Selected book reviews

Eliot Rosewater

Haven't done these in a while...

Eliot Rosewater

The back cover of the Penguin Modern Classics edition of All The King's Men has a New York Times quote describing it as "the definitive novel about American politics". However, I think this stylization of the novel (as a political one) is misleading in a particular way. The book is narrated by Jack Burden, who for most of the novel is the personal aide of State Governor Willie Stark and involved deeply with the politics of that position. The novel is really composed of two components: the obvious political part which describes events surrounding the Governor, and the personal part which focuses on the life of the narrator and others. The two parts are linked and weave in and out of primary focus.

If one is to read it as a political novel then I believe the following framework is in operation. The political part describes in a very obvious way the corruption ingrained in the government of the State. This part is highly narrative and really speaks for itself. I think then that the personal part exists to provide explanation for the political side. The overall approach is then to see the problems in the government as a result of human weakness on an individual scale. From an interpretive perspective the book is challenging, as for a first reading the political parts don't call (I think) for too much reflection, whereas the personal part only work if it is reflected on.

Robert Penn Warren explicitly denied the political stylization, saying All The King's Men "was never intended to be a book about politics". The personal theory put forth is certainly independent of politics. Jack Burden begins as an aloof personality who is willing to let life take him where other people decide -- he thus adopts a kind of determinist position. The book then describes his philosophical transformation. There is a key chapter in the middle in which he describes his biographical exploration, for his PhD, of one of his ancestors whose story bears the moral that even small actions have consequences. (Cass had an affair with a women whose husband subsequently committed suicide, and the maid was sold into prostitution, too, because of it all). Burden quit the PhD 6 months before completion -- my theory is that he quite to avoid this conclusion about consequences and thus allow himself to live without responsibility for some time more.

The point I'm trying to make is that this personal philosophy then reflects in the political. The lessons we learn from Burden's personal life partly explain the actions of the Governor and other politicians, and perhaps the State as a whole.

As you can probably see, this book isn't simple. I think it's a challenging novel that allows scope for much thought and interpretation. I hesitate to give a final verdict as the issues involved are still mulling about in my head. I really enjoyed reading it and it has provoked a lot of thought in me. But I still haven't got my head around it fully.

Eliot Rosewater

I think that as a novel Atlas Shrugged has almost no literary merit. It is clear that Ayn Rand herself didn't take the job of writing a novel too seriously. There are a number of key moments when people in it act in ways they never would, according to Rand's worldview, but do so anyway to provide a dramatic background for Rand's main characters. There's a particularly obvious "slip" when a character converts herself to the cause without being exposed to existing members of the cause - but surprisingly uses the exact same terminology to describe her thoughts as the others. The novel is a vessel for communicating Rand's philosophy, and it must be read as such: literary considerations are clearly not the point.

I personally think that's a pity, because the basic storyline has promise. Due to increasing governmental control in the United States a group of intellectual industrialists and innovators start a strike whereby they refuse to provide products and jobs for the economy. They hold that the government and friends (collectively the 'looters') are taxing and regulating the industrialists' economic output only for their own perverted benefit. The philosophy is not limited to the political, though. In Atlas Shrugged Rand also presents views on meta-physics (objective reality exists), epistemology (reason is the sole means of gaining knowledge) and ethics. These views are highly interlinked; in fact, Ayn Rand tries to present them as forming a chain of logical implication (in order of my presentation, with the political views then last).

The primary weakness of the political element is that Rand could justifiably be accused of merely straw-manning for 1168 pages. The governmental agents in the book are really bad, and Rand surely proves them wrong, but they are extreme caricatures and the criticisms levelled at them do not necessarily hold for such people in the actual world (at least in Europe in 2012; I can't speak for the Russia of her birth). A novel that the tackled contemporary political culture would have to be significantly more sophisticated, in my opinion.

If I were to take an agree/disagree binary view (an approach I can't say Rand would altogether disagree with) then I would say on balance that I don't find her philosophy or methods to be worthwhile. I find her moral philosophy frankly distasteful. Rand glorifies a certain kind of alpha-male character, and if you aren't him then you're not worth talking about. Her obsession with monetary compensation is strange -- particularly when it's clear that one can derive self-interested pleasure from doing things for others "for free". Finally, the sexism: the sole female hero in the novel is regularly "owned" by Hank Reardon while in bed, and in the final climax (of the novel, not the bed) Rand makes it very clear that only the male members of the strike came out for the fight. So much for one's character being judged solely on the basis of one's intellectual merits.

