Home > The Book Page > Archives > 2007 > October > 24 > Entry
Going through an Ayn Rand phase
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Ayn Rand has worked her way back into a corner of the news lately, with the publication of Alan Greenspan’s new memoir, “The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World.” Greenspan was an acolyte to the author-philosopher back in the ’50s, before he was famous, let alone Federal Reserve chief, and he covers those years in his book.
Quick Cliff’s Notes for the unfamiliar: Ayn (rhymes with “fine”) Rand was a popular but controversial author whose two main novels, “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead,” put forth her philosophy of Objectivism, or putting the individual above all else. They are thick, didactic, preachy, pulpy, and the gateway to what we now call Libertarianism.
In the late ’90s, Random House ran a reader’s poll for best novel of the 20th century. “Atlas Shrugged” placed first. “The Fountainhead” placed second. Then again, “Battlefield Earth” by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, placed third, and “Ulysses” by James Joyce didn’t make the Top 10, so that tells you something about the poll. Namely, that her followers take her very seriously.
Greenspan’s memoir has revived interest in the “Ayn Rand phase” of the young, misunderstood intellectual. As Michael Kinsley put it in his review of Greenspan’s memoir in The New York Times Book Review: “Many young brainiacs of dorkish tendencies go through an Ayn Rand period.”
Much harsher is the equivalent passage from Andrew Ferguson, reviewing Greenspan’s book in The Weekly Standard. In the ’50s, when Greenspan hung out with Rand, Ferguson writes, “Her creepy philosophy of Objectivism, placing the self at the center of the moral universe, was being enthusiastically embraced, as it still is, by tens of thousands of pimply teenage boys in the dreamy moments between fits of social insecurity and furious bouts of masturbation.”
Whoa, Andrew. Wipe down the computer keys and listen up: Lots of misunderstood intellectual teenage girls also dig Rand.
Not everyone outgrows Rand, but most people seem to. I’m interested in hearing from both groups. Did you go through an Ayn Rand phase? Are you still in it? What about her books? How do they stand the test of time?
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By scv
October 24, 2007 7:23 AM | Link to this
I got into reading some of her books a few years after college. My English major husband had them in the house. Though I don’t agree with objectivism, I really enjoy her writing style. When our son was 3, he somehow became fixated on The Fountainhead, maybe because of the picture on the cover, and he’d pull it down from the bookcase and “read” it by flipping through every page. So, I guess that was his Ayn Rand phase.
By Jmarsh
October 24, 2007 7:38 AM | Link to this
Six statements in seven paragraphs insult the intelligence or maturity of readers, or of her writing.
Reading Rand isn’t a phase, it’s like a gateway drug. It makes people question the involvement of government at every level, which makes people like the New York Times uncomfortable. Individual freedom, and living for ones’ self is a laudable standard.
By Scooter
October 24, 2007 8:04 AM | Link to this
Well Mr. Kloer seems to be comparing individualism to a childish whim that is outgrown. Maybe that is the case, but I think as we grow and are forced to deal with bloated government bureaucracies we begin to realize government really isn’t good at much of anything and efficient at even less. The founding fathers gave the power to the individual and minimized the powers of government over those individuals because the feared tyrannies.
Simple question is; do you choose to subject society to the individual? Or, do you choose to subject the individual to society?
Collectitivist dependency pimp, or individual achiever? When do we begin calling our country Mother America?
By jbmlaw
October 24, 2007 8:15 AM | Link to this
I think I disagree with Phil. I have never met anyone who “outgrew” Rand. I think many of us eventually disagree with one argument or another, but I have never known anyone who was able to disregard the core argument against Leviathan.
By Producer
October 24, 2007 8:28 AM | Link to this
More power to Rand’s way of thinking. The collectivist/socialist mentality has given us the nanny state where those who actually produce and take care of themselves and their families are taxed to the breaking point to support those who chose not to. It’s sickening and immoral. The result has been the dismantling of the family unit because both parents have to work to pay for the freeloaders. Bring back Ayn’s philosophy with a vengeance.
By Georgia Librarian
October 24, 2007 8:37 AM | Link to this
One thing that not a lot of people know about Rand is that she spent much of her youth in Soviet Russia, so such a complete backlash against Communist political thught is understandable. Although I have not read anything of hers but Anthem (an omission I think I’ll need to correct)her philosophy takes the laudable idea of libertarianism to an extreme with which most people are uncomfortable. It is basically sound, though, and has its roots in the solidly American ideal of individual freedom. My teenage daughter read Anthem last year and loved it so much she called herself Gaea ( one of the main characters)for a while. I recommemd this one if you want a taste of Rand’s ideas without committing to dense tomes like her more famous novels.
