This volume's few exceptions to ignorance don't compensate for myriad content that should have not gone beyond editors' review
This anthology is a diverse — perhaps motley is a better word — collection somewhat unified by the editors' intention to have its multiple contributors discuss Ayn Rand "in the context of feminism" (pg. 17), with many arguing for their views of how women do or should view the works of Rand. Most contributors are women, with a few men here too. The better essays are by women whose evaluations end up exposing the weaknesses in some of the ill-informed, sloppily-thought-out essays elsewhere in the collection.
Wendy McElroy discusses an Ayn Rand scene that raises cries of disgust: the first sexual encounter between Roark and Dominique in "The Fountainhead." McElroy asks that readers to notice, "as Rand later explains, it was an act Dominique could have ended at any moment". McElroy addresses the accusation that the encounter must be rape because Dominique uses that word in her mind, yet Dominique fantasized "contemptuous flaunting, [so] Dominique would be compelled to use hyperbole. After all, saying 'I've had rough sex ... I've had rough sex' would not produce the same reaction." (pgs. 163-164)
McElroy's essay challenges the view of Susan Brownmiller (elsewhere in the collection) where McElroy writes that the Roark-Dominique scene for Rand "is not rape—it is an ecstatic surrender to the ultimate value in life. For [Brownmiller], it is a symptom of pathology. This difference is the end result of the antagonistic paradigms with which Rand and most contemporary feminists approach sexuality." (pg. 165) As McElroy sums up, "many feminists often ignore a key aspect of Rand's ideal woman: she is the full intellectual, emotional, moral, and political equal of man. Indeed, Rand's heroine is generally the intellectual and moral superior of every man surrounding her except for the one ultimate man who is the ideal." (pg. 166)
This level of analysis and perspective was not achieved by other contributors. The piece by Camille Paglia (from an interview) indicates a reading at just the surface level. Paglia does appreciate that while "Women's studies has been oriented toward rediscovering the mediocre thinker, or the writer who talks about her victimization," an alternative is available from "someone who preaches individualism and independence as Ayn Rand does."
Contributor Loiret-Prunet lacks such intellectual independence. She keeps citing opinions of others: "According to Sciabarra (1995, 236), Rand traced an internal relationship between life and value, ..." (pg. 98). And: "Ronald Merrill (1991) observes: 'As Nathaniel Branden has pointed out, this ancient cliche ..." (pg. 94) She lays out evidence that "Images in three are numerous in the whole book ['We the Living']" (pg. 88) and itemizes some, but opines that the meaning of this, "which may not have deep philosophical significance, might be a subconscious resurgence of Rand's own concerns with triadic synthesis, traces of the molding of her thought, or ironical clins d'oeil, or of an instinctive choice by the author of the number three." (pg. 89) Loiret-Prunet doesn't consider that this quantity is the smallest needed for simultaneous comparison and contrast.
This collection contains bizarre, mystical and collectivist perspectives. Contributor Wilt writes about "the heart of the Real," and says that Rand "would not, of course, accept the postmodern contention that 'the individual' is also a mystic construction. For she is its priest." (pg. 187) Contributor Michalson writes, "If Cherryl had had Dagny's birth and circumstances, one could easily imagine her running a major business" (pg. 216) though this hardly addresses the differences between the characters which the readers of the novel are shown. In this pronouncement and in one about Cherryl suffering a bad marriage (though Michalson lays blame on "the institution of traditional marriage")(pg. 217), Michaelson does not address that possibility that Rand pinned the blame on bad philosophy and rampant irrationality.
Contributors Presley and Vacker often write for pages at a time without mentioning Ayn Rand (pgs. 124-127, 262-265), and when they do, do so briefly.
The ill-informed remarks here may have the misfortune of being accepted by others and become oft-repeated bromides. Contributor Sheaffer addresses what he assumes to be Ayn Rand's view of women wanting to look up to a man as meaning, "If a woman attains the position of a low-level executive, she forces her man to attain a higher-level one in order to keep her affection. If she becomes an assistant professor, he must attain at least the level of full professor. If she is elected to the House of Representatives, he must become at least a Senator. As soon as he fails to outshine her, he becomes unworthy of hero worship." (pg. 311) He obviously didn't bother to read Rand's "An Answer to Readers" in the March 1967 issue of "The Objectivist," where she wrote that to "equate a man with his achievement is a dangerous bit of superficiality and package-dealing. One loves a man's character, not his achievement; one loves that in his character which made him capable of achieving. And love is not a professional competition."
(The above quotation by Ayn Rand does not appear anywhere in "Feminist Interpretations.")
Contributor Brown likewise goes into a complaint that, in disparaging Women's Lib, "Rand here also defends a system that ... did in fact have laws still denying women equal rights ... and rights over their own bodies." (footnote 11 to pg. 292) Brown makes no mention of Rand's "Of Living Death" (Rand advocating birth control and abortion) or "A Suggestion" ("The Objectivist," February 1969), which was Rand asking her readers to write to legislators in favor of a law allowing abortion.
Contributor Wilt writes, "The Fountainhead appeared to instant popular acclaim in 1943 ... She wrote Atlas Shrugged over the next fifteen years ..." (pg. 179) Both statements are wrong.
Contributor Barbara Branden knew Ayn Rand and researched her life, yet writes about Rand that "she would write, on her wedding license, under the category of profession: 'Waitress.'" (pg. 34) This isn't what Branden wrote in her 1986 book: it was "Waiter" that appears on the license. (Branden, 1986, pg. 93) I have looked at the document filed among public documents in Los Angeles, and what is typed on it says "Waiter". This is an important distinction, because it being "waiter" supports my suspicion that Rand wrote down or spoke "Writer" but a clerk typed it incorrectly.
If I show disgust about this essay collection, it's because I expect contributors to know what Ayn Rand said about the subjects on which these essayists offer reports on her views.
This review is one of several by me originally posted on Amazon.
I reviewed several books related to Ayn Rand.
To read the others, go to this page.