It is the work of the more powerful Rand fans, that make it important to learn about her and read her works.
A few observations:
-
she developed her philosophy first, and then wrote her novels to illustrate it. So it isn’t quite…accurate to say that they are works of fiction, and that therefore the threats within their thinking can be ignored.
-
As with most philosophers and authors, her ideas about life and the world were shaped by her own experiences. It is also accurate to say that most philosophers and authors have their appreciations of the world DISTORTED by their experiences as well.
I am familiar with Rand as a person, only with what has been said about her by others, some of whom were critics, many of whom were near worshipers (some of each seem to be involved with this thread). Since I am a dedicated...not sure what to call myself..."logical actualist?" I am in the process of reading her works myself, and carefully as anyone can, keeping the opinions of others away from my judgment.
I HAVE read the Bible all the way through, and as an Historian, I am well familiar with the myriad of ways that people who CLAIM to be following its teachings, have sometimes even arbitrarily corrupted what it actually said.
All of what I have read so far in Rand’s book Atlas Shrugged, seems to fit in with an author who’s life was tremendously affected by the tumult of the Russian Revolution. She also appears to be 100% enthralled (literally) by what historians call the “Great Man Theory” of human progress. That is the basic idea that human society is driven primarily by Great Individuals, and not by ideas, concepts, or by the large scale interactions of “lesser” peoples. She appears to carry this to an extreme that most historians actually avoid, though.
The reason why some of her characters are so stiff or cartoonish, is precisely because they ARE only serving as cardboard cut-out spokes people for her to animate.
So far in my reading of Atlas Shrugged, I have seen that she does as many modern right wingers do, in characterizing anyone who might be said to be on the “left” or “social conscience” side of things, to be abject hypocrites, idiots, fools, or outright traitors. She gets a minus 50 on her description of the reasoning, motivation, and actual proposals that people who she obviously despises, have put forward. I SUSPECT that this is a relatively logical result of how her own life was so negatively affected by the pure-propaganda excuses that early Communists gave for their actions in her home country.
I disagree with the claim someone else mentioned above, that Rand believed in ignoring safety in the name of profit. In the book I am reading now, safety that results from the use of the new metal that the story turns around, is a key component. What her rather cardboard bad guys were there to portray, was to use a PRETENSE of concern for safety, to hide what she made obvious was just corrupt use of government power to arrange for crony capitalism to succeed. That's something that I can agree with, although her presentation of it all is problematic for other reasons.
It is her absolute and completely blind support for Great Man ism that is most pervasively problematic. As too many people today still do, she excuses pretty much ANYTHING her “great men” do, on the grounds that their great purpose makes it imperative to allow them any and all errors in judgment. Much the way that the most fanatic modern Trump fans, excuse every lie, mistake and contradiction he generates, on the grounds that he embodies the Good and the Right in his essential character.
An illustrative example which I think shows a classic contradiction for all Great Man -ists, is her apparent attitude about marriage vows. At one point, her main character is mildly praised for adhering to his, but soon after he is praised for ignoring them completely. The fact that her Great Man isn’t even held to HIS OWN standards, she passes by without concern, and without noticing that if he isn’t to be held to ONE of his claimed principles, that ALL of his claimed principles are thereby drawn into question.
I’ve found that this sort of self-blinding habit is common to all the most zealous originators and followers of the more aggressive philosophies that plague the world. And most problematic for a good use of Rand’s ideas, the fact that she built in this double standard to her own ideas, is what makes her modern followers so dangerous. They take her blank check approach to Great Man -ism so much worse. Personal responsibility for even the most direct negative results of a Great Man, is completely excused, and is shifted to his victims, or to some blameless element of the “nature of history.”
In short, I am not a FAN of Rand, so far.
Her writing is uneven. Some of it is excellent, from an organization and story telling point of view, but it’s easy to see that she alternates between hurriedly splashing an over-simplified description of the portions of the story she isn’t interested in, and then all but gets sidetracked into self-indulgent exploration of side issues that she only chanced to need to write about at all, at other times.
At her best, she is an able narrative writer. At her worst, she is an obnoxious and careless propagandist.