When I told my friend John that I was
going to do a post on Ayn Rand, he immediately denounced her “hideous
right-wing ideology” that opposed government intervention and would let
corporations do whatever they wanted.
Yes, she is controversial; if you know anything about her, you either
love her or hate her. But you don’t have
to love her, or even like her or agree with her, to call her remarkable; the
force of her ideas is enough. In
announcing a series of posts on Remarkable Women, I promised some luscious
subjects. But Ayn Rand is not
luscious. “Luscious” suggests ripe
fruit, sweet and succulent, with an enticing aroma that makes you want to gobble. That is not Ayn Rand. Her personality and her ideas are lean, hard,
angular, and dry. But they have left
their mark.
Beginnings
She was born Alisa Zinovyevna Rosebaum in
Saint Petersburg, Russia, in 1905, to Jewish parents. Her father, a successful pharmacist, was an
agnostic, her mother only nominally observant.
She taught herself to read at six, was writing from an early age. The Russian Revolution occurred when she was
twelve, inaugurating what she would later call “the stifling, sordid ugliness
of Soviet Russia.” Already harboring
notions of heroism and individualism, she knew that this was no place for her,
and when, in the early 1920s, she saw American movies with shots of the city of
New York, this alien city with clusters of tall buildings “seemed completely
incredible.” From then on, America
beckoned.
In 1926 she left, ostensibly to visit
relatives in Chicago and study the film industry, so she could return and work
in that same industry in Russia, but really with no intention of ever returning
to the land of Soviet collectivism. Here in the citadel of capitalism
– indeed, in the joyous tumult of the Roaring Twenties – Ayn Rand (such she now
christened herself, to protect her family back in Russia) found work in
Hollywood as an extra, then a screenwriter and a clerk in wardrobe. But these Hollywood years were a mere prelude
to her glory years in the Empire City, though they saw her marry a handsome
actor named Frank O’Connor and, in 1931, become a U.S. citizen.
In 1934 she and her husband moved to New
York City, to which she had always felt drawn.
There she had a play produced on Broadway, and a novel published, only
to go soon out of print. Promising
beginnings, but beginnings only. Then,
significantly, she began work on The
Fountainhead, the novel that would, in time, bring her recognition and success.
The Fountainhead
Published by Bobbs-Merrill in 1943, after
twelve other publishers rejected it, The Fountainhead, which the author would later describe as a mere overture to Atlas Shrugged, is, as overtures go, a pretty hefty bit of work; in my paperback edition it runs to 694 pages, and
believe me, those pages have small print.
But if one is going to read her – perhaps, as I did, to learn what all
the hullaballoo is about – this is the place to begin. I will only give a brief, rough sketch of it
here, since to do otherwise would swell this post to epic proportions.
Based in part on Frank Lloyd Wright, Howard
Roark, the architect hero, has an inner vision of his trade that goes against
the mainstream ideas of his time. Expelled
from his architecture school because of his nonconformist attitude, he in time
opens a firm of his own in New York and slowly, in spite of slander against
him, finds the rare clients who appreciate his talent and hire him for significant
projects. When he finds that the design
of one of his buildings has been altered in his absence, he dynamites the
building. At the trial that follows,
Roark speaks eloquently of the value of ego and the need to remain true to
oneself, and the jury acquits him. He
triumphs in the end, and even gets the girl in the story. The novel’s title comes from Roark’s
statement that “man’s ego is the fountainhead of human progress.”
By way of contrast Peter Keating, another
aspiring architect, wins initial success by catering to the wishes of others
and conforming to the beliefs of the establishment. His ruthless ambition causes him to
manipulate and abuse others; unlike Roark, he has no true inner vision, no
strong, determining self. In the end he
fails, knows himself to be utterly mediocre.
The
Fountainhead pits egoism, guided by mind, against what Rand calls
“second-handers,” those who are guided by the opinions of others. It is the egoists like Roark who do, think,
and produce; the world will be far better off if it lets them do their
thing. Roark is her first literary portrait
of the ideal man (her heroes are always men), the creative egoist.
