I've been writing parodies professionally since 1974, and boy, are my arms tired. In fact I don't do it much any more -- not because it isn't fun, but because there are no longer magazines willing to pay bad, let alone good, money for such things.
Which is too bad, since I'd always thought of parody as a kind of commando literary criticism. (No, not "literary criticism while not wearing any underwear." That's something else.) You sneak in, openly disguised as the writer in question, and leave behind self-detonating explosives of absurdity that inflict well-deserved devastation on the writer's style, themes, and ideas.
Yes, a guy sitting at home at a keyboard, making himself giggle, comparing himself to a Navy SEAL or a Green Beret: it's exactly the kind of pathetic, self-aggrandizing fantasy that right-wing bloggers and pundits engage in all day, every day. Maybe, in my heart of hearts, I'm one of those "conservative" nitwits who think it's brave to dress up like Thomas Jefferson and swan around Tea Party rallies gassing off to grandmothers in lawn chairs about "tyranny."
In any case, it took me a while to realize what should have been perfectly obvious: that Atlas Shrugged (about which I've written several times in these "pages") was and is so ripe for parody, it's not even funny. It's not even necessary, either, in some ways, since, like all truly horrible books, it parodies itself, brimming and fit to bust as it is with excellent, excellent examples of awful, awful writing.
Want an example taken at random from opening the book with eyes shut? Done: "It was not in the nature of his consciousness to understand the nature of the things he was hearing." (This must have been more compelling in the original Spanish.) Or: "Rearden sat very still; the words in his mind were like the beat of steps down the trail he had been seeking; the words were the sanction of the victim." (No they weren't. A person in conversation does not have "words in his mind." Words come to him without his having to think of them "in his mind" first. And "the beat of steps down the trail" makes literally no sense.)
Yeah, it's cheap fun, and I expected it going in. But what took me by surprise, and what still amazes me to this very day, is this: The novel's antagonists -- the bad guys, their pernicious "values," the ideas against which Rand's demi-god heroes and heroines do verbose, tedious battle -- they do not exist in real life. Of course, neither do Sauron or Voldemort. But Atlas Shrugged is a 1,000-page, 643,000-(I counted them)-word diatribe against an imaginary enemy that, unlike Lord of the Rings or the Harry Potter books, insists it's about "reality."
The government of the U.S., such as it is, has no executive, legislative, or judicial branches. There is no president, Congress, or Supreme Court. Instead, a corrupt cabal of bureaucrats issues edicts based, ostensibly, on the rationale of a whiny five-year-old ("It's not fair!") while essentially safeguarding their own power, but which go unchallenged by individuals, states, or corporations. Europe is unrecognizable, since most of its countries have become quasi-socialist "People's States." This is a world in which salvation arrives in the form of a reclusive engineer who is begged to "save the economy."
In other words, the geo-political world in which Rand wants us to admire her heroes is not our own, or even (like that of 1984) a plausible, allegorical variant of our own, but a third-rate science fiction dystopian future, complete with imaginary technology, which, by definition, makes comparison to today's world impossible. The U.S. of Atlas Shrugged is about as real and realistic as Narnia, and capitalism is to Atlas Shrugged what Quidditch is to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone: a fictional construct, vaguely similar to something we have in real life, used for purposes of drama and entertainment.
And, as it is with the outer world, so it is with the inner.
The novel is jam-packed with characters, of whom John Galt is just one, who openly, endlessly, and bombastically rail against those-who-say-that-man-has-no-mind, or those-who-claim-that-Man-is-an-irrational-animal. E.g., from Galt's Big Speech: "Man does not live by the mind, you say?... The mind is impotent, you say?"
Actually, no, John. Nobody says that. Nobody -- not even B.F. Skinner, whose operant conditioning model of human behavior was fashionable when Atlas was published in 1957, and who could reasonably be looked to as a source of skepticism about "consciousness" -- says that the mind is impotent.
Eventually it gets comical, and you want to look up from the acres of speechifying and ask a passerby, "Wait -- this Ayn Rand gal. Who is she talking about?"
