Feminine genius squandered

Young Alicia Rosenbaum (b. 1905) was always an avid reader. Born in Russia, her family suffered grievously under Stalin and she emigrated to America in 1926. Alicia -- having already exposed herself to a great deal of history and western culture -- headed straight to Hollywood to be a writer. She worked on many scripts, changed her name, and found that her Promised Land met all her expectations:

She loved the United States in her own, highly stylized way: She loved its skyscrapers, its technology, its machinery, its energy. [Ayn] Rand’s first big bestseller, The Fountainhead (1940), is in part a long hymn to this America of her imagination, and its hero, Howard Roark, is her first extended portrait of the consummate American—a world-class architect based loosely on Frank Lloyd Wright.

Although she suffered the effects of the impersonal grinder that was Stalinism, her own philosophy wasn't much better. She loved money, success and strength, and had no compassion for the little ones crushed underfoot.

Rand’s Ideal Man could never be a schoolteacher, say, or a physical therapist, or a claims clerk in the Social Security Administration. He must not be short-winded or fat. He must be perfection in action—gifted and brave, uniquely talented, and utterly free of irrationality and fear. He must, like Roark, defend the premise that no man should ever compromise his individual will or submit to pathetic notions of “sacrifice”; he must recognize that men of genius like himself will forever fight the lazy, inferior parasites who seek to take what superior minds have made. He must, in short, look like Gary Cooper and think exactly like Ayn Rand.

AR despised religion and sentimentality as just more fetters inhibiting individual gain. Reason was her God (despite the irrationality of why the bullies' aspirations trump those without a voice). Power is sexy, in her world, and she was writing the books.

Perhaps many people pass through their libertarian phase. I know I did -- it makes some sense if there's no God, and if you're too distracted to really consider natural law. I also spent some time raging at the Rand crowd -- but now I simply find them lonely and lost. The 50th anniversary of Atlas Shrugged may be marked in some some circles, but for those who love, we shrug and move on. How much she missed in her beeline to Cecil B deMille's fabricated world. Celluloid and paper, steel and concrete -- all so perishable, all for naught. What a flat, finite legacy.

Comments

[Enbrethiliel]

+JMJ+

Like other women who squander their feminine genius, Ayn Rand made up her own twisted ideas about relationships between men and women.

It has been so long since I've reviewed either The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged, but I can safely say that none of the romantic relationships in those novels were anything but dysfunctional. We have Roarke's famous rape of Dominique in The Fountainhead--and his bizarre (to put it lightly) reaction of surprise when, a few days after the incident, he finds that he still thinks of her from time to time.

Not that Dominique is much better. As their relationship develops, it is hard to tell if she is responding to a man or to his work. Indeed, she loves Roarke's buildings so much that she tries to destroy him professionally: it is a way of saving him from all the little people who cannot properly appreciate his buildings.

Dominique does somehow sense how twisted her actions are (even though she never seems bothered by the fact that she was raped) and punishes herself by marrying Roarke's worst enemy. Of course, as part of her campaign to destroy Roarke, she will do anything to promote her husband's buildings, including prostitute herself to make sure he gets the commissions instead of Roarke.

I probably shouldn't get started on Dagny and Francisco . . . and Dagny and Henry . . . and Dagny and John. =P

[The young fogey]

Good summary - she did side with the bullies.

But her narcissism doesn't represent all libertarians.

[Justine Nicholas]

I consider myself a libertarian (note that I used a lower-case "l"), at least after some fashion. After all, I write articles for Lew Rockwell's site.

So what does that mean? First and foremost, I am opposed to war. Why? Well, first off, I abhor the appaling waste of human lives. And I don't like the power it gives governments to use people like chess pieces and to steal from (i.e., tax) them.

I believe that no government has the right to treat people in the ways I've described because I believe no human being has the right to do those things to another. So, for me, libertarianism is not about siding with the bullies or the people who got all the breaks.

For me, being a libertarian also means being self-sufficient, or at least working toward that goal. And it follows that being a libertarian means being responsible for, and to, one's self.

However, I differ with the Ayn Rand crowd in that I see nothing wrong with helping others to achieve those goals. Indeed, I have taught and currently co-lead a youth group for LGBT teenagers, some of whom were kicked out of their homes when they "came out" or who dropped out of school because they were being bullied. I have alse worked with homeless people on their literacy skills. If you really don't like paying taxes for programs that allow moochers to mooch, I think that it makes sense to help others realize their potential.

Finally, I believe that Ayn Rand is purely and simply a shallow, one-dimensional writer. Her situations are all too good(?) to be true and her characters are cardboard cut-outs. I felt that way when I first read her (when I was a teenager), and she doesn't get better with age (or as you age).

Some might say that I'm not a libertarian. That's OK. The label doesn't matter to me. Freedom does.

[gsk]

I'm not sure who is "pro-war" other than bullies who want to gain from military aggression. Hitler, Idi Amin, Che Guevara, and Pol Pot leap immediately to mind. These are not usually the type of people who honour the rule of law, so most people understand that a standing army is needed to deter such aggression (although there is always a temptation to use it unprovoked). That is why virtue and self-restraint are important.

Thus, we can see that some moral framework is essential to guide freedom, and protect the weak from the strong. To that end, the 1949 United Declarations on Human Rights is a good start.