I won’t deny that the novel – all 694
pages of it – is a good read, if one has a stomach for long and complicated
stories, with characters who are literary abstractions rather than portraits of
real flesh-and-blood people. Rand always
portrays ideal types, with all the simplifications required. Her heroes are rarely stricken with
self-doubt, any more than she herself was; they hold true through thick and
thin. But if you want powerful ideas
powerfully expressed, and writing that makes you think, then Ayn Rand is the author for you.
The
Fountainhead received mixed reviews.
The New York Times reviewer
called it “masterful,” whereas another reviewer declared that “anyone who is
taken in by it deserves a stern lecture on paper-rationing.” Offensive to some was a scene where Roark
forces himself sexually on the woman he eventually marries, Dominique. Feminists have called Rand a traitor to her sex in making her women characters subservient to men, though Rand denied
that the scene in question involved true rape, insisting that it was “rape by
engraved invitation,” since Dominique really wanted it to happen. Be that as it may, the novel sold well and by 1945 was on the New York Times bestseller
list, and it continues to sell well today.
In 1949 the film The Fountainhead was
released, starring Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal; inevitably, Rand disliked it.
And today?
Here is a sampling of reader reviews from Goodreads, the world’s largest
website for readers and their book reviews.
These are not the complete reviews, just brief selections from them.
· Ultimately it's
easy to see in novels like this one why Rand is so perfect for late teenagers,
but why she elicits eye rolls by one's mid-twenties; because Objectivism [Rand’s
philosophy] is all about BEING RIGHT, and DROPPING OUT IF OTHERS CAN'T
UNDERSTAND THAT, and LET 'EM ALL GO TO HELL AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, without
ever taking into account the unending amount of compromise and cooperation and
sometimes sheer altruism that actually makes the world work. Recommended, but
with a caveat; that you read it before you're old enough to know better.
· I'm far from a
Rand worshipper. I can't get onboard with her whole way of life, from the
personal to the political level. I will say, though, that I think her
attitudes, when applied to the creative arts, are important.
·
THIS HORROR STORY IS TO SCARY FOR ME IT HAS A CREEPY
GINGER KID AND HE RAPES ANN COULTER BECAUSE SHE WANTS HIM TO!!1! THEN THEY HAVE
A LOT OF TICKLE FIGHTS AND BUILD SUM HOUSES THATS ALL i REMEMBER.
·
As literature, I found the book dry, predictable, and
overwrought. As philosophy, I found it circular, wholly unfounded, and
completely contradicting reality.
· This book is a
big epiphany-getter in American high school and college students. It presents a
theme of pure, fierce dedication to honing yourself into a hard blade of
competence and accomplishment, brooking no compromise, ignoring and dismissing
the weak, untalented rabble and naysayers as you charge forth to seize your
destiny. You are an "Army of One". There is undeniable sophomoric allure
to this pitch.
Obviously, the novel is
still being read, and taken seriously enough to be praised – within limits – or
reviled. Of how many books published in
1943 can you say that today?
Atlas Shrugged
Who was the author who was
now achieving eminence? She was only 5
feet 4 in height, but to my eye, judging by the many photos of her, a handsome
woman in a mannish sort of way, devoid of frills and flounces. She kept her brown hair cut short, framing
her face, as if long hair down to the shoulders would have been too feminine,
too loose and free, too sensual. She
spoke with a Russian accent and had dark, penetrating eyes that lit up whenever
conversation turned to philosophy. Prizing
mind and its workings over everything, she gave little attention to clothes,
wore ready-to-wear outfits or casual ones thrown quickly together.
Believing strongly in her own ideas, she
was not one to tolerate fools, a category that for her included just about
anyone who disagreed with her. Ideas were to be either passionately embraced
or rejected with scorn; there was no middle way. Which explains why she exhibited extremes of
joy and anger, and why even favorable reviews of her work were apt to displease
her; few were those who, in her opinion, truly understood what she was trying
to say.
Those who have read The Fountainhead are inclined to feel that they have climbed a
mountain. But in the context of Rand’s
oeuvre, The Fountainhead is a
hillock; Atlas Shrugged is the
Matterhorn. Or maybe Mount Everest. And brave are those who venture on its
slopes.