By Jeff
October 24, 2007 8:38 AM | Link to this
Phil:
First, let me openly acknowledge that I have yet to read Rand.
Now, let me state that I believe that rather than something that is “outgrown”, I believe Rand’s philosophies are something that are grown into.
I offer myself has a prime example. At 18 years of age, I was a solid neo-con. Had I remained that way, even to this day I would support Bush’s every breath.
Instead, I began to question my environment and look at things with a more open mind. In other words, I began to grow.
And that growth has led me to a point where I now am a STRONG supporter of both Individual Liberty and Personal Responsibility. In other words, a pretty solid Libertarian. After all, there are REASONS I have such a vocal supporter of Dr. Ron Paul for President of the United States.
Now, as I said, I have not yet read Rand myself. These were philosophies that I developed through my own realizations about the world and through my own logic.
Therefore, I hold that the philosophies of Rand are grown INTO, but only if one has a truly open mind not clouded by ANY ideology.
By Thrash
October 24, 2007 8:39 AM | Link to this
Rand should be required reading for anyone reaching the voting age.
By Jeff
October 24, 2007 8:51 AM | Link to this
OK, so I’m actually reading a free online copy of Anthem.
I’m maybe 2 pages in (it is a straight text file, hence the approximation), and already I can see that her philosophies and my own appear to be fairly in line.
Unfortunately, I can also see that this may be as difficult reading as The Road!
But I’m gonna stick through it!
By Jane
October 24, 2007 8:55 AM | Link to this
I started reading Ayn Rand in college and found her philosophy unique. I agree with some of her points but not others.
It gave me a different prospective - a way to think outside the norm. After reading Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead; I did go on to read some more of her work. After each book that I read I had a broader understanding of her viewpoint and a more valid means to become an “independent thinker”.
Simply reading the books did not lead me to embrase all of her philosophies—but I did gain a better understanding and a broader range of thought.
By Jane
October 24, 2007 8:59 AM | Link to this
Jeff: The first chapter of her books are hard to get through - however, after that they flow and are very easy to read.
By Jane
October 24, 2007 9:02 AM | Link to this
Others I have read are:
The Virtue of Selfishness
The Romantic Manifesto
We the Living
All of which I recommend.
By Magenta
October 24, 2007 9:12 AM | Link to this
Rand herself is fascinating. Anyone who likes to delve into the motivation behind an author’s work would do well to check out her biography. This was someone who saw the concrete effects of Communism, up-close and personal, during the Russian Revolution of 1917. Her family lost nearly everything and barely escaped with their lives. It is little wonder that she would see any social initiative in her adopted land as a slide toward that ideology she so dreaded.
Rand was a supremely flawed individual, from her polyamorous lifestyle to the chain-smoking that led to her death from a heart attack in the early 1980s. But her work is always thought-provoking and deserves to be in those top-10 lists.
By DasVeenys (call me Dagny)
October 24, 2007 9:13 AM | Link to this
I was introduced to the Ms.Rand’s philosophies by a ex-boyfriend i absolutely adored. at first her writings (anthem) were too much for me to grasp. but he also had her speeches on tape, and as i sat and listened to her, i better understood what at the time i thought was just her opinion on things. he gave me some of her short stories to read next. that helped me see her opinion in action and i realized that it was a philosophy, a way and an approach. he saved the best for last: fountain and atlas.
whenever i am insecure or apprehensive, i remember the question at the heart at every matter: who is john galt?
i agree with jeff who has just begun his rand journey: it is something you grow into and with jbmlaw because there is always something apropo found in her philosophy, at least for me.
By Jeff
October 24, 2007 9:18 AM | Link to this
From Anthem:
It was not that the learning was too hard for us. It was that the learning was too easy. This is a great sin, to be born with a head which is too quick. It is not good to be different from our brothers, but it is evil to be superior to them. The Teachers told us so, and they frowned when they looked upon us.
Can anyone see the correlation here with NCLB and gifted students??? As a TRULY “gifted” student (one identified before the watering down that was done starting in the Clinton era), I certainly can.
By Truth
October 24, 2007 9:18 AM | Link to this
I strongly agree with Rand’s position that the individual is more important than the state, and how the state saps the individual by suffocating restrictions, also portrayed by Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron.
