I have been enjoying Atlas Shrugged, I really have. I enjoy the story that Ayn Rand has been weaving. I like how all the recurring characters are given a sort of humanizing background story at some point, I like how all the characters we are meant to like are faced with the various symbols that confront them, and I really like the John Galt/questioning reality sub-plot. But I hate that in all the background stories are depressing, is NO ONE allowed to be happy in the world of Ayn Rand? Does Rearden NEED to have a family that tortures him daily? Does Jim need to be in a depressing emotionless relationship where even the sex isn't worth having? Worst of all, can Dagny not have an ounce of normal human characteristics? When I began reading the chapter entirely comprised of Dagny's past, I was really looking forward to the moment where she shows that at one point there was at least one normal thing about her, and that romantic moment with Francisco where he promises to always wait for her was so close to being it, but no- Dagny is an objectivist first, human second. This hurts me the most because Dagny may very well be my favorite character, and it brings me to tears to think that she's just one of Rand's one-sided arguments.
Furthermore, does everything and everyone have to be a symbol? Is that necessary? And are we only allowed to like objectivist characters? I know this book is basically propaganda, but it has gotten to the point where if two pages go by and I cannot identify an objectivist argument I feel as though I must have missed something, and I go back and read them again. Do not take this the wrong way, I do enjoy the way in which Rearden deals with Dr. Potter, but not once did I find myself admiring Potter, the entire scene was one-sided (like all the other scenes). Potter was, and was meant to be, a bumbling idiot repeating the same ideas, avoiding the same questions, and drilling towards the same points. I cannot emphasize enough how much I enjoyed Rearden in that scene, I just wish it had not been so blatantly a villainization of government intervention.
Now for the real problem- my real problem with the book: I like the "John Galt" sub-plot way too much. I do not mean this comedically, nor am I trying to commend Rand on creating such a fascinating story behind the main story, I do indeed mean to say that it is a problem that I enjoy it so much. I am inclined to argue that the sub-plot would be far worse if it were brought more to the forefront, that it is better having hints of it appear every so often, but it is a problem when I am hoping that every main story event will at some point digress into the sub-story. I adore this sense that everything is not what it seems- that reality is broken or being tampered with- the whole ordeal with Richard Halley's fifth concerto had me more excited than any other plot point in the story, except perhaps the diner scene. A scene which, thankfully, will bring me back on track to my main point. When the identity of John Galt was being declared (I am well aware that this may not actually be his identity) I was on the edge of my seat, I could not wait for another development in the storyline, especially if it was about the actual John Galt. When he was identified as an explorer, I was a bit disappointed, I was expecting more, but I accepted it and continued eagerly. However, the idea that he found the fountain of youth after all his hard work and years striving for his goal, he was disappointed to find he could not bring the fountain back to man is.... well.... it seems to be an objectivist metaphor. Maybe I am reading too much into this because, well, I have been reading Ayn Rand for two weeks, or maybe I am right because, well, it is an Ayn Rand novel. Regardless, the idea that this successful hardworker achieved success and then was unable to share it with those who arguably did not deserve it is objectivist, except the objectivist believes it is possible to do so, but that it would be wrong. This leads me to two conclusions: Either the metaphor means to say that it would be catastrophic if this sort of sharing were to occur, or, given the fact that both worked hard for ten years to achieve this greatness, it is a metaphor for Rearden. Yes, maybe this is foreshadowing of some sort, maybe the government might actually beat Rearden. No. It won't. This is an Ayn Rand novel, the objectivist always beats the interventionist government, but we will see a lot of tears as they work against the evil socialist system.
To actually make my point instead of digressing once more, Rand has created a sub-plot that reminds me vaguely of The Matrix, but far more interesting. It is so interesting, in fact, that it leads me to lose interest in the main plot. I sincerely hope that this sub-plot does not turn out to be another objectivist metaphor because in the sea of metaphors, Rand has created one fantastic storyline and I need it to be good all the way through. That is my main problem. Not the lack of subtlety, or the ridiculousness of her arguments (which, of course, boil my blood), but the fact that she clearly can make a compelling story, and has done so, but has not made it the main focus of her ungodly long book, and waiting for her to continue this storyline gets kind of exhausting.
No comments:
Post a Comment