The basic idea of this magnum opus (1,069
pages in my paperback edition) is simple:
What would happen if all the truly creative people went on strike
against a collectivist and overregulated society that refuses to recognize
their worth? What if, one by one, they
vanished mysteriously into a remote valley in the Rocky Mountains, leaving
society to the would-be altruists, to the bureaucrats and bumblers? The answer, of course, is that the industries
they run would collapse, followed by the government. And so it comes about in this novel. At the end John Galt, the leader of the
strike, announces that he and the other exiles will now reorganize the
world.
This, of course, is the barest outline of
the plot. When I read it – yes, all the
way to the bitter end – I made a list of no less than 29 recurring characters
in an attempt to keep them all straight.
Need I add that in my opinion the book is grossly overwritten, stating
and restating its ideas time after time.
When, near the end, John Galt delivers a long radio broadcast to expound
the author’s theme and philosophy – some 40 pages in this later edition,
reduced from the original 70 – I skipped it entirely and didn’t miss a thing.
The title comes from a passage in the
novel when one character asks another what he would say to Atlas, the giant who
holds the world on his shoulders, if he saw him with blood running down his
chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling, but still trying to hold up the
world, which bears down on him heavier all the time. When the second character doesn’t know, he
asks the questioner what he himself would tell Atlas. The answer: “To shrug.” Presumably, the creative people in the novel
are the atlases of this world, and by going on strike they shrug off the weight
of the world.
The world that Rand describes in her
novel, while set at an unspecified time, may seem quaint today, in that it
reflects a society where railroads, industry, and radio are prominent. I don’t blame her if she didn’t anticipate
the growing importance of air travel and television, much less computers and
the Internet. But her story is both anachronistic and timeless. Once again,
but more comprehensively, she expresses through her characters the concept of
ethical egoism, of rational selfishness, whereby human reason functions as
humanity’s basic tool of survival. There
is much else in the novel as well, but I can't discuss it all here.
Atlas
Shrugged was on the New York Times bestseller
list for 22 consecutive weeks, but it was assailed by critics generally. Catholics and religious conservatives
detested its atheism and egoism, while liberals denounced the glorification of
laissez-faire capitalism. “An homage to
greed,” “shot through with hatred,” “sophomoric,” and “godless” were among the
verdicts pronounced. And just about
every critic dismissed it as blatant propaganda. But her allies counterattacked, and the book
kept right on selling.
Again, let’s see what recent Goodreads
reviews have to say:
· Ayn Rand makes
my eyes hurt. She does this, not by the length of her six hundred thousand word
diatribe, but rather by the frequency with which she causes me to roll them.
· This book really
makes you take a good hard look at yourself and your behavior, which is why I
think a lot of people don't like this book. It's a lecture and most people
don't like to get lectured. I loved it. It gave me a good swift kick in the
ass.
·
As Ayn Rand's immortal opus, Atlas Shrugged, stands as
a tome to a philosophy that is relevant today as it was in her time. Basically,
the major moral theme is that there are two types of people in the world: the
Creators and the Leeches.
· The best way to
understand Rand's message in this book is to simply close it, and beat yourself
over the head with it as hard as possible. This is essentially what Rand does
throughout its ridiculous length.
Obviously, readers continue
to either love her work or hate it.
The Cult
In 1951 Ayn Rand and her husband moved
permanently to New York, where they lived for many years at 36 East 36th
Street. New York was the city she had
longed for ever since seeing glimpses of it in American movies in the 1920s,
yet she never really got to know it. She
never traipsed its sidewalks, talked to its residents, or immersed herself in
its diversity. Her New York was an
abstraction, a place where she could vent her ideas, and where her fictional
characters could interact and show her philosophy in action. Her writing and her ideas preoccupied her;
the juicy, gritty, real New York did not.
What did interest her in the 1950s were
the enthusiastic letters she received from young people who had read The Fountainhead. Often she would invite them to come to New
York and meet her, and in this way she soon gathered around her a select group
of admirers whom she invited to weekly meetings in her apartment to discuss her
ideas and hear selections from Atlas
Shrugged as she worked on it. This
inner circle she christened, with a touch of irony, “the Collective.” They were her social life; the vast society
outside these confines she ignored, convinced that most of it would be hostile
to her ideas.
