, “Having smuggled in a view that this is some kind of “screw up,” you seem to ignore that history has spoken loud and clear on this question.”
I also can’t help laughing at the contrast presented here: one poster calls Dagny’s sexual behavior “catting around,” while another finds Rearden’s relationship with her the inevitably moral choice(!)