I have discussed her methods and overall intellectual approach a lot with my girlfriend; in summary, I think that there is a fine line between consistency and stubbornness, and I think Rand tends towards the latter. A former lover of hers seemingly once apologized to "every student of Objectivism" for "contributing to that dreadful atmosphere of intellectual repressiveness that pervades the Objectivist movement." Given the figurehead, I can see how that atmosphere could come about. [Wiki quote: could be bull****.]

That's not to suggest that the book or philosophy is without merit; on the contrary, there is much of value within both. Many of her criticisms of the governmental setup are very sharp, and her analysis of the ‘looter’ psychology is good. The novel is, one must confess, also inspiring. I think, though, that the basic material (the plot, the political insights, the epistemology) could have been made into a great novel, were the author, well, not who she was.

In conclusion, though I disagreed mostly with the view being put forth, I think Atlas Shrugged is a worthwhile book to have read – the main reason to skip it is not the views but rather the unnecessary length.

Denerick

Ah - but is the philosophical novel not a different beast altogether? The traditional conventions of prose, style and characterisation are not as important as commonly assumed in such an approach.

Not having read any of Rand's work directly (Though I have consumed the various wikipedia pages, if that counts ) I have to say that Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister are far more significant criticisms of the social democratic/welfare state than this pompous Russian with an attitude problem... My 2c...

Eliot Rosewater

Denerick wrote: »

Ah - but is the philosophical novel not a different beast altogether? The traditional conventions of prose, style and characterisation are not as important as commonly assumed in such an approach.

Yes I think that the standard techniques of the novel aren't required, but I don't think that makes them totally undesirable.

Eliot Rosewater

I took this book out of the library on a whim, and have never been so rewarded! Broadly, The Myth of the Rational Voter lies in the public choice school of economics and is an extended criticism of democracy. Whereas most public choice theory seems to focus on the supply-side element of democracy (on politicians, who supply policies and leadership) Caplan's book looks at the demand-side instead.

The central thesis of the book is that voters are rationally irrational. (Compare with the usual public choice claim that they are rationally ignorant.) Caplan claims that it makes sense for voters to hold views that are ultimately contradictory or false. A significant example used in the book is protectionism. Elementary economics teaches that free trade is mutually beneficial to the countries involved, but yet nearly every country practices some form of protectionism - and often by the demands of voters. Why would voters favor a policy that is ultimately bad for themselves and their country?

Well, on an individual level, standing up for protectionism feels good. People think it is the truly right thing to believe, and are proud of standing up for their country and other groups they identify with. So there are clearly personal benefits to being pro-protectionism. What are the costs? On an individual level, they're effectively none. Your particular vote isn't going to change an election, it won't directly shape policy, and so the actual practical repercussions of your beliefs are irrelevant. No matter how you individually vote, the same policies will almost certainly be pursued anyway. And the negative costs of any policy will be shared among all of society, yielding a minuscule individual cost. In that context, you may as well pick the beliefs that make you feel good - because then at least you get some benefit from them.

But, when all of society has an incentive to hold incorrect views certain ones will take hold and actually be taken as policy by politicians eager to adopt a majoritarian position. This is termed systematic bias: certain individual level biases (such as pro-protectionism) ultimately become reflected in the majority (systematic) decisions of voters.

This central thesis is expanded and supported with interesting empirical evidence that shows that the public at large holds wildly incorrect economic views. At later stages of the book, the author criticizes "democratic fundamentalism" head on, and draws some really insightful conclusions from obvious public opinion. People would hardly react to the statement "all the ills of democracy can be cured by more democracy", but what if you say "all the ills of markets can be cured by more markets"?! And there's some fun too: he notes that people will dismiss the negative employment effects of a minimum wage, but yet in filling out a job application still set a lower wage demand to raise their chances of being hired.

In summary, this is a controversial, sophisticated and thought-provoking book that, like all books that challenge popular conceptions coherently and intelligently, merits being read.