Inevitably, perhaps, in 1954 one of the
young male acolytes was conscripted to be consort to Genius, the Genius being
Ayn Rand. The chosen one was Nathaniel
Branden, 25 years her junior, who, like Rand, was married, but the relationship
developed with the knowledge and reluctant consent of their respective
spouses. This was known to the inner
circle, but not to her other followers.
With Rand’s editorial assistance, Branden gave a lecture on her philosophy
of Objectivism in 1958, and in 1962 established the Nathaniel Branden
Institute, Inc. (NBI) to offer courses on Objectivism and related topics taught
by members of the Collective.
With the publication of Atlas Shrugged, Rand felt that she had
fully expressed herself in fiction and from then on devoted herself to further
expounding and promoting Objectivism. Stated
briefly and in the simplest terms possible, Objectivism believes that reality
exists independent of the consciousness of those perceiving it. It is a real and tangible hard fact, and not
the projection of our mind. Beyond what
we perceive, reason is our only source of knowledge, our guide to action, and
our means of survival. To survive, we
must think. And our survival depends not
on altruism but on rational self-interest.
Objectivism embraces laissez-faire capitalism, insisting that the only
justified role of government is to protect our individual rights; beyond that,
it should keep hands off.
Throughout the 1960s Rand promoted her
philosophy through public and private speeches, TV and radio appearances
(especially on WBAI), and in a series of essays. Slowly she found a wider audience and was
invited to participate in forums and symposiums. Yet the intellectual establishment never
accepted her, calling her philosophy an ideology, her novels “philosophical
soapboxes,” her ideas “simplistic,” and her personality “authoritarian.” But the public kept on buying her
books.
By the late 1960s NBI was a flourishing
organization, offering courses in 80 cities that were attended by thousands. But by now Branden’s sexual interest had
evidently (if you’ll pardon the expression) petered out and, separated from his
wife, he was in love with a younger woman.
But disengaging oneself from Ayn
Rand was not easy, since her needs were fierce.
Fearing Rand’s explosive anger, Branden and his estranged wife kept his
new involvement secret from her, but in time she learned of it. Intellectual and business issues now compounded
their differences as well, and in 1968 their association ended not with a
whimper but a bang. In the May issue of
her monthly periodical, The Objectivist, Rand
broke publicly with Branden, accusing him of a series of deceptions, including
his failure to practice the philosophy – hers, of course – that he was teaching
his students, as well as unresolved psychological problems. He countered with a lengthy letter to the NBI
mailing list denying her numerous accusations and attributing her denunciations
to his unwillingness to engage further in a romantic relationship with her. This break, shocking to many of her followers,
put an end to NBI, which Branden dissolved.
He and others later denounced the NBI for intellectual conformity and
excessive reverence for Rand.
Rand was still active in the 1970s and was
even invited twice to the Ford White House, but in 1974, after decades of heavy
smoking, she was diagnosed with lung cancer, and surgery to remove part of one lung left her in a weakened condition.
Despite initial objections, this vehement foe of government intervention
allowed herself to be enrolled for Social Security and Medicare. Meanwhile Frank O’Connor also required medical
care and her constant attention. In
these last years she listened to music, watched TV, and collected stamps, but
her preferred recreation was still discussing philosophy with friends who came
to her apartment, now at 120 East 34th Street.
In 1979 Frank O’Connor died, ending their
fifty-year marriage; for a while she was plunged into the depths of
depression. Invited to address a
monetary conference in New Orleans in November 1981, at age 76 she went in a
private rail car, assailed businessmen who financed universities advocating the
destruction of capitalism, then announced that she was writing a TV adaptation
of Atlas Shrugged that she would
produce herself. At this surprise
announcement the audience rose in a body and cheered.
Returning from New Orleans,
she fell sick and continued ailing throughout December. In January 1982 she was hospitalized with
pulmonary problems, then returned to her apartment and died there on March 6,
1982. Eight hundred people waited in
line to enter the funeral home where she lay in state, with a six-foot floral
dollar sign by the coffin. She was
buried beside her husband in Kensico Cemetery in Valhalla, New York.
