Well, that should be obvious, but apparently it is not.
Charles Pretzlik is described as the "companies" editor of the Financial Times, but, it seems, he'd have preferred to be a literary critic. Surely, though, literary critics are supposed to read the works they write about?
For Pretzlik's latest target is Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, about which, he writes, John Galt is not worth knowing. Oh dear. He has perhaps not even read the book, to judge by his own comments. I say this because, while he criticizes the book, he offers no examples and no argument of substance, just assertions. Indeed, his assertions often betray his own ignorance. He swings and misses in his third paragraph, for example:
Yet, Rand's story about an engineer, John Galt, who "stopped the motor of the world" by leading successful businessmen on strike against the new elite of collectivist free-loaders is easily the most successful business book ever.
Umm...not really. It's true that most of the leading figures in the story are businessmen of one type or another. It's also true, though, that significant strikers include Richard Halley, a composer; a superior court judge named Narragansett and a brain surgeon named Hendricks; physicist Quentin Daniels; philosophers Hugh Akston and Ragnar Danneskjöld; and actress Kay Ludlow. Perhaps Mr. Pretzlik skimmed over any mention of them? Is that what a literary critic does? I just hope he doesn't do his day job in like manner...
But there's more. Pretzlik doesn't use the tired argument that Rand advocates "rule by the strong," but he does manage to hint at it: Atlas Shrugged, he writes, "grants" business leaders "Nietzschean superman status."
Please.
I'll give the Financial Times credit, though: in reply, it gave space to Julie Meyer of Ariadne Capital, who it turns out is up to the task. In Europe, she observes, the "stink of entitlement is still pervasive:"
Europe’s leaders would do well to find out about John Galt. The Continent (perhaps excluding Britain) basically has no growth story. A society that is not growing, that is not creating, is dying. Europe may have the richest poor people of any region in the world, but you can count on one hand the £1bn companies that have started from scratch over the past 30 years. Fine entrepreneurs went elsewhere to build their dreams.
Went elsewhere means that they are not in Europe, that Europe -- and Europeans -- do not benefit from their efforts. Ms Meyer, by the way, does not offer that offensive Republican argument for entrepreneurship and free markets, that it "increases tax revenue." Instead, she just asks that the creators and builders be allowed to create and build, and benefit from their efforts.
Yaron Brook of The Ayn Rand Institute also has a thing or two to say about the Pretzlik piece: Atlas Shrugged is, he writes, "a deep exploration of the philosophical foundations of freedom." I endorse his "Randian tip" as well.
John Galt is, by all means, worth knowing. To Julie Meyer and Yaron Brook, therefore, I offer my own humble thanks for their defense of Ayn Rand's masterpiece; we'll hear more discussion, I'm sure, in this the 50th anniversary of its publication.
To putative literary critic Charles Pretzlik I offer an Anger of Compassion tip: "Don't quit your day job."
Posted by Craig Ceely at January 16, 2007 11:53 PM