Mar 18, 2010
Rand and Polarization
Amongst other things, man invented Religion, Time and War. Over time, to not have a clutter of Religions (and their subsequent gods) - man invented Cult Ideologies.
Ideology - is usually a line of thought that a person or a group arrives at for themselves and the rest to admire or even apply. In my opinion all ideas are born pure, they are birthed to fill a void, to improve hope and to spread knowledge.
However, man is a being who uses only a sliver of his brain. Over Analysis has led to muted instincts. The result, as we view it, is excessivism and polarized thinking.
Before I digress into oblivion, what triggered this post was a link:
Reading this post was a déjà vu. [ Cut to final year college lit class. (I was silently listening to the scathing words of my HOD who felt my criticism of T.S.Eliot's essay 'tradition and individual talent', made me unfit as a student of literature.)] My contest then and now has remained unchanged. Rand needs rescue now, or maybe people who read Rand need to be rescued form its addiction.
In my opinion, every writer should be looked at from a certain mandatory stand point. The author's life, personal (family, ideology), medical, socio-political scene at the time of his life, the economic state of the country and the author, influences of other nations and literature on the author - all need to be taken into account.
{For example, Eliot was deeply affected by his incapacities and was ridiculed in social circles for being an oddball that stressed on him to create a dreamy image of who he wanted to be.
Rand came from a very wealthy Russian household, with everything at her beck and call, she saw it being snatched away and the people for whom her mansion was made home for. Not in the least did she feel that either they or she had deserved any of this. She had then concluded that for each man to get what he desired, he had to device his own merit - every one else was unworthy of it.}
Irrespective of what we want to believe, everything around us affects us, impressions our minds - and it reflects in our behavior, our humor, our tastes and our expression. Writing is an expression. You could take a book as a stand alone testament of work/ art. But the author behind it will never be dead as long as the book survives, as long as its pages are turned, as long as it has found a space in the shelves, or is made into a PDF or is plugged into someone's ears as an audio book. Negating the writer is foolhardiness. It may seem I advocate Autobiographical criticism, but then - when your vision broadens, you shall know the right thing to do.
The second and more grave a folly is being a disciple or boarding a hate brigade. Rand was a self-centered, to an extent self-deceptive too, she was a fierce protector of her ideology. Agreed - she saw the world was black and white. It was filled with creators and parasites. There was no other way out for her and she represented her ideas as her charcters in her novels. For Eddie Willers did not find a place in Atlantis. She has completely forgotten about his survival ... when he was neither a moocher nor a creator. He was the shade of gray that she could not comprehend. She has flaws, but at no point, she advocated inhuman, corporate cold capitalism - it is always Laissez faire. This is her book, she wrote it, becase she wanted to. She in no words forces you to read it.
It is a cardinal rule taught by none - never forget what you think when you read a book, or assess an author. Making gods out of people has only disillusioned the people and belittled the innovator. Read Rand as a person in a time with an innovative line of thought and end it there. If you feel that her 'knowledge and attitude' work for you - great, if they don't, still better.
We are all 'human', with human failings and human successes.... and all of that is worthless when we are not there.
