Use of fiction by Ayn Rand

National Review ^ | 1957 | Whittaker Chambers

[Rob Larrikin]

Lefties commonly say there is something wrong with Rand’s use of fiction as a vehicle for Objectivist beliefs. In a 1957 review of ‘Atlas Shrugged’, Whittaker Chambers, who had no idea how successful Atlas Shrugged would be, said, “The mischief here is that the author, dodging into fiction, nevertheless counts on your reading it as political reality.” Lefties have been using that same approach ever since. Using fiction is ‘mischief’ and ‘dodging’.

Rand was trying to make an otherwise dull subject interesting, and she also wanted to show what might happen in a world where businessmen really did go on strike. Since that hasn’t happened, it would need to be fiction. Duhh...

Rob Larrikin

[Billthedrill]

Except promiscuity and arrogance.

Now that is a very interesting point. I don't think Rand regarded either trait as a flaw, actually - the promiscuity in particular was a rejection of conventional sexual morality roughly a decade before it became fashionable that she very much shared and acted upon. It wasn't one of her more endearing personal characteristics.

As far as arrogance goes I'm also inclined to agree. But what need does a person who is perfect have of humility?

[Rob Larrikin]

'The last time I checked, Whittaker Chambers wasn't exactly a "leftie."'

I said, "Lefties have been using that same approach ever since."

[ModelBreaker]

But what need does a person who is perfect have of humility?

The only perfect man was also the most humble.

The more one has in the way of brains, good looks, drive, money etc, the more desperately one needs humility and the more difficult it is to have. And at that point, it becomes difficult not to have pride in one's humility.

[bruinbirdman]

"The real world isn't actually much like that as I see it, and because of that we are unlikely to see the series of events she postulated"

That's why they call it fiction. 1984 didn't describe the real world either but the overall theme sure had a touch of reality. Sometimes it takes a tome to make a point or two. It is not often that one can engage someone in a four or ten hour political discussion and keep their interest while they don't even know its political. Rand uses the correct device. She grew up in pre-revolution and revolution St. Petersburg. She knew of that which she spoke.

Who are the great political fiction writers today? Did Ayn Rand truly begin the great conservative movement or was it Buckley?

yitbos

[tpaine]

You want an erudite, in-depth commentary on Whitaker Chambers' review?


Al Barger wrote this critique of Chambers review:


"--- Ayn Rand heartily alienated most intellectuals of her era- left, right and center.

Even today, the mere mention of her name brings a vicious snarl to the lips of many people.

Partly, this was because she was a genius, and her work made irredeemable confetti of a lot of little worldviews.

All of Marx's horses and all his lame professors couldn't put socialist or altruist philosophy together again after Ayn.

So, some of this alienating couldn't be helped. On the other hand, partly she was often, not to put too fine a point on it, a bitch. To be fair, she went spoiling for fights, let us say.
She is often described as a figure of the right, but the accuracy of that very much depends on exactly what part of "right" you mean. In fact, she was just about as unpopular among many conservatives, especially because of her extremely staunch atheism - which she insisted on as a bedrock of her philosophy.

Rand's most famous and specific break with the right wing came in the form of an infamous contemporary 1957 National Review book review for her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged.

It may be infamous, but for a mere book review to be noteworthy enough to be infamous is some literary achievement. In celebration of the 50th anniversary of the magazine, they now have this famous article on their website. "Big Sister Is Watching You" by Whittaker Chambers.

Whittaker Chambers was an ex-communist who had turned to become a religious conservative, famous as the main witness against Alger Hiss, and a hero among conservatives in a way that only a convert can be.

This apparently got him the deference to use the pages and prestige of Bill Buckley's magazine to write perhaps the most malicious and carefully dishonest hatchet job I've ever seen published as a "book review."

For a beginning hint of the dishonesty, he made a big point of dismissing the book as a silly trifle, hardly worth mentioning except that it seemed to be selling well. Then he spent 2700 words carefully taking the book apart as literature, and making a particularly malicious and slanderous conclusion.

For starters, he spent a few hundred words saying that the book was nearly worthless as a fictional story. Ayn Rand was, in fact, a very effective dramatist and writer, even if you didn't like much of the message. She had skills. You could argue about aspects of her approach that you find inadequate, but to pretend that she was a crappy writer with few redeeming features seems extremely hard to justify objectively, let us say.

But then he got to the meat of it, the party purging. He absolutely made her out to be a Nazi. "From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: 'To a gas chamber; go!'"

This infamous money quote of the piece has been quite justifiably cited for years by Rand supporters as the textbook example of the dishonesty of her critics.

For starters, the factual wrongness of this review is breathtaking. A big part of the point of her work was to denounce communism and fascism, and to dissect the philosophical underpinnings that enabled their monstrosities.

On top of which, Ayn Rand was originally a Russian Jew who famously fled the budding Soviet Union. For this ex-commie Chambers to be so speaking of this Jewish survivor of the Soviet holocaust is somewhere beyond words in its offensiveness.

Now, Chambers was a clever little dirtbag, so he whipped up a bunch of words that at least sounded like coherent sentences to make his point.
Yet all those fancy words were just dressing up a cheap shot.

The basis of his accusation that Rand was a fascist dictator in waiting ultimately was simply that ALL atheists are ultimately fascist. He slightly camouflaged such a ridiculous statement by using the word "materialist" rather than simply atheist, which is what he meant.
The point of this was the weak old theistic warhorse that some God is supposedly the only possible source of morals or values.