People -- let us call them "Randroids" because that is what they are -- who eagerly point to "striking similarities" between the world of Atlas Shrugged and our own; who trade smug little emoticons and we-happy-few winks with each other over Rand's "prescience;" who find this ludicrous monstrosity "increasingly relevant to life today" -- these people are either nuts, stupid, or kidding themselves. Even Trekkies (do they still call themselves that?) who go to conventions in costume and speak fucking Klingon know that it's make believe.
This, then, is what I learned: that the followers of Ayn Rand comprise neither a political movement nor a philosophical school, but a religious cult. And, with the recent release of the movie (ostensibly Part I of three; as the actress said to the bishop, "good luck with that"), they're coming out of the woodwork.
So I wrote the parody. It was like shooting fish in a barrel, yes. But somebody has to shoot them.
Follow Ellis Weiner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EllisWeiner
Philip Goldberg: The Sublime Symbolism of Easter and the Ridiculous Resurrection of Ayn Rand
Ellis Weiner: Rapture and Rand: Peas in a Pod
Laura Mola: Hijacking Ayn Rand
Rand held to the socio-political principle that people are ends in themselves, not means to the ends of others. Rand also espoused that human survival and psychological well-being--in a word, flourishing--depends on a life of virtue, including rationality, self-respect, purpose, integrity, honesty, and justice (although not limited to those virtues; see, for instance, David Kelley's "Unrugged Individualism: The Selfish Basis of Benevolence"). This moral vision directly contradicts how a sociopath views people. A sociopath lies and manipulates others without guilt; and in the more severe form, does much worse harm to people. Does a sociopath, as a matter of principle, respect a person's rights? As a matter of principle, does the sociopath practice integrity or honesty?
Speaking of integrity and honesty, Mr. Weiss's article suggests he has adopted neither with respect to his presentation of Rand's ideas. Sadly, I am learning to expect this kind of malicious smear job of Rand from progressives. But from a person who has read AS twice? I'm stunned.
I get the feeling she finds quite a few fans from people with failed businesses that can't admit they didn't know what the heck they were doing.
The example Wiener offers as "proof" of his claim is a John Galt quote. In it, Galt identifies the fundamental difference between the heroes and villains of Atlas Shrugged. He says "Man does not live by the mind, you say?... The mind is impotent, you say?" To which Wiener asserts, as if self-evident: "Nobody says that. Nobody...says that the mind is impotent."
Of course his assertion is a complete falsehood. Historically, one of *the* central epistemological premises of nearly *all* philosophies is the notion that man's mind - specifically reason (which is the *context* of Miss Rand's reference *to* the mind, as opposed to faith, or emotionalism, or any other practice of the mind) - *is* impotent. The mind *cannot* grasp reality 'as it is'. Consciousness is *incapable* of knowing 'true' reality. Consciousness is 'cut off' from reality. Etc. This belief in the impotence of the mind - of reason - is true of Plato, Augustine, Kant, Descartes, Hegel, and Hume - just to name a few (all of whom are the roots of today's various brands of politics, ethics, and philosophy).
It is the *countless* and overwhelming number of intellectual offspring birthed by these philosophers that Rand is "talking about."
There's an old joke in Zen Buddhism that bests John Galt in three short sentences:
Three monks were watching a flag waving in the wind.
Monk One: The flag is moving.
Monk Two: No; the wind is moving.
Monk Three: No; mind is moving.
As for my comment about "nobody says the mind is impotent," I meant, IN OUR DAILY LIVES. If you say that Plato, Augustine, etc., do say that, I'll take your word for it. Now you tell me: how many readers of this hideous, ten-ton bodice-ripper/3rd-rate-science fiction yak-fest know that when they read Galt's speech? If you ask your fellow Randians whom she's referring to, how many of them do you think will cite those names? It shouldn't be necessary to know about the Ding an Sich or Geist or the Numinous or the Categories to have a valid response to Galt's "radio speech."
Finally, the more modern neuro-psychology and philosophy explore the reality of consciousness, the more it's apparent that Rand's conception of it is hopelessly obsolete. The sacred, individual self is an illusion. Volition, in Rand's heroic sense, is a fantasy.
If you want a "code" that allows you to call sociopathy heroic and selfishness a virtue, congratulations. You've got one. But Atlas Shrugged, as fiction and in political terms, is a joke. You just don't like the fact that everybody's laughing.
