Friday, October 30, 2009
Here. Based on a quick read, I'd say Adam Kirsch is pretty clueless about capitalism and thus I doubt his insight into anything Randian. The conceit of the review is -- Rand agreed to take a 7 cent per copy cut in her royalties in order to keep John Galt's oration from being cut out of Atlas Shrugged, and this is something no true capitalist would ever have done, proving that Rand was an intellectual, not a capitalist. I'm afraid I doubt my own ability to capture the silliness of this, Kirsch's pseudo-insight. How many times do we have to tell these people -- it's not about the money! Of course Rand was willing to take a cut in royalties to get her message out. She should think it odd or wrong that a publisher should want to sell her the right to speak her mind in a way that might cost the publisher some money? Why, because she thought there was something wrong about selling books? Promoting ideas in them? Publishing being a business that had to worry about production costs? What? If all John Galt cared about was making money, and not freedom, you tool (sorry, lost my temper there for a moment), he would never have gone Galt in the first place. Any slave can get rich if he's smart enough and a good slave. The idea is not be a slave. Freedom! Randian heroes are frequently paying prices to do what they believe as individuals is the right thing to do, aren't they? I am no expert on Rand, but God, it's not like she's exactly opaque. Though maybe the biography is pretty good; I don't know. The reviewer I would guess is pretty hopeless. Chief Editor of the New Republic, big surprise.