Once again, my view on Atlas Shrugged has been requested, so that another person can marshall their argument that many smart people they know hate the book. They want to prove that Atlas Shrugged turns happy little children into sociopathic monsters.
Listen, Ayn Rand wrote a stupid, little book that I personally find less appealing to read than having a sewing needle shoved unlovingly up my urethra. I personally think that Atlas Shrugged is less a book than an overly long pamphlet on objectivism. I can't summon up much hate for the book though. It's barely a novel, and it's not an engaging or interesting book. I never even finished it, I was so bored I gave up and quit. That's my thought. I think, if anything, my views on Ayn Rand's work is probably worse than those who froth at the mouth with hate. Mine is just dismissive. I just don't care.
I cannot bring myself to agree that Atlas Shrugged makes people into assholes. I've met people who have read the book, some of them have taken in the ideas and held them close to their heart, some have rejected them and found other philosophies. When it comes down to it, the person mattered way more than the art ever did.
You can argue that art is powerful, and often times it is, but the only change that art makes is by giving real people a way to phrase things. I have rarely ever seen a book, movie, video game, painting, song or interpretive dance really change someone's mind on a subject. I have seen it give people a way to introduce a subject in conversation, encourage them to inform themselves about a subject, or (most frequently of all) articulate an idea they already had.
You take the St. Crispin's Speech from Shakespeare's Henry V...
That is either the worst piece of warmongering ever immortalized in the English language, or the single explanation anyone ever needs to point out the beauty of the brotherhood of arms. I have heard both interpretations given quite eloquently. My personal view can be best expressed by saying "Or? What's this 'or' shit?" The point is that people have been having the argument about whether Henry was cynically exploiting his troops or did he mean it for centuries and no one has been able to bring a final answer to the question.
Because art doesn't do that.
I don't believe that anyone reads a book and becomes an asshole. Assholes read books and find articulation for their views. They were going to be dicks, no matter what, this just gave them something to fall back on besides their own words. Good people don't become better for their books either. They just find articulation for good ideas they already hold. Society has more hold over people than any book, movie, play, sculpture, radio play, live sex show or collectable figurine from the Franklin Mint that only had 965 firing days.
Art can give you a reference, it can give you a common place to explain an idea, but it rarely gives anyone their ideas independent of actual people. It may express your idea better than you could, or give you a new way to think about a problem, but the influence it has is remarkably small when given the enormous impact we have with other human beings.
And if I may, allow me to express some things I am not. I am not a drug-fueled sociopath who runs rampant through the desert. I am not a hard bitten private eye, who screws both his secretary and his partner's wife. I am not a burglar, roped into an adventure by thirteen whining dwarves. Not a gangster, nor a gritty cop in search of gangsters. I'm not a pre-war 1%er who always find himself in sticky situations that only his trusty valet can get him out of. I'm not a womanizing spy with a penchant for martinis. I'm not a Jedi knight, or even a pirate who shoots first. I am not an occasionally resurrected spree killer with a fetish for hockey masks. I am not an orchid loving detective who weighs a third of a ton, nor his smartalec man-Friday, Saturday, Sunday Monday, Tuesday Wednesday and Thursday. I am not a failed wizard with an animated trunk. I'm not even a thriller writer who had to fight his own evil twin to the death via the medium of sparrows. There are a lot of things I'm not, and while some of the things I've enjoyed have helped to inform and cement my views, I don't think any of them were that instrumental in actually FORMING my views. They were my own views, and I would argue my parents, my sister and the people around me were far, far more instructive than any entertainment might have been.
The most art ever did was to give me a way to talk about the ideas already in my head, and the only reason I ever wrote, drew or painted, was because I didn't see MY ideas expressed quite in the way I wanted them to be.
So no, I don't think Ayn Rand turned anyone into a monster. I think the most she ever did was to give a monster a phrase they could use to justify their monstrous behavior. The same applies for all the good and bad done in the name of whatever gods happen to come your way. People's views are their own, and all they're ever doing is hiding behind what their holy book claims their god said because they know that otherwise their views would be indefensible. But asshole behavior can't be blamed on The Bible, The Koran, Hop on Pop, or The Legend of Zelda.
Likewise, I don't credit The Bible, The Koran, Hop on Pop, The Legend of Zelda, Black Orchids, Transformers: The Movie, or even Mark Rothko with any good behavior. A person who is going to be good, would probably do good works no matter what their reading or viewing material might be. Good people sometimes might need a bit of guidance as to what area they aim their goodness, but a good person is going to be a good person without being told by a book or game what to do.
An organization, inspired by a TV show, might be able to encourage a person to commit money to a charity, but now we're talking about a group of people again. Trekkies do good and get all that money for worthy causes because they're good people. The good messages they get from Star Trek resonated with something already good within them and as a group they encourage each other.
But as powerful as I believe art to be, it's nothing when compared to the power of people who consume that art. People are important. Ideas are transitory. You'd do better to try and convince someone not to be an asshole than you will shoving a book under their nose and expecting them to get the non-asshole idea on their own. And maybe they won't anyway. I've personally rejected hundreds of philosophical ideas, not because they were good or bad, but because they didn't resonate with whatever frequency my own internal barometer hums at. Even the most pervasive propaganda in the world is only as effective as the audience experiencing it.
So stop blaming art. Art is innocent. Art is neutral. Art is only good or bad by the people who consume it.
No comments:
Post a Comment