Libertarian science-fiction author J. Neil Schulman has criticized my Nolan Chart column "Essential Science Fiction and Fantasy for Libertarians" several times, objecting to my omission of Ayn Rand and his own work. I here reply to his objections. by Dan Clore
(libertarian)
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Libertarian science-fiction author J. Neil Schulman has criticized my Nolan Chart column "Essential Science Fiction and Fantasy for Libertarians" several times, objecting to my omission of Ayn Rand and his own work. Here I reply to his objections.
Schulman has seemed especially peeved that I did not include his own novel Alongside Night in the list. I do, however, include his name among a list of authors whose work "could or should have been included", noting that "[i]n some cases I did not feel that the works in question merited inclusion; in other cases, I simply haven't gotten the works read yet and may add them in the future." I also note that his work "might lean too far in the conservative/capitalist direction for my taste".
The fact is that I simply have not gotten around to reading his novel yet. I intend to do so at some (indefinite) time in the future. Once I have, if I feel that the novel merits inclusion, I will add it. If I do not feel it merits inclusion, I won't add it. But one thing that I will not do is add works to the list based on someone's else's opinion.
In a more recent blog entry, Schulman asserts that Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged has without question inspired more people to join libertarian groups than any other novel in history." He notes that I "flippantly [write] off the novel that has created more libertarian converts than any other."
Now, at the beginning of my column, I noted that: "Many works of science fiction and fantasy portray libertarian societies, detail state/societal control-mechanisms and how to fight them, or otherwise bear direct relevance to libertarianism;. This list is intended for libertarians, anarchists, autonomists, horizontalists, and other anti-authoritarian radicals who want to read great books, and aren't interested in æsthetic mediocrities that happen to push their particular ideology."
In my judgment, Atlas Shrugged probably provides a better example of the latter point than any other "libertarian" novel ever written. The novel is absolutely worthless from an æsthetic standpoint. The only real appeal that it seems to have to its fans is the ideology that it spouts.
Much more important than disagreement over the æsthetic merits of the work, however, is the other point that I made above. Schulman seems to take a much more limited view of the scope of libertarianism than I do. Schulman seems to limit the scope of "libertarian groups" to free-market capitalist outfits such as the Libertarian Party.
I, on the other hand, also specify the traditional anarchist movement (which went by the moniker "libertarian" for a hundred years before anyone suggested applying the term to capitalists) and other anti-authoritarian radicals including autonomists and horizontalists. One should note that these tend to be far more radical and libertarian, wishing to abolish both state and capitalism, whereas Schulman actually includes state-corporate capitalists, even outright NeoCons like Glenn Beck (who has informed us that anarchists favor "total government", a goal for which they intend to kill off 10% of the population, among many other falsehoods).
It is probable that Schulman is correct in his assertion that Rand has led more individuals to groups like the Libertarian Party than any other novelist, as Jerome Tuccille's delightful history It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand makes clear.
But simply stating this ignores the pernicious effect that Rand and her Objectivism have had on libertarians. Rand presents as proven, objective fact a worldview that contradicts empirical reality on practically every point. Her followers often become so robotized in their dogmatic acceptance of this worldview purely on her authority (!) that their fellow libertarians have labeled them "Randroids". Among other errors, they frequently espouse what Kevin Carson has called "vulgar libertarianism", in which they identify actually-existing state-corporate capitalism with a truly free-market economy.
Fortunately, Tuccille's book also makes it clear that even if it does usually begin with Ayn Rand, it also most often does not end with her. But how much better it would be if those interested in libertarianism would simply bypass her and avoid the pernicious effect she has had on so many of her readers, and instead begin with truly worthy works, like those that I list, perhaps beginning with Robert Anton Wilson, and going on to learn about the broader anarchist and libertarian socialist tradition as well as the free-market capitalist tradition. This will certainly serve them better than wolloping doses of rhetoric that confusedly lump conservatives who spout a little free-market rhetoric in with those who genuinely hold libertarian ideals.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Dan Clore only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Dan Clore is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: r74quinn
Date: June 26, 2010 10:22:19 AM
Ayn Rand identified what, in reality, gives rise to the need for liberty - and why statism is evil. She made very important contributions in the fields of epistemology and ethics - discovering the essence of man's knowledge via the nature of his conceptual faculty, and she identified the basis of morality and virtue as integral with man's well-being and long-term happiness.
You say you don't like it, but then fail to provide any substantive reason. Not only that, but you fail to indicate a philosophical alternative. What do *you* think is the nature of reality? What do *you* think is the nature and means of obtaining knowledge? What do *you* regard as the basis of morality - i.e. of right and wrong?
Posted By: J Neil Schulman
Date: June 26, 2010 03:04:58 PM
Dan,
Here are the problems I have with you in a nutshell.
You're claiming enough expertise -- comprehensive familiarity -- with novels by and for libertarians to recommend to other libertarians what's "essential" -- then you admit you haven't even read Alongside Night, my first libertarian novel, which is arguably -- with the only possibly rivals being L. Neil Smith's Probability Broach or Wilson & Shea's Illuminatus! trilogy -- the most popular novel among libertarians since Atlas Shrugged, which you then slam as esthetically worthless.
It's a winning combination of fugheaded ignorance and fugheaded arrogance, isn't it?
I love the esthetics of Atlas Shrugged. So do millions of other readers. My first reading of this novel was so compelling that I read it pretty-much nonstop over four days, and -- no exaggeration -- I had to see my opthamologist because the small type gave me a persistent eye tic. So when you come across like -- if you can even get the irony -- Ayn Rand, all judgmental and throwing away works of literature because they don't match your personal esthetics, you come across as a damned fool.
