With my first post I expressed how surprised I was to enjoy the writings of Ayn Rand given my personal bias against her, however I also expressed how the first two chapters were not heavy on the propaganda, which made it easier to enjoy her writing style. It is with sadness that I conclude that this book gets progressively less subtle with every few page. Do not mistake my disdain for Randian philosophy as a disdain for Randian writing, I still enjoy her as a writer, but just as I am getting comfortable with Rand as a writer she throws off the veil between her work and her beliefs. I struggle to continue to write in response to the work and not go off on a rant against Rand's philosophy in general, and what is keeping me grounded (for the most part) is the fact that I seem to hate her lack of subtly more than I could possibly dislike her philosophy. If she wanted to make this book one giant metaphor, fine, yes, more power to her- but to make the metaphor so blatant? There seems to be little effort to disguise this as a guide to her beliefs, something that first became evident to me when Jim claims that his train project in Mexico was for the good of the Mexican people (as opposed to being for any form of economic benefit to himself), this presents the reader with Rand's idea that the wealthy benefit all of society with their wealth, and deserve to be wealthy. Call it cynicism, call it pessimism, but I like to call it realism when I say that it is unrealistic to believe that a wealthy individual in a capitalist culture would act outside of self-interest, or rather that they would build a train line in another country simply for the good of its people.
Rand goes on to create scenarios in which she can show how harmful to society economic government intervention is, or at least how harmful she thinks it is. She gives the reader an unbiased scenario to see her point when she introduces a politically-related conflict around the "Anti-dog-eat-dog Rule". Obviously I am being sarcastic, but in all seriousness her lack of subtly bothers me. If I try to read her work ignoring what I know of her philosophy, I am able to accept even the moments of blatant propaganda as well-written, but alas, the curse of knowledge. In all honesty I was impressed with the way in which this emotionless world was presented, I felt as though this objective bottom-line culture was a subtle way that Rand incorporated her ideology, I still believe this. However, the more I read the more I notice the world Rand has created being used to amplify other metaphors. As much as I hate it's use, I do still have to commend Rand on how she created this world that presents her objectivism in the background while the characters act within it. However, I do have to point out that this world is entirely alien to anybody not suffering from some sort of extreme disorder, which means the ideas that she supports using the world as a lens are not necessarily true in reality. I know that point is basically irrelevant but I can only talk about Atlas Shrugged for so long before pointing out flaws in her argument.
I want to end this with something positive simply because I am not reading this book begrudgingly, I do really enjoy Ayn Rand as a writing, which again is a pleasant surprise. It is only when I think about what I am reading and when I feel the need to argue with the novel that my enjoyment is interrupted, but I want to emphasize that this is in no way due to the story or writing style, but because I know what certain things are supposed to communicate and in some cases how lacking in subtly they are. So I am at a point of internal conflict- I am really enjoying Atlas Shrugged as a book, but thinking about it makes me feel guilty to enjoy it.
No comments:
Post a Comment