Literary review and criticism never really came easily to me so don’t expect a penetrating masterpiece of things never before said.

Characters

I relate to aspects of both Keating and Roark as well as nuances of numerous other characters. To find myself in opposite and multiple characters speaks to the complexity of humans vis a vis characters, or viewed another way, it reveals my indecision as to what kind of person I am. As to the character I would like to emulate more or eventually become, Dominique Francon or Gail Wynand would be the choice.

Dominique in particular reflected my persona because she didn’t mind irrationally subjecting herself to extended anguish at times.

The liberal, altruistic, and cultured establishment

I was drawn to Rand’s treatment of the establishment’s self image. Happily, the unabashedly self congratulatory tone taken by Toohey in his speeches and reviews was ridiculed extensively. Moreover, my disdain for artistic criticism as an instrument of power and influence in disguise was repeatedly piqued. It’s very hard to enumerate why a work is “awful,” or “bad,” people just tend to trust the reviewer.

Two speeches in particular, that of Toohey on altruism and Roark in defense of the pioneer, were amazing. Toohey’s cast doubt on my affinity to social liberal policy and Roark’s helped me come to terms with why I am so deeply in love with the (common noun) big city. The imagery at the end of the book, wherein Dominique ascends above the established buildings like banks, churches, and apartments, was thus very moving and fitting. Roark wins.

Although he won, per se, expressing his truth in such a destructive form as he did was easily beyond what my set of beliefs would realistically allow. Perhaps it is this hesitancy that allows the left to maintain a hold on people who would otherwise defect; it leverages internal moral leanings as Rand suggests it exploits.

Man over nature / Individual over collective

Right now I see a beautiful sunset, the likes of which I cannot remember seeing before. Nature is indeed beautiful. I am only able to see it, though, because of the Embraer vessel in which I fly, thanks to UAL Corp., and due to man’s progress in science and industry.

Still left to consider are the government wrought enablers. The FAA allows for takeoff and landing. Birmingham’s airport authority, although incompetent in its loss to Atlanta many moons ago, keeps the shared land running. Even, for example, the US military, or whatever peacekeeping entity that affords me the security to value an arrangement of colors in the sky instead of worrying about immediate survival, is partly to thank for this experience.

Nature, individuals, and collectives all create beauty and progress in harmony. To argue for the extermination of one, in my opinion, is to prove blindness to their synergy. We may miss the mark on the mix but should reallocate, incrementally, when possible.

Atlas remains.