THE PHILOSOPHICAL BEEF BETWEEN AYN RAND AND ?

While it is publicly known that Flannery O'Connor disparaged the writing of Ayn Rand in a letter to a friend in 1960, the identity of the unnamed author Ayn Rand mentioned in her (1973) essay entitled "Selfishness Without a Self" appears to still be a forgotten, underrated mystery.

On May 31, 1960, Flannery O'Connor wrote the following to Maryat Lee:

"I hope you don’t have friends who recommend Ayn Rand to you. The fiction of Ayn Rand is as low as you can get re fiction. I hope you picked it up off the floor of the subway and threw it in the nearest garbage pail. She makes Mickey Spillane look like Dostoevsky."

Although her evaluation of Ayn Rand's writing might seem harsh, unfair, or biased to those who like Ayn Rand's fiction, the fact is many people of a variety of political persuasions (including some conservatives and libertarians) consider her fiction to be stilted, mediocre, and/or unreadable. To be fair, people have also complained about Dostoyevsky's style (his ability or lack thereof as a prose stylist), his lack of artistry, etc.

Although some would argue that Dostoyevsky was a more artistic and soulful writer of literary fiction than Ayn Rand, what they both had in common was that their conservative or right-wing beliefs or ideology greatly informed their writing and how they constructed their characters.

According to one perspective on art, writers like Marcel Proust, Jack Kerouac, Emily Brontë and Nabokov were superior literary artists because political beliefs, philosophies, and ideologies didn't play a major, explicit role in their works, leaving more up to the readers' interpretation.

Yet certain readers may also wish to satisfy, at least occasionally, a desire for the structure or security of more ideologically- or philosophically-driven fiction as opposed to seemingly endless freedom, ambiguity, arbitrariness, or chaos.

Perhaps there were also writers who managed to find some sort of balance, although that doesn't necessarily mean that their writing had a better effect or influence when compared to those who either embraced or eschewed the writing of fiction that was more explicit about philosophical and political ideologies.

As I reread what Ayn Rand wrote in her essay "Selfishness Without A Self," I realize that unless she was trying to further obscure or conceal the identity of the writer she was referring to, then she probably wasn't talking about Flannery O'Connor since Ayn Rand described this mystery woman as "an older woman," while Flannery O'Connor was twenty years younger than Ayn Rand. So it's probably still a mystery waiting to be solved as to who Ayn Rand was referring to when she wrote about the "embittered, hostile, lonely, and very unhappy" female author who was "very intelligent, but inclined toward mysticism."

One thing Rand and O'Connor had in common was that they both employed subjective realism in their writing. While Ayn Rand's works often leaned towards idealism, emphasizing the importance of reason, individualism, and self-interest, O'Connor's stories delved into the gritty realities of human nature, often juxtaposed with religious and moral themes. Their narratives, though distinct in style and thematic focus, provided deep insights into the subjective experiences and perspectives of their characters, making their stories resonate with readers.

Both Ayn Rand and Flannery O'Connor delved deeply into the human condition, often using their fiction to explore philosophical and moral themes. Despite their differences in style and approach, they both share the ability to create complex characters that challenge societal norms and beliefs.

Rand's characters often embody her philosophy of Objectivism, emphasizing individualism, reason, and rational self-interest. They navigate worlds where societal structures and collective ideologies often clash with personal desires and ambitions. Similarly, O'Connor's characters frequently grapple with moral delemmas, religious convictions, and the consequences of their actions, often set against the backdrop of the American South.

While their thematic concerns might differ, both writers were adept at creating narratives that probed the depths of human motivation, belief systems, and the complexities of moral and ethical choices. Their works continue to resonate.