The Problem with "Friends Don't Let Friends Read Ayn Rand"- Freedom to disagree is a bedrock of healthy relationships and flourishing culture
Why I will never tell any of my friends what they are not allowed to read.
While scrolling on Facebook the other day, a headline shared by someone caught my attention: “Friends Don’t Let Friends Read Ayn Rand.” The nature of force within the headline was the first thing that gave me pause. What kind of “friend” forbids another friend from reading certain literary works?
The next was the mention of Ayn Rand.
The article that was shared, published at Open Culture, is approximately two paragraphs and explains southern writer Flannery O’ Connor’s disdain for Rand’s fictional work. Apparently, Rand’s praise of hard-boiled crime writer Mickey Spillane really rubbed her the wrong way:
“I hope you don’t have friends who recommend Ayn Rand to you. The fiction of Ayn Rand is as low as you can get re fiction. I hope you picked it up off the floor of the subway and threw it in the nearest garbage pail. She makes Mickey Spillane look like Dostoevsky.” -Flannery O’ Connor
I expected the article to have more meat to it, given the veracity of the title. Unfortunately, I still maintain a bit of hope when it comes to social media, so I engaged the original poster and simply asked why he didn’t like her literary work in particular. I thought, just maybe I could have a rational conversion. Based on a few examples below from our exchange below, my hope didn’t stand a chance.
Me: “I opened the article expecting to find a critical review as to why people shouldn’t read Ayn Rand. Just curious, why aren’t you a fan of her literary work?”
OP (original poster): “Well, as noted by Ms. O’Connor, she’s simply a terrible writer… One should put them (Rand’s books) in the garbage where they belong. ”
After attempting to explain a bit about her philosophy by posting a comment and citing three sources, he said I was “rude” for “blitz-posting” and continued in regards to my highly reputable sources which included Mises Institute and work by Murray Rothbard:
“I’m going to delete/throw all that garbage in the trash, where it belongs, shortly.”
This isn’t the first time a progressive male has tried to silence me. Many times in the past when I have attempted to engage with them in rational discussion they simply delete my comments. I guess the feminism that they claim to support only counts for women who obey their line of “thinking.”
“Garbage” was the choice descriptive he kept using repeatedly.
When one of the OP’s friends said that though he’s no longer an Objectivist, he still sees merit to Rand’s fiction, the OP likened her work to an illness and said:
“I am very happy to hear you have recovered my friend.”
Ideology vs. Philosophy
The ease at which people are comfortable with forcing others to do and not do things is alarming. I find that the people who are screaming the loudest about inclusivity immediately exclude those who think differently than them. Those who scream about victimhood the loudest are quick to become the aggressor when someone simply asks a question in regards to why they are a victim. And as I’m seeing now from my social media exchange, those who claim to detest the banning of books are perfectly comfortable forbidding their friends to read books (or any type of literature) that don’t align with their political ideology.
The aforementioned OP likened Objectivist philosophy (Rand’s philosophy) to dogma by using the term “worship,” stated that Objectivists belong to a “cult,” and that Ayn Rand’s writing (and apparently any “libertarian” writing) is garbage.
Though I don’t belong to any political ideology because I’m a Voluntaryist, therefore a political orphan, it is rare I’m able to get through a conversation without someone self-assigning me a political party when I have never given any statement that would suggest I belong to one.
I’m a philosopher, not a balloter.
Whether one is a fan of Rand’s work or not, it is important to read and attempt to understand her books and philosophy before discrediting it as garbage.
Here are just a few tidbits about Rand’s philosophy:
Objectivism: Ayn Rand invented the philosophy of Objectivism, which unfolds in story form in all of her novels including Anthem, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged. In her words, Objectivism is “the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”
A few of Objectivism’s Principles include (follow hyperlink for more details):
“Reality as an absolute”
Man is not a predetermined creature but has free will
Rational self-interest is moral
“Good art is crucial to good living”
Just a few of Objectivism’s virtues widely covered in Rand’s work are independence, productivity, pride, honesty, integrity, and justice.
Objectivism permeates through every word of her literary works. The Fountainhead, my personal favorite, is a riveting tale about an architect who refuses to give into establishment forces and stays true to his vision no matter the cost.
Does this philosophy and literature sound like the type to just cast aside as garbage?
The Freedom to Disagree
It’s important to have the freedom to read works that we both disagree and agree with. How can we know if we truly disagree with it if we don’t take the time to study it?
From Karl Marx to Robert Reich, I’ve read just as many authors I disagree with as the ones whose work I support. That way, I can properly refute the ones I disagree with when given the opportunity instead of just saying, “Well my favorite writer said they’re terrible so I think they’re terrible.”
It is interesting to me every time someone criticizes Ayn Rand, they never answer my question when I ask: Have you ever read any of her work?
I’m thinking their lack of answer is all the answer I need.
It’s even more important to champion a society that encourages the reading of all literary works, the State pre-approved ones you find in classrooms, and even more importantly, the ones you will never find in classrooms.
A society that has devolved into name-calling, bullying, and emotionalist tactics during discussions instead of having the ability to engage in rational discourse using reason and critical thinking skills is not a society we should give up on but one we should stand up to.
While the world regresses into animals brawling on instinct individuals need to keep their heads and their souls steady with the use of reason. The only way to combat a zombified society is by never giving in to its behavior, and ever more boldly proceeding against it.
If you are my friend, please know I’d never forbid you from immersing yourself in an artform even if I disagree with its philosophy or literary techniques.
Those who are quick to forbid a friend on some artificial moral high ground are those who lust for power, not knowledge. I personally have no room for those people in my life.
Freedom Journal runs solely on voluntary donations. If you’d like to help me continue sharing inspirational, thought-provoking content there are a couple of ways you can contribute.
Donate via Stripe if a credit card is your preferred method.
You can also donate via PayPal here.
Any amount is greatly appreciated :)
Peace, Love, and Liberty.
-Rebecca-