If you don't believe in God, then it's grab what you can and screw all else.
Besides being a hugely unjustifiable leap logically, it is also a ridiculously broad and sweeping statement. Moreover, he's making this same cheap argument directly in the face of Rand having gone into great ridiculous detail to explain exactly how else values and morals might be defined.

Indeed, one of the biggest complaints against her, and against this novel in particular is exactly the overly excruciating repetition of just such details. Nor did his description fit any of her heroes.

In truth, Chambers appears not so much to have been writing a book review, but attempting a party purge - an instinct no doubt left over from his commie days. He seems to have been somewhat successful in that. Ayn certainly never had any association with anybody in the National Review orbit.

In a social encounter, Ayn once said to William F Buckley, "You're too smart to believe in God." For his part then, Buckley has apparently carefully made a point of never reading this obviously important book. For a man in his position, this constitutes a willful dereliction of duty. He knew better than this nonsense. ----"

- Al Barger -

[Rob Larrikin]

"Two words: Farenheit 9/11."

I think Moore made his mocumentary using a collection of truths, mistruths, and cunning lies. He would say, "A = B because [insert lie here]."
Rand was saying, "A is not B," and provided a 'for example' in the form of fiction.

[phoenix0468]

What about Catch 21? The book that spawned a dozen assassinations. Hah!

[Rob Larrikin]

"Thanks for the vanity, Rob. What an erudite, in-depth commentary on Whitaker Chambers' review of Ayn Rand's masterpiece 'Atlas Shrugged'. The tightly knotted complexity of Chambers' carefully constructed review questioning Rand's merits as a novelist and thinker were simply cut away to nothing by the forceful--even Alexandrian-- simplicity of your deceptively plainspoken counterargument. The mind simply boggles."

Translation: You should use avoidable word baggage to counter an incorrect view.

I disagree.

[B-Chan]

The best use of Ayn Rand's writings — fiction or not — is as a sleep aid. "WARNING: Do not read The Fountainhead while operating heavy machinery."

[Rembrandt]

"Can't believe the book is 40 years old already. Rand was way ahead of her time."

Yes, 40 years old, but still contemporary. As long as we have a party which wants to tax and spend, redistribute income from the have's to the have nots (vote buying), Atlas Shrugged will continue to be contemporary.

I'm luck, I'm retired now and I CAN choose to leave this country/economy if the Wicked Witch of Chappaqua makes it and I CAN stay away for her one term before the people are absolutely outraged and tar and feather her, sending her and the perp to oblivion.

[Rob Larrikin]

Excellent read, tpaine. Thanks.

[OwenKellogg]

Who is Ayn Rand and why should I care?

[KarlInOhio]

Personally I thought it a very enjoyable novel if far too long and in spots impossibly repetitive.

I have a theory that Rand considered editors the be the "looters and moochers" of the publishing world and wouldn't let one touch her magnum opus no matter how much it needed it.

[GaltMeister]

I discovered it when I was 15. For about a year, it seemed like the most important thing ever written. But that speech by John Galt at the end. Snooooooooze . . . .

I agree, in a sense. Read the novel, then read Galt's speech by itself, and it makes more sense. I have always thought that Ayn got kinda long winded with the Galt speech, but in and of itself, it is good, but you have to have the pretext of the novel before it to really appreciate it.

I will agree that it is mighty long, and tends to make the same points over and over.

To read the Galt manifesto without the novel would probably make no sense, but to put the book down when the speech starts and make it a read on it's own (it is!) a day or few later, and it is easier to swallow.

[Rob Larrikin]

“The best use of Ayn Rand's writings — fiction or not — is as a sleep aid. "WARNING: Do not read The Fountainhead while operating heavy machinery."

Another sleep inducer is Brian Greene’s “The Fabric Of The Cosmos.”

I’m glad we don’t judge ideas by how well they put you to sleep. Where would Einstein be if we did?

[Rembrandt]

As any Marine will tell you, there is no such animal as an "ex-Marine."

Likewise, there are no ex-Communists and there are no ex-Socialists. Just examine the Clinton family for proof of that.

[Rob Larrikin]

“Who is Ayn Rand and why should I care?”

http://www.answers.com/Ayn%20Rand

Our socialistic world needs Rand like a desert needs water. Unless you prefer larrikinism, but a lot of it was inspired by Rand.

[Billthedrill]

I think you might be right. An editor would have to have brass gonads to pull it off but the novel would have been better for a good deal of pruning.

Here's what I mean, and Rand fans, forgive me, but it's a case in point. The scene where the steam locomotive goes through the tunnel carrying its passengers to their deaths was a metaphor so perfect other authors would kill to have thought of it. It was what happens (and her case is that it's a metaphor for an entire society) when the less capable expropriate the efforts of others and think that they know their proper employment. But she couldn't let the art stand on its own - for passenger after passenger she drives home the specific philosophical mistake that caused him or her to die, hammering the point so deep into the ground that the reader can hardly see it from there anymore. Surely anyone who had paid attention up to then would have figured it out? That's why you trouble to use a metaphor in the first place.

A good literary editor would have cut and polished that gem had she allowed it. That's what you pay them for. And that's what I mean when I say that it's difficult to mix fiction with polemic. Perhaps that's true of all art. It certainly explains why there's so little of the good stuff around these days.

[tpaine]

-- there are no ex-Communists and there are no ex-Socialists. Just examine the Clinton family for proof of that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I've been trying to make that point about Chambers over on the other thread [link below], -- with little success..

He has many die hard fans on FR, for some unknown reason.


Big Sister is Watching You (review of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged")
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1710730/posts

[gigster]

Four Words. Who is John Galt?