1956 Whittaker Chambers review of Atlas Shrugs from the
National Review ("
Big Sister is Watching"). Interesting to see how they denigrated it at the time; now it's the Bible. Some good passages show that it will link up well to the course's final week on culture-creating models. Ran wrote fiction because her philosophy was more easily defended in fiction's starker terms:
Since a great many of us dislike much that Miss Rand dislikes, quite as heartily as she does, many incline to take her at her word. It is the more persuasive, in some quarters, because the author deals wholly in the blackest blacks and the whitest whites. In this fiction everything, everybody, is either all good or all bad, without any of those intermediate shades which, in life, complicate reality and perplex the eye that seeks to probe it truly. This kind of simplifying pattern, of course, gives charm to most primitive storyknown as: The War between the Children of Light and the Children of Darkness. In modern dress, it is a class war. Both sides to it are caricatures.
And this:
Atlas Shrugged can be called a novel only by devaluing the term. It is a massive tract for the times. Its story merely serves Miss Rand to get the customers inside the tent, and as a soapbox for delivering her Message. The Message is the thing. It is, in sum, a forthright philosophic materialism.
What really amazes me is Chambers' analysis of Rand as simultaneously Marxist and fascist. Her philosophy is materialist, in that it takes economic principles as its motivating force for political philosophy. And her conclusions are fascist, because they place force at the center of all things, they lionize the overclass that delivers violence, and then lauds the overlords as heroes:
So Randian Man, at least in his ruling caste, has to be held “heroic” in order not to be beastly. And this, of course, suits the author’s economics and the politics that must arise from them. For politics, of course, arise, though the author of Atlas Shrugged stares stonily past them, as if this book were not what, in fact, it is, essentially — a political book. And here begins mischief. Systems of philosophic materialism, so long as they merely circle outside this world’s atmosphere, matter little to most of us. The trouble is that they keep coming down to earth. It is when a system of materialist ideas presumes to give positive answers to real problems of our real life that mischief starts. In an age like ours, in which a highly complex technological society is everywhere in a high state of instability, such answers, however philosophic, translate quickly into political realities. And in the degree to which problems of complexity and instability are most bewildering to masses of men, a temptation sets in to let some species of Big Brother solve and supervise them.
And this then leads us to the problem of how the philosophy applies to the real world. Not well, as we've found out these past 30 years.