Where I disagree with Rand is that the self is ALL-important. Her heroes are quite cold and bereft of any sympathy towards people who have not been fortunate in their lives.
That being said, her writing style is beautiful and her stories are epic.
By Homer
October 24, 2007 9:20 AM | Link to this
jane, who are you kidding? the first three hundred pages of atlas bored me to tears. rand is so repettitive, she hits her audience over the head with a hammer to ensure they get her point. how can you miss it? you’ve laid it out a hundred times over 1200 pages. that being said, i do appreciate her philosophy of objectivism.
and anthem is very low on the dystopian novel scale, lags far behind 1984, We, Handmaid’s tale, etc.
By Jack
October 24, 2007 9:26 AM | Link to this
I read all of her books in college and was quite taken with her independent thought. Her strength was seeing the power of the individual. In many ways, a few individuals provide so many things for the rest of us (Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, etc.)
But unfortunately, her weakness (demonstrated by many who responded on this blog) is that she fails to see that like it or not, we are all connected (a society). And a group must have a way of making decisions and implementing those decisions (that thing called government).
The reader who implied we have become a nanny state where we overtax the producers is living in dreamland. The rich pay a VERY small amount of their income in tax. Most very wealthy people pay only 5-7 percent of their annual income in tax. George W. Bush only paid 10 percent in the year 2000 (on an income of $1.5 million). Compare this to many in the middle class who pay 30 percent or more.
So Rand’s charge that we “milk” the producers is nonsense. What we have is young American’s dying in wars so the rich can keep making millions. Can you say Carlyle Group, Mr. Robinson?
Has America really held back Gates (richest man in the world) or Buffett or Trump or Turner? Our society provides an environment where producers are vastly rewarded for their contributions.
Libertarianism is as much of a fantasy as Communism once was.
It is difficult for small minds to keep two thoughts in their head at once but: Individuals contribute to the whole; the whole contributes to individuals.
We are all in this together. Like it or not.
By JohnB
October 24, 2007 9:29 AM | Link to this
I was given a copy of “Atlas Shrugged” 44 years ago when I was a junior in college and Rand’s ideas have guided and inspired me for a lifetime. I am a college professor and it’s personally insulting to me when reviewers imply that Rand can only be taken seriously by nerds and unsophisticated youths. In this regard, the puerile jabs of writers such as Andrew Ferguson are ironic.
By ew
October 24, 2007 9:32 AM | Link to this
I’m glad to see Ayn Rand’s books & philosophy getting some mainstream attention. More people might question the status quo — bureaucratic gov’t bloat, being taxed into submission, loss of privacy, etc.
I read most of Rand’s fiction for the first time, as an adult, last year and discovered Objectivism is very close to my personal philosophy. Her books are didactic but worth wading through and enduring.
By wHAAAT
October 24, 2007 9:37 AM | Link to this
I certainly went through a time when I was enamored Rand and objectivism. It was far superior to the collectivist nonsense that schools were teaching and that were the norm in 1973. (Remember Carter’s malaise and his Mr. Rogers cardigan wrapped close?) Rand was a breath of fresh air. Eventually I backed off of Rand because her relentless selfishness did not nourish my soul. It was as though I were forced to choose between two soul sucking philosophies, one of which “worked” much better than the other. As we grow older, make a few mistakes and see those around us err also, we become more tolerant and hopefully kinder toward those who are not as successful in one dimension or another of the life we lead together. When that happens we give up our objectivism. Objectivism helped me wean from the cruelty of the collective world around me. It helped me see the importance of individual choice and freedom. Collectivists are, statistically speaking, tightwads personally. They are glad for the state to help others but don’t give their own money. Hypocrites. Yes it was a “phase” as you call it, but an important one. Rand’s ideas were ultimately unsatisfying for me but were a key catalyst for my journey.
By Thogwummpy
October 24, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this
There’s a reason that Neo-libs despise Rand. Sallust (Roman Historian, 84 BCE-36 BCE) said that “To someone seeking power, the poorest man is the most useful.” Thusly, the collectivist never grasps that he’s merely a cog in the nefarious appetite the Left has for power. As such, the perpetual malcontent will quote lyrics of their folksy complain music as if it’s gospel. And they miss the very central theme of life: YOU HAVE ONE LIFE, ONE OPPORTUNITY TO RIGHTFULLY PERSUE YOUR POTENTIAL—-and no “village” has the authority of ownership over your enterprise [when one’s achievement is owned by the collective, the individual by definition is a slave].