Well, one has to thanks Ellis on two fronts here:
First - Ellis now claims nobody "IN OUR DAILY LIVES" says "the mind is impotent". Of course, in his very next paragraph (as quoted above), HE says it (and claims others *support* the view)!
Volition, as Ayn Rand states in the *very* speech Ellis keeps purposefully misrepresenting, "is your mind’s freedom to think or not" She states: "man is a being of volitional consciousness. Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort."
This is Rand's "sense" of volition. This is what Ellis claims the mind is incapable of - that it is IMPOTENT.
So now we know the answer to Ellis' question: "Who is [Rand] talking about?" She's talking *about* Ellis (and all those like him).
Secondly - Ellis must also be thanked for having just nullified *every* word he has typed or will type. For, without volition, Ellis is SELF-ADMITTEDLY *incapable* of a rational response to any idea. He has NO choice in what he says or writes - no choice to be logical or fallacious. The letters his body types have the same cognitive content of an uncontrolled bowel movement - ie none
"self is an illusion"
The man is a true zero. And "insane" is a truly apt description of his self-nullifying beliefs.
Not to mention the utter hypocrisy, as she herself was someone who suckled the gov teat. Similar to the Tea Partiers who also collect SS and Medicare, and supported the wars, and support corporate welfare. The villains don't exist, but the author needed them to in order to make her point. Which must not have been very good, if she has to make up villains based on nothing. Even Voldemort and Sauron make sense, because both are after power and don't care who they hurt to get it. Kinda like the "heroes" of Rands novels. Gordon Gecko was a villain too, people just didn't realize it.
- Atlas Shrugged is a strawman argument.
Except Rand bloated this tripe with 1000 pages of smug, self-serving, sociopathic pablum which is still lapped up by the gullible today. Everything I've read about her philosophy and and life since then has only lowered my opinion of her.
But hey, who cares if clueless Randroids canonize her deranged, cowardly scribblings. It's a free country.
In her defense she had good reason for being paranoid. She did witness firsthand the death and destruction created by the Bolshevik revolution in Europe. When you put her philosophies in their historical context they almost make sense, but they are in no way relevant to the current situation in the US.
The US government is certainly not setting around hatching plans to strip big business of its power and money to benefit the 'moochers'. In fact it is quite the opposite. Big business is so deeply in bed with our government it is nearly impossible to tell the two apart. In fact, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act, the bank bailouts, the continuing tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% and most recently the Citizens United act are all evidence that capitalism has corrupted the democratic process to such a degree that our current government can more aptly be described as a Plutocracy rather than Democracy. As such, AS is simply a means for the unconscionably avarice to sleep soundly in the knowledge they are the ‘producers’…
I *do* so enjoy a good parody of Star Trek when I see one! Who can forget the Saturday Night Live parody with John Belushi? Who can forget William Shatner's "Get a life" appearance on the show? Oh, to die for!
Ellis, as an Ayn Rand fan I fully support your work. Just so you know.
Rand's work was a reductio ad absurdem on topics that were of great concern to the likes of James Madison and other thinkers going back thousands of years. For many readers of "Atlas Shrugged", Rand's stylistic exercise caught their imagination in a way that no other writer has. You may not like the style, I may not like the style, but many do and in the end ideas matter. I read "around" the novel and explored other writing and learned from others. That the novel motivates friendly debate that is of value to me, I owe that to the ghost of Ayn Rand. Thank you, Ayn!
Star Trek motivated me as a child, but it certainly never was my grandmother's cup of tea. To her the series has always been third rate junk. Why, she wonders, did it motivate so many of my generation to greatness? Sometimes it comes down to simple novelty. Regardless, some people are strongly motivated by Rand's writings regardless of your literary tastes or mine.
People hold views and question the validity of those views unless they can find someone or something that affirms them as being correct.
It happens with everything. Look at people who do cite works of fiction as being authorities--not citing concepts or terms, but citing the world of the work--because they are unable to express it on their own. It is sort of like people who use song lyrics to describe their mood or movie quotes to express their individuality.