Legacy
The Passion
of Ayn Rand, the first full-length
biography of Ayn Rand, was written by Barbara Branden, the former wife of
Nathaniel Branden; published in 1986, it revealed Rand’s affair with
Branden. It received positive reviews
and was made into a film of the same name in 1999.
Rand’s books have continued to be widely
sold and read both in the U.S. and abroad.
In 1991 a Book of the Month Club survey asked club members to name the
most influential book in their life; no. 1 was the Bible, and no. 2 Atlas Shrugged. It doesn’t hurt that the Ayn Rand
Institute, founded in 1985 to promote her philosophy and works, donates 400,000
copies every year to Advanced Placement high school programs. The Institute is the keeper of the flame, and
in those hallowed precincts the flame burns bright.
Several prominent businessmen have told
how Rand’s ideas had a positive influence on them in their early years, and one
of the first Collective members, Alan Greenspan, served as Chairman of the Federal
Reserve from 1987 to 2006; in a 2010 interview he reaffirmed his faith in
laissez-faire capitalism. In 2009 her
name and John Galt’s appeared on signs at Tea Party protests. To this day she is controversial, provoking
much praise and blame. Chances are she
always will be, and that would no doubt suit her fine.
A 2009 Tea Party demonstration in Chicago. The face of the man holding the sign has been effaced to protect his identity. HKDP |
I have known only one person who
proclaimed herself a follower of Ayn Rand, a lesbian librarian of my partner
Bob’s acquaintance who was surely not typical of Rand’s followers. Evelyn was so taken with her mentor that she
donated generously from her modest salary to the Ayn Rand Institute. Like Rand, she was a secular Jew, hard, lean,
angular, and dry, and very intelligent.
Unlike Rand, who had little time for the arts, she was a great
appreciator of Rubinstein playing Chopin, and had a collection of Austrian bronzes,
figurines of animals delicately wrought.
But if Rand was capable of explosive anger, Evelyn showed no feelings
whatsoever; she was all mind. She pushed
this to the point that she never, to my knowledge, uttered the words “please,”
“thank you,” or “excuse me”; such amenities would have been a surrender, a
needless betrayal of … of what? Of
mind? Of self-possession? Of integrity?
A strange woman, fascinating in her way, combining keen intellect with a
total lack of warmth. A tight fist that
refused to open.
Ayn Rand appeals especially to people who
are adrift and in need of guidance. For
them, it is vastly reassuring to encounter a guide so confident, so possessed
of ideas and principles that she pronounces with vigor and clarity, an
authority who speaks without hesitation or doubt. Which is why she appeals to young people …
for a while.
I admire Ayn Rand from a distance, for she
knew who she was and what she believed in, expressed herself clearly, and left
her mark. If I have never been tempted even
momentarily to fall under her spell, I attribute it to certain aspects of her
personality:
· Total self-assurance, not a smidgen of self-doubt.
· No ambiguity, no irony, without which I couldn’t begin
to cope with the world I live in.
· No sense of humor, none.
· The delicious fact that, ardent foe of government
intervention though she was, in the end she
let herself be enrolled for Social Security and Medicare.
High Priestess of Enlightened Egoism, flayer
of altruism, Atlas of the Mind who never shrugged off the world but stayed to
lecture, chastise, and correct it, may she rest in peace.
This is New York
Rod Waddington |
Coming soon: Famous New York Deaths: Yul Brynner, Montgomery Clift, Rudolph Valentino. (Did Brynner really have Mongol and gypsy blood? Did Elizabeth Taylor save Clift's life? Was Valentino gay? Who was the Woman in Black who every year put a red rose on his grave? All shall be made clear.) In the offing: How Great Cities and Great Nations Decline. And two more Remarkable Women: Ree Dragonette and Anais Nin.