You probably won't like Alongside Night when you get around to reading it. It's too lean, too spare, too plot-driven, too many conversations in which the characters "make speeches." But even though of my three novels I consider it my least esthetically rich, it strikes a chord in many more readers than my other two. I have to accept that the same way that other authors have to accept that readers may prefer works of theirs that are not their favorites. As an example in another field, Camille Saint-Saens could never understand why his Carnival of the Animals -- which he composed pretty much as something he could play on the piano at parties -- ended up being one of his most popular and enduring works. Arthur Conan Doyle hated the popularity of Sherlock Holmes so much he tried killing him off, only to be met by a howl of protest from his fans so loud that he had to figure out a way to resurrect him.
But as a critic, you need to understand how utterly unpredictable readers are. I have hated novels on a first reading that I came to love on subsequent readings. There are people who claim to "outgrow" books they once loved -- to me that means they've lost something of themselves.
I'd like to say that I've long been a fan of Alongside Night. I purchased it in the early 1980s, and I've re-read it numerous times. Is it a great novel? Perhaps not. But it's entertaining, and it's intriguing for anyone who wants to consider what might happen the closer we get to economic collapse. And don't be fooled...we're much closer than most people think. When the next financial crisis arrives in 2011, that reality will seem much more real.
Posted By: Dan Clore
Date: June 28, 2010 10:43:48 AM
Sorry, but Ayn Rand's worldview is impossible to take seriously if you have any knowledge of science and philosophy, and as a stated, contradicts the empirical facts on practically every topic.
For an alternative, I recommend the work (both fiction and nonfiction) of Robert Anton Wilson. From his own work and following the leads therein to other authors, I have learned more than I have from any other individual.
Posted By: Dan Clore
Date: June 28, 2010 10:55:33 AM
Once again, my column was not a list of books that (some) libertarians like because they echo their own political views. Nor was inclusion based on some sort of popularity contest. If anything, I focused much more on listing books that libertarians would likely not have read or known of -- H.G. Wells novel Men Like Gods, for instance, which is a first-rate piece of literature that presents an anarchistic (libertarian socialist) society.
I've read many thousands of books, but like everyone, my reading necessarily includes some lacunae. At some point I had to decide that I had plenty of recommendations to make, instead of plowing through all of the many books that I might have added, and leave open the possibility of adding to the list in the future. I have since read a number of possible additions, such as The Probability Broach, which I do not think merits inclusion (though that might be a close call), and I have many, many more waiting attention in the future.
In any case, readers will have to decide for themselves whether they agree with me, Schulman, or anyone else's recommendations.
Posted By: Dan Clore
Date: June 28, 2010 11:07:15 AM
Readers interested in the faults of Rand and her Objectivism might begin at Mike Huben's Critiques of Libertarianism site, which has a section on Objectivism and Rand here:
Note that while Huben is a liberal, the site includes and links to material from all across the political spectrum. Thus there are many criticisms of Rand and Objectivism written by libertarians.
Sorry, but Ayn Rand's worldview is impossible to take seriously if you have any knowledge of science and philosophy, and as a stated, contradicts the empirical facts on practically every topic.
For an alternative, I recommend the work (both fiction and nonfiction) of Robert Anton Wilson. From his own work and following the leads therein to other authors, I have learned more than I have from any other individual.
Well, at least I understand why you dislike Rand so much. Wilson is certainly an entirely different camp from Rand.
I think Rand was pretty sick, but she also had some excellent contributions to make. Also, there's no denying her impact on libertarian thought. So I think she has to be included on any serious list of influential libertarian books.
As for Wilson...I've read Illuminatus! and survived it. My brain cells were still intact at the completion of the book. Barely. Frankly, I think Wilson was just as mentally ill as Rand...albeit in different ways. What some call genius, others call insanity.
As for L. Neil Smith's Probability Broach...I'd easily recommend it along side H.G. Wells' Men Like Gods. In fact, I'd say Smith's fictional world is thought out better. I was also more entertained by Smith's story.
I noticed that you highlighted Ursula LeGuin's book in your first article. You really think it was that good? I was very disappointed by it. It seemed quite flat and formulaic to me.
Anyway, to each his own. Fortunately, expression of aesthetic and personal taste are one freedom that hasn't been trod upon by the government...yet!
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: June 30, 2010 11:58:26 AM
Hi Dan,
I can appreciate that this is your list and you should be the decider. I just can't understand why ANYONE, (authors or readers) would care what books you list or do not list. Geesh. Libertarians are ridiculous nit pickers about things that have no consequence at all....oh, I see...silly me, I just answered my own question. Happy bickering, y'all.
-Jahfre Fire Eater
Jahfre, I'd like to introduce you to today's word. Today's word is: positive. Try finding the positive in something, rather than always finding negatives. Negatives abound, but it doesn't take a genius to identify them.
The positive in Dan's article (and the readers' comments, including my own), is that they discuss good things and ideas that can be found in the world of literature. I realize that doesn't match your world view, but perhaps it's time you dealt with reality and realize that everything in the world isn't bad or nitpicking or counterproductive (except if it involves taking over the Republican Party, which you advocate).
The fact is that libertarian literature can be rewarding to read. Regardless of whether we might each agree or disagree about certain authors and books, this rewarding nature of reading remains intact.
Posted By: Michael Price
Date: July 2, 2010 03:58:40 AM
"Readers interested in the faults of Rand and her Objectivism might begin at Mike Huben's Critiques of Libertarianism site, which has a section on Objectivism and Rand here:
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/critobj.html"
Or you might not given that it's got mostly broken links the infamous Whittaker Chambers review, possibly the most misleading review ever written. If you have an objection to Rand other than "She's wrong about everything" then state it. Personally I'm pretty sick of people telling me how horrible a person Rand was and doing everything they claim to detest about her while doing it.
