Before reading this book, I knew next to nothing about it. I knew that colleagues who had read it loved it, and had read online that it was considered the second most influential book after the Bible. Based on those observations I knew it had to be on my 2011 list. And topping off at 1074 pages, I put it first to get it out of the way.
As I began reading, I was quickly enamored by the story and Rand's style of writing. The characters and dialogue were all completely believable and everything seemed contemporary, despite having been written in 1957. In my mind I imagined the scenes unfolding in a tone much like the movie Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, with sepia tones, 50s versions of future technology, and classic vintage clothing.
The giant calendar looming over the city should have tipped me off, but the corrosion of America into an Orwellian dystopia was something I hadn't anticipated. The first couple hundred pages paint the country as a prosperous, forward-moving nation, albiet one with an underlying unease manifested in the phrase "Who is John Galt?". As the narrative progresses the dystopia slowly comes into control, beginning with the arguments of morality, reason and duty until the government becomes completely corrupt and starts promoting concepts like "we must control men in order to force them to be free (pg. 127)" and outlawing dog-eat-dog business competition because it's "unfair". Soon the nation is in chaos, the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer, and technology is being used for all the wrong reasons. As this is happening we are also following romances, searching for a missing person, researching mysterious objects, watching marriages unravel, and realizing that everything that is happening - from bars in New York City to counties on the other side of the planet - is not only intertwined but is following the plan of a single man with the intent to change the way the world works. If this isn't a story of epic proportions, I don't know what is.
Besides the obvious comparison to 1984 I was reminded of various other books, and most specifically Moore and Gibbons' Watchmen. Their graphic novel classic is another story in which a single, self-centered genius hordes the great minds of the world in order to throw society into a state of chaos that he believes will promote an improvement for the greater good - the difference between the two being that in Watchmen, the genius is on the 'bad' side. I'm curious if this book had any influence on them.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book, and despite how much I love the writing and the emphasis on the importance of intelligence, there are some things that the book promotes that I have trouble with. Rand is operating under the practice of Objectivism, a philosophy which I do not know much about outside of the fact that she pioneered it. According to our friend Wikipedia, Objectivism teaches reality independent of consciousness, knowledge found through logic, and rational self-interest, among other aspects. The most challenging part of the novel for me was the radio address promoting this philosophy, because a lot of it seemed to go directly against my personal beliefs. In the address character John Galt preaches that justice should always preside over mercy, that a person's pleasure is more important than the welfare of their neighbors, that a man's mind is the only judge of truth, that love is earned as a reward for virtue.
As a Christian, I cannot agree with these statements. Justice is a great concept, but mercy is what leads to forgiveness and reconciliation - and there is no one so perfect as to be above the need to be forgiven. It's important for people to be happy, but never at the expense of someone else's life. I cannot agree that a man's mind is the only judge of truth - believing that the world is flat doesn't make it true. And what good is love if it's conditional and must be earned? I also cannot believe that faith is the absence of intelligence, or that following God causes man to "become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question (pg. 944)." In my opinion, based on Galt's speech, Objectivism leaves no room for error or mistakes or even flaws. It ignores the concept of living life with purpose and settles instead on the fickle emotion of personal happiness as the end-all-be-all of existence. In addition, it doesn't make sense to me that the characters preach that the individual is greater than the group while suffering torture in the name of their plan to create a better world, or that faith is unintelligent but believing that truth is truth because "existence exists (pg. 933)."
Although I did not agree with some of the basic teachings in this novel, I can still appreciate the skill it took to not only write such a hefty novel but to create a complicated web of unique characters and to invent an entirely new philosophy. After reading it, I can absolutely see why it is considered the second most influential book. Rand's writing is fabulous, but when it comes to philosophy, I think I'll stick with the number one most influential book.
No comments:
Post a Comment