By Jmarsh
October 24, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this
Bastiat’s “The Law” would be a useful read for anyone that hasn’t read Rand, or still buys into government supremacy over the individual.
By Benevolus
October 24, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this
Ideas matter. Ayn Rand developed the philosophy of objectivism. The premise of objectivism is that the proper moral purpose of our life is the purusuit of our own happines or “rational self-interest.” This philosophy is responsible for much of societies ills today.
Playing this philosophy out to the political ends of libertarianism is very appealing to many people due to the invasivness of our government and it’s out of control growth.
I agree that our governemnt is bloated and out of control, but I think the philosophy of sphere sovereignty developed by Abraham Kuyper better explains why we are in the state we are in. Sphere soverignty outlines that society works best when government stays within it’s proper sphere instead of infrining on the other spheres (family,economics,religion,education,etc…).
Ayn Rand was a thought provoking author and philosopher that everyone should read, just don’t stop there….
By Phil Kloer
October 24, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this
I am fine with people debating Rand’s philosophy and certainly don’t want to cut that off. But I’m more interested in how people react to her novels as novels. Has anyone actually read, or re-read, “Atlas Shrugged” all the way through as an adult?
When I was in high school and college, I worshipped Rand and read everything, and I mean everything, she wrote. I thought “Atlas Shrugged” rocked. I thought Dagny Taggart was hot. Several years ago, I don’t remember exactly when but I was probably somewhere in my 40s, I decided to read it again, just to see. At first it was cool to re-connect to that simple world of good and evil that had appealed to the younger me. But as I read on, “Atlas” got more repetitive and less interesting. She has the style of a blacksmith, and has one main point (with, admittedly, a multitude of corollaries) that she makes over and over.
I don’t reject Objectivism completely. Some of what Rand says is true. But I’m interested in anyone who’d like to defend “Atlas” as a novel.
By Mike B
October 24, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this
Ayn Rands philosophy has move beyond the fantasy phase for nerdy males. Look at the strength of Ron Pauls campaign. Many will be astonished at the impact Libertarian thought will have in the Presidential dialog. Many are gravitating to this philosophy of Individualism because faith in the Governmental monolith is all but gone. Wake up. This is an earthquake about to erupt. Old patterns of thought are about to disappear. Sanctioning of the Victim will end. We will taste freedom again.
By Jmarsh
October 24, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this
When I gave my sister The Fountainhead for her graduation: I advised her to re-read it every five years. As you gain more experience in life, different meanings and insights pop out and become their own little epiphanies.
Hopefully leading her down the economic libertarian path, of course!
By Ayn Rand
October 24, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this
I’m Ayn Rand and I am getting a kick out of the comments on this thread.
Boy, do I have you all fooled! I’m a total hack. I am a self-absorbed misogynist. In truth, I wish I was born a man. My life would have had so much more meaning.
I can’t believe you all buy my total b.s. ideas and my utterly stupefying writing. Oh, man, I wish I was still alive today so I could spend all that money I am making off you people.
Of course, why bite the hand that feeds? At least you people are reading and thinking for yourselves. That alone makes it all worth while.
See you in hell!
Love, Ayn Rand
By DB
October 24, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this
My mother once told me that she almost named me Dagny, after reading “Atlas Shrugged”. Luckily, cooler heads prevailed :-), but it certainly made me curious about a book that made such an impression on her that she was willing to name her first-born daughter after the main character!
So, yes, I have read “Atlas Shrugged” (twice — wasn’t sure I understood it the first time), as a young adult in the 70’s, and again about 15 years ago. And “The Fountainhead”. And “We The Living”. I don’t pretend to be an Ayn Rand expert, but I have to admit that, somewhere in the very long soliloquies, there was a certain degree of reassurance and excitement that yes, being an individual responsible for your own destiny mattered, that it’s ok to trust your own instincts and go counter-flow, even when everyone around you has embraced the newest “all together, now!” philosophy. I can’t imagine that it would appeal too much to those who are basically “kum-ba-yah” chanters, those who will water down any set of convictions to make them palatable to the widest possible audience (popularity contest?). But it was certainly an eye-opener for someone who had had a liberal university education, and challenged some rather wavery “let’s do good” leanings. :-)
By PC
October 24, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this
As far as writing style, I thought that Atlas and Fountainhead were the same book. Same characters, same plot, same misogyny. The female character is always strong and independent until she meets the man. Then she gives up her future because his is so much more worthwhile. Poppycock. I read them both as an adult woman and was turned off by this view and the view that one person (male) is more important than others. The idea that gov’t should not supercede the individual, true enough. That a man should supercede a woman, not a chance.