Fiction is and should be contrived, rigged, false, and artificial. But the U.S. in Rand's books are about as realistic as Arrakis in Dune. It's as though her fans look up from her fantasies and think, "Yes! This is how it is, and one day I'm going to learn to ride giant sand worms, too."
Actually, the question worth thinking about is: Why? Who gets so "inspired" by something so patently untrue? Do her fans really know people like Taggart and Galt? I seriously doubt it. To my mind (having read A.S. twice), being strongly motivated by Rand's writings is a matter to be addressed in terms of psychopathology, not philosophy.
I guess Rand is a great read if you don't really know what's going on, and you're looking to blame The Usual Suspects
It seems that we are being led by Ayn Randians.
Morality is on the level of the individual and is rather meaningless. Morality is just a strong emotional response to something. It is not right nor wrong, and it is most definitely not applicable to anyone other than the person who feels that emotion.
What is notably absent is any recognition of the sheer volume of such commentary - this is the 4th or 5th in the Huff alone just in the last week or two, not to mention the literally dozens upon dozens in other publications all equally sanctimonious and preening in their attacks on Ayn Rand and *all saying essentially the same thing* without a single spark of insight into the reason behind the clear obsession with this writer who they cavalierly dismiss for her supposed lack of importance.
Methinks they protest too much.
Ignored of course - and one has to wonder if its deliberate - is the growing amount of serious published academic work being devoted to her thought, e.g. Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist by Tara Smith (Cambridge University Press)
But far be it for me to disturb the dogmatic slumbers of the utterly conventional and unoriginal critics of Ayn Rand as they busily - and desperately - defend the established wisdom against this person so supposedly unworthy of their attention.
More, you say "what is notably absent is any recognition of the sheer volume of such commentary." What can this possibly mean? Absent from what? The commentary?
Also missing is a confrontation with the idea that, if so many commentaries say the same thing, maybe they address an objectively real issue that the subject deserves.
"Methinks they protest too much" invokes a line from Shakespeare, the sub-text of which is, the protesters mean the opposite of what they're protesting. Is that what you mean?
If I ignore "the growing amount of serious academic work" you cite, could it be because I'm not an academic and it's (as Ayn would say) of no consequence to me?
Finally, "dogmatic slumbers" is a quote from Kant (re Descartes, I think), which is meaningless in this context. "Desperately" is typical Randroid self-aggrandizement, and you see it in the laughably paranoid comments about the movie. "Hollywood liberals want to shut us up but we are prevailing," and so on.
Finally, no one says "this person" is unworthy of attention. That's why we pay attention. This person's fiction is lousy and her ideas are repellent--none of which points you address.
Typically for her defenders, you posture, and show attitude but no substance.
Paragraph 1-4 - no "points" against Ayn Rand, just filler.
Paragraph 5 - "It was not in the nature of his consciousness..." - arbitrarily asserted claim that sentence is "awful" writing (combined with ad hom, of which the 'article' is chock full of). Since no actual argument was made, there is no argument to refute. There are just logical fallacies. As Ellis stated: Awful? "Sez you, until you *prove* otherwise." Ellis doesn't bother with what he *demands* from others. One wonders at his double standard: 'Logic for thee, but not for me.'
- "A person in conversation does not have "words in his mind." - actually, if you were *not* simply taking sentences *out of context* (another logical fallacy), you would understand that Rearden is *listening* to the words of another man as that man lectures him (at some length). As such, the man's words most certainly *are* in his mind. The point of the line is that Readen is focusing on them very carefully (and it is a clue to the reader to do the same). So Ellis' "point" is nothing but his error in comprehending the line.
Now, *why* is Rearden focused on the succession of ideas being thrown at him by the other man? See the next 'point':
What the sentence describes is Rearden intently focused on a man's logical argument (the mental path Rearden is following) as it takes him towards a specific destination - towards an answer to a question Rearden set himself to grasp earlier in the story (which Ellis would know, if he hadn't dropped context - hadn't engaged in a fallacy).
So, we have Rearden listening intently to a man as the man's ideas lead him towards an answer to a question he has long pursued. And since a person *can* listen to the words of others, focusing intently on them in his mind - and since he *can* follow them as each assertion moves towards a conclusion - both "points" made against this statement are simply false.
So much for paragraph 5.