© 2014 Clifford Browder
A few corrections:
ReplyDelete* She was a fan of the arts. In fact she has a well developed esthetic philosophy presented in a series of essays titled The Romantic Manifesto
* Not everyone gets her sense of humor - but it doesn't mean she didn't have one. For the lighter side of her personality I recommend the book 100 voices. This book also refutes another suggestion of your post - that she had no social life or care for those not in agreement with her and not in the collective. That is simply not the case.
ReplyDelete* There is no hypocrisy in her accepting social security. She paid far far more in taxes than she ever received back via social security or otherwise. This accusation would imply that anyone opposed to the governments highway program is a hypocrite for driving a car. Ridiculous. We all live in the world as it is, even while advocating for something better.
ReplyDeleteAs blog posts on Ayn Rand go, yours is one of the fairest and most accurate I've come across. So despite my critiques above, I appreciate what you've done here. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteDear Unknown: I appreciate your comments, both negative and positive, and will ponder them. Many thanks.
DeleteI agree with "Unknown." I knew Ayn Rand well, and her apartment was filled with art. Of course, she was an artist but be aware that her husband was first an actor, then a painter.
ReplyDeleteThe sense of humor point is really not worth arguing, but for the record, she was very witty and once made me a straight man for a very funny impromptu joke. And what would say about this passage from The Fountainhead?
"Ralston Holcombe had no visible neck, but his chin took care of that. His chin and jaws formed an unbroken arc, resting on his chest. His cheeks were pink, soft to the touch, with the irresilient softness of age, like the skin of a peach that has been scalded. His rich white hair rose over his forehead and fell to his shoulders in the sweep of a medieval mane. It left dandruff on the back of his collar.
"He walked through the streets of New York, wearing a broad-brimmed hat, a dark business suit, a pale green satin shirt, a vest of white brocade, a huge black bow emerging from under his chin, and he carded a staff, not a cane, but a tall ebony staff surmounted by a bulb of solid gold. It was as if his huge body were resigned to the conventions of a prosaic civilization and to its drab garments, but the oval of his chest and stomach sallied forth, flying the colors of his inner soul.
"These things were permitted to him, because he was a genius. He was also president of the Architects' Guild of America. Ralston Holcombe did not subscribe to the views of his colleagues in the organization. He was not a grubbing builder nor a businessman. He was, he stated firmly, a man of ideals. He denounced the deplorable state of American architecture and the unprincipled eclecticism of its practitioners. In any period of history, he declared, architects built in the spirit of their own time, and did not pick designs from the past; we could be true to history only in heeding her law, which demanded that we plant the roots of our an firmly in the reality of our own life. He decried the stupidity of erecting buildings that were Greek, Gothic or Romanesque; let us, he begged, be modern and build in the style that belongs to our days. He had found that style. It was Renaissance."
I can't argue your contention that in her private life she had a sense of humor; I know her only through her works. As for the quote from The Fountainhead, you've convinced me: yes, she had a sense of humor, albeit a satiric one. Thanks for the input; I appreciate it.
DeleteI met Ayn Rand in the early Sixties, when I managed WBAI. She used to drop by my office when she came in to record her commentary. I can attest to her having had a sense of humor, but I once made the mistake of mentioning her and William Buckley in the same breath—it brought her voice up several decibels as she told me never to liken her to "those people."
ReplyDeleteOne day, our engineer called downstairs to tell me that Ayn had not shown up in the studio. I had seen her about fifteen minutes earlier, so I knew she was around. I found her standing in the second floor corridor, engaged in serious conversation with our janitor.
If the script is any indication (and it is), I am about to find out exactly how Ayn felt when she saw The Fountainhead and disliked it.
I liked Ayn Rand, as a person.
Thanks for the comment. The post on Ayn Rand has found a wide readership and several interesting comments. She's still a hot-wire topic.
DeleteThere's a story in the book "100 voices" where she tells a visitor to the offices of Playboy that all the bunnies sleep with Hugh Hefner. You have to read it to get the full story but it is sure funny.
ReplyDeleteOunviperfsu Ryan Black https://wakelet.com/wake/kW69AFAuGbkMEGx4-YTIi
ReplyDeletecuedigholo
OtemptuXad-ke Brandy Sipes there
ReplyDeleteolsunveco