By Jonny
October 24, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this
Ayn Rand is a gateway drug for many. My Any Rand phase is long over now (and I know many women that had one too) but many of the values and ideas introduced by her writings are still with me today, though greatly modified in some cases. I find it interesting that so many merely have a Rand phase. What is it about her writing that we don’t remain as fervent about her writing much past 25?
By Percuriam
October 24, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this
PC: It has been a while since I read Rand, and I agree with you that the two books were similar. But in her books, I thought the point of the woman giving herself to the male was, in her mind, a way to dominate or be superior to him.
By Tom
October 24, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this
Since I just came across this blog, I had to state this opinion. I am a college student and recently finished a six week summer English course that had us read “The Fountainhead.” I found it to be the most boring book I have ever had the displeasure of reading. First, I think it was much too long a book to read in a six week course. Second, I just don’t like to read. I got nothing out of it. Partly because it was so long, I had to read the cliff notes online because I didn’t have time to read the entire book, nor did I have the faintest desire too. Wheeww! just had to get that off my chest. Thanks! :)
By PC
October 24, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this
Percuriam: Interesting way to look at it. I dont see how one can dominate or be superior to someone who would hold your fate in their hands. I think also her ideal of a man is someone who would also end up imposing himself on the autonomy of others for his gain.
By Greg
October 24, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this
Yes, I went through the AR phase in college and law school, and it has a powerful attraction to a young, intelligent and ambitious mind. However, in an increasingly overburdened world, this self-centered philosophy is much more the problem than the solution. Everyone should strive to achieve his maximum potential, but not to exclusion and extinction of everyone and everything around him. I think that moderation in thought and action comes with maturity. Take whatever good ideas you can from AR, but temper them with reality and dismiss the rest.
By RonS
October 24, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this
I don’t know why Random House hasn’t retracted and buried that awful poll since it only reflects badly on them. It was an online poll with few, if any, controls against multiple voting, and a number of groups engaged in heavy vote-spamming, including the Scientologists and Rand fans.
By DB
October 24, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this
Tom: Are you serious, in that, as a college student, it took you almost six weeks to read a 700+ page book? Good grief.
By Shaitan
October 26, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this
Jack:
Your figures do not reflect the era in which she wrote her books. Tax rates then were as high as 90% for the richest. The Beatles paid 95%.
These days of course the richest are merely overregulated, while the tax burden falls on debt to be paid by the future and much of the middle class.
And I think you need to read a bit more carefully before stating Rand totally dicarded the idea of social cooperation (in order to do that, she would have to NOT HAVE a political portion to her philosophy). She simply did not make it the standard of value.
By Shaitan
October 26, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this
Jack:
Your figures do not reflect the era in which she wrote her books. Tax rates then were as high as 90% for the richest. The Beatles paid 95%.
These days of course the richest are merely overregulated, while the tax burden falls on debt to be paid by the future and much of the middle class.
And I think you need to read a bit more carefully before stating Rand totally dicarded the idea of social cooperation (in order to do that, she would have to NOT HAVE a political portion to her philosophy). She simply did not make it the standard of value.
By Harry Binswanger
October 28, 2007 4:12 PM | Link to this
The very different emotional responses to Ayn Rand’s novels expressed in people’s comments are themselves a validation of her Objectivist esthetics: one responds to art based on one’s deepest view of oneself and life’s possibilities.
I have to assume that people like “Tom” really were bored by The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. To me, and millions of other readers, the novels are thrilling. When I read Atlas the first time I experienced deep emotions that I had probably never experienced before. It was a life-changing experience. That was in 1962. I read it for the 9th time last year. I’ve based not only my outlook but also my career (I’m a professor of philosophy) on Ayn Rand’s ideas. I was also, late in her life, a close friend of Ayn Rand. I found her to be exactly like her fictional heroes—rational, passionate about her values, and uncompromising. She was also warm, generous, witty, and always, well, objective (vs. the aspersions cast on her by some).
By the way, Atlas is not really about politics but basic philosophy. Its theme is, in her own formulation, “the role of the mind in man’s existence.” It dramatizes how reason is man’s means of survival, and how the morality of self-sacrifice is not only anti-self but anti-mind. The politics (of absolute individual rights) is only the consequence of the deeper philosophy.
Incidentally, a Journal-Constitution reporter and music reviewer, the late Jerry Schwartz, was also a dedicated Objectivist.