Ayn Rant, or, Shallowism
Here’s a blog post based on nothing more than the swirling mass of ideas inside my head. No quotes from the book this time, nor any quotes whatsoever, since I can’t find my copies of Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead. I’m sure some of you are breathing sighs of relief. Before I begin: Yes, I like Ayn Rand. Feel free to berate me in the comments section if you feel like it.
In any case…
Ayn Rand promoted a theory of thought which she called Objectivism (if you click the word, you’ll be taken to the Wikipedia page). The basics of this are fairly straight-forward: what you see is what you get. Also, things are objectively either right or wrong, regardless of the circumstances (sort of). Anyway, that’s not entirely right, but that’s OK, since I’m going to be going in a totally different, only tangentially related path.
What if we develop a literary theory where basically, what you see is what you get; deep readings and intense hermeneutic studies are for the birds. Let’s call is Shallowism, despite the obvious, immediate negative connotations. Now, I’m not advocating this idea, I’m just putting it out there as food for thought. The basic premise is as follows: When you read a book, understand only as much as you understand on your first reading; don’t look up words you don’t know, don’t go on Wikipedia or SparkNotes to figure out what the author was “really” saying, just read it, figure what you figure, and (I’m sure Ayn Rand would approve of this last bit, though probably not the rest) make a personal, independent decision as to whether or not the work is good or bad. Entirely subjective, entirely shallow. Is my Shallowism a valid form of literary criticism? Is it criticism at all? I don’t know, though I don’t think so, but it’s just a bit of food for thought.
