Let’s see if I can breath some life into this topic, since its been a while.
About a month ago I finally decided to get my hands on this piece of scholarship. I’ve been meaning to reread all of Ayn Rand’s fiction and I knew my comprehension of all the dense philosophical gems hidden inside were a bit lacking. I thought the best way to get a fresh perspective was to purchase Essays on Ayn Rand’s We The Living.
Also by this time, Mayhew had come out with Essays on Anthem and The Fountainhead; I purchased these as well.
I can agree with ragnerhedin’s enthusiasm and say that this collection of essays is top notch. It is very encouraging to see worthwhile scholarly attention being done on Rand’s fictional novels. Rand’s novels may not be intended for didactic purposes as she made clear, but that doesn’t mean that one can’t obtain a wealth of knowledge from their literary critique. Each essay approached the novel from a specific angle and follows Rand fleshing out the philosophical implications of specific passages, plot structure, characterization, and the nature of the novel as a whole.
Because it was Rand’s first published novel it was only natural that she use Russia as its backdrop and because of this she stated that “We The Living is as near to an autobiography as I will ever write. It is not an autobiography in the literal, but only the intellectual sense. The plot is invented, the background is not”. Because there is so much of We The Living related to Ayn Rand’s life it is only natural that a good portion of the book is devoted to its history. (The book is divided into two sections, History of WTL - WTL as Literature and Philosophy) Maybe one of the more contentious portions of this book is the discussion on Ayn Rand’s method of revision of We The Living from the '36 edition to the '59 edition. This essay is handle by Dr. Mayhew himself. I’ve seen criticism of Mayhew’s article (namely from other forums) saying that Mayhew attempts to paint Rand in the best light while disregarding certain philosophical implications in her '36 edition. But I think such criticism is baseless as Mayhew shows when he makes clear by referencing Rand herself on her revision saying:
I want to account for the editorial changes which I have made in the text of this novel for its present reissue: the chief inadequacy of my literary means was grammatical - a particular kind of uncertainty in the use of the English language, which reflected the transitional state of a mind thinking no longer in Russian, but not yet fully in English. I have changed only the most awkward or confusing lapses of this kind. I have reworded the sentences and clarified their meaning without changing their content. I have not added or eliminated anything to or from the content of the novel. I have cut out some sentences and a few paragraphs that were repetitious or so confusing in their implications that to clarify them would have necessitated lengthy additions. In brief, all the changes are merely editorial line-changes. The novel remains what and as it was.
Using Rand’s words as a frame of reference, Mayhew then goes on to analyze the revisions separating them into specific grammatical types. I was wondering, if anyone else has read this essay, what do you think about it? Does Mayhew’s argument justify Rand’s claims about her revisions?
In closing, ragnarhedin is definitely right as he points out a lot of good topics discussed inside Mayhew’s “Essays”. Although not as philosophically probing as his subsequent “Essays” there are still some good subject matter to be had. For me personally, I enjoyed Dr. John Lewis’ essay, “Kira’s Family”. Lewis never disappoints when it comes to his work and I found this essay very engaging; just the way he talks as he gives lectures (as I recently had to privilege when I listened to the one on The Objective Standard events page).
So if you haven’t given much thought about this book, I say go out and pick it up as soon as you can. It’s a delight to read and hopefully will inspire you to reread Rand’s novels again as I plan on doing.
