Comments on: Our National Books

By: mike

mike — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:54:15 +0000

Dave,

I think we talked about this, but I didn’t see this comment. Most people that write about Rand haven’t read her either. Although she shouldn’t be our national book, she is very widely read and those who want to understand the individualistic libertarian movement in the country need to read her with an open mind, not with a biased mind.

I find her over-the-top and aiming beyond her target to a degree, but I think one of the things that she is almost right on is economics. The government intervention that promotes certain entities over others (corporatism) is in direct violation of her views on economics. Socialism is also. She believes in free economics without the government assisting corporations, banks, etc., if they are failing. I think that if you read her stuff with an open mind, without prejudice, you’ll get some great stuff and find you agree with a large percentage of her philosophy, though definitely not all.

By: Dave

Dave — Sat, 23 May 2009 16:46:40 +0000

Mike, although I haven’t read any Ayn Rand, I understand from reading and hearing about her writings that she is the exact opposite of what we want in our national books. Her books are “bent,” calling egoism the highest form of living. If I understand correctly, the fact that Rand is on the list four times is frightening. Is the financial crisis any mystery if our national books are by Ayn Rand?

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 19 May 2009 06:42:31 +0000

One thing that I forgot to address was the “heresy of the didactic,” a phrase coined by Poe to assert that not everything has to be overtly moralistic or “preachy”; that we should be able to read (and write) for the pleasure of the story without having to teach a lesson. While I agree to a writers liberty to write for beauty of the art, this has led to many of our “modern classics” being “bent” stories, that “call evil good and good evil” or blur the lines between right and wrong. This has led to a shrinking of of what we as a nation hold as sacred, meaning there is very little morality we can discuss liberally. We’re reduced to “thou shalt not kill” and “thou shalt not steal,” and even those are situational.

We need, especially with our children, to read books that reflect our sense of right and wrong, and discuss the morality of the situations and decisions in the story, even if it’s “broken” (a non-example such as 1984 by Orwell).

By: mike

mike — Mon, 18 May 2009 19:30:30 +0000

Another list is to see what we are reading. Random House has a list of Top 100 Novels ranked by readers:

The Top 10:
1. Atlas Shrugged–Ayn Rand
2. The Fountainhead–Ayn Rand
3. Battlefield Earth–L. Ron Hubbard
4. The Lord of the Rings–Tolkein
5. To Kill a Mockingbird–Harper Lee
6. 1984–Orwell
7. Anthem–Rand
8. We the Living–Rand
9. Mission Earth–L. Ron Hubbard
10. Fear–L. Ron Hubbard

Interesting list. Dominated by two writers, both postmodernist anti-institutionalist in Rand and Hubbard. But even Orwell and Tolkein are anti-institutionalists, though not individualists like the prior two. This list needs obvious tempering with more spiritual content.

By: mike

mike — Mon, 18 May 2009 19:15:38 +0000

Great post, Dave.

I think my list of national books for America start with:

The Declaration of Independence
The Constitution
The Bible
Shakespeare
Common Sense by Thomas Paine
Washington’s Farewell address
Civil Disobedience by Thoreau
Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Stowe
Gettysburg Address

Just for starters.