Michaela’s Comments (group member since May 25, 2008)

Michaela’s comments from the I loath Ayn Rand (but continue to reread her books) group.

Why does Dominik marry Keating?

What are some of the qualities that make "good" archtecture in Rand's opinion?

Why is Peter Keating such an object of interest to Ayn Rand? She presents him as someone with good qualities who makes bad decisions. What bothers Rand about Keating's choices?

Dominik is very strong female, she's sexy, uncompromsing, and not always "feminine". Peter Keating often calls her "cold", what do you think makes Dominik strong? What are her weaknesses?

What are some things you like/dislike about Roark? What are some things that distinguish Roark from other people?

I have to say Rand's main problem is that she establishes no problems for herself in her books. She doesn't challenge her ideas with real problems.

I really enjoy Ayn Rand's writing. It is mysteriously lulling to have her describe a world in which one need never apologize for one's lack of knowledge or lack of compassion (and that good people necessarily already have both). It answers the overwhelmed student of post-modernism - don't bother feeling for others, you are free, and moral in your freedom.
The unfortunate problem with Ayn Rand's philosophy of objectivism in her novels (there are plenty of problems in her philosophical writings, and the reason I love her novels is that her real thoughts sneak out through her characters) is that it only suits people who are realtively free to begin with (objectivists and libertarians are such good bedmates). If you are not strong to begin with - you don't deserve help, you are evil (all her evil characters are weak...). Rand indicates that laziness cannot be pared with any form of goodness. That is ridiculous - it's just not true that people are able and have lots of energy because they are good. It makes the logical end that lazy and inable people are evil - and although she doesn't have them be destroyed( i find it interesting she never goes futher and gives objectivists the perogative to finish them off themselves) they conviently destroy themselves to proove her point. She gives handicapped children in one scene all the attributes of animals... I think, in fact we are all sometimes lazy, sometimes altruistic, sometimes unyielding and strong and that the mixture helps us respond morally to very different situations. You're not bad because you're lazy and you're not good because you're able (try to write that proof using logic...)The lack of the complecations in her characters are written to suit her purpose and are not studies of how people act. She never challenges herself, she is all Prescription in her characters, and no writing from life (pretty useless philosophically). Her Roarks, DOminiques, and Wynans remind me of recovering alcoholics - they are so afraid to make complicated deciscions, that they reject complications as a moral problem, instead of a reality.

Anybody read this book? "My Years with Ayn Rand" by NAthaniel Branden published 1999 ? I highly reccomend it.

So how do people think Objectivism is good for people? I don't think it's good period, I don't espouse it, but it get's the juices flowing.