The good vs. itself?

I read this today in Leonard Peikoff's preface to Ayn Rand's synopsis of her screenplay Red Pawn (p. 124 in The Early Ayn Rand):

As in most Ayn Rand fiction, the story leaves one with a special, uplifted sense of human stature, and even grandeur, because the essential conflict is not between good and evil, but between good and good (the two men). In accordance with her view that evil is impotent, the villains in Ayn Rand's fiction rarely rise to the role of dominant, plot-determining figures. For the most part, like Fedossitch in this story, they are peripheral creatures doomed by their own irrationality to failure and defeat. The focus of the story, therefore, is not on man the sordid, but on man the heroic. (In The Fountainhead, the main conflict is not Roark against Toohey or Keating, but Roark against Dominique and Wynand. In Atlas Shrugged, the main conflict is Dagny and Rearden against Galt and the other strikers.)

Is this true? And does the attitude behind this interpretation explain—maybe unconsciously—the animosity Randroids have for libertarians, with the inner circle leading the charge?

It seemed like the major conflict in Atlas Shrugged was the good philosophy vs. the bankrupt philosophy, not marginally different facets of the good philosophy vs. each other. The inner conflicts of Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden, as Francisco D'Anconia and John Galt repeatedly point out, stem from not fully ridding themselves of every last morsel of the corrupt code—you know, not checking their premises enough. In The Fountainhead, I never figured out Dominique except as an expression of Rand's desire to get her ass owned by an angular man, but Wynand was a mixture of good and bad, and that's why he sunk. Being 75% good isn't enough in a morality play.

The struggles essentially were of the good to examine out their imperfections and break free and out of the deadweight of evil, with Roark and Galt as the examples, not of one good man to best another. Especially since there's only one kind of good. It seems like Peikoff would know the stuff better than I would, but it's possible that Rand's intent didn't come through enough and that my reading, though not the intended one, meshes with the texts better. (See my previous post.)

Not to mention that the Stalinist elements in Objectivism retcon the Trotskyist elements out freakin' all the time.

Along similar lines, do they (Objectivists) hate us (libertarians) for our freedoms? Are they bitter as an accident of following Rand's personal whims when she got tired of trying to convince Hank Libertarian to join the movement? Notice that the orthodox Objectivists haven't quit the American economy en masse—there are limits to the battles you can fight in real life, no matter how glorious your fiction is.

Share this