Victimization Risks, Murder, and How to Morally Judge an Individual

I have said before and will continue to say that the less you focus on reality, the more compounded your problems become. The police are familiar with what is called “victimization risk,” which is when an individual is engaged in lifestyle choices that may lead to a higher likelihood of a crime being committed on that person. For example, when an individual works as a prostitute and walks the street alone at night looking for customers, they are engaging in activities where there is a high victimization risk to them. It is not “blaming the victim” but understanding the reality of that person’s choices. What comes with being aware of reality and surviving another day as a human being is a code of rational ethics. Therefore, that prostitute should lower her risk by going out with a buddy at night or leaving the business entirely in search of a new, less risky line of work. Their chances of surviving another day increase when mitigating and rational actions are taken. An individual who locks their doors at night is engaging in low victimization risk behavior and, therefore, making the rational, moral choice.

We must use this type of moral judgment properly based on a person’s actions. I believe that is what is attracting so many people nowadays to Dr. Grande’s YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/@DrGrande). He is a mental health counselor who has taken an interest in analyzing criminal cases and their outcomes. He looks at each context like a rational juror and tries to make sense of the seemingly senseless violence a person commits. It is not just another true crime channel but one where the “why” that everyone so longs for is answered to the best of his ability.

We should all aspire to understand people in the way Dr. Grande does because we certainly all have the capacity to understand, empathize, and analyze each other’s actions through moral judgment. In fact, I believe that more people could prevent crimes if they only knew how to judge a person’s actions properly because, unfortunately, by the time the law intervenes, they can only look at the actions of a person after their morality has thoroughly disintegrated. I believe it is often too late to change a person once they have committed a serious crime. They needed moral guidance or help long before they thought of committing any kind of wrongdoing.

As a bit of an aside, the writer Dostoyevsky has one of his characters, from The Brothers Karamazov, say that “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted.” He believed atheists would murder without a second thought, unlike his conscience-stricken Raskolnikov character in Crime and Punishment who “finds God” in the end. But this is entirely false. This abstract thing we call conscience is what keeps us from crossing the line drawn in ethics between good and evil. We would all feel as guilty as Raskolnikov for killing a person with or without god. Our desire to survive and thrive keeps us from murdering each other. A rational morality keeps us from destruction.

It is in this spirit of moral judgment and admiration for Dr. Grande’s work that I am presenting an essay I wrote the day after Elliot Rodger on May 23, 2014, killed six people and injured fourteen others. He shot, stabbed, and ran over with his vehicle as many people as he could find in what would later be named the “2014 Isla Vista killings,” forever labeling him as an infamous mass murderer. He left a YouTube video of his own titled “Elliot Rodger’s Retribution” and a long manifesto called “My Twisted World: The Story of Elliot Rodger,” both of which I have seen and read and have linked down in the description section. And so without further ado:

***

My Thoughts on the CA Mass Murderer, Elliot Rodger

[Note: This article is not meant to sympathize or place the predator’s life above those of the victims. To all of those involved in this tragedy, I hope that this psychological look into the murderer’s past will prevent instances of this happening again in the future.]

The first thing I dared to watch was Elliot Rodger’s final video. In it, he struck me as just a kid trying to build himself up as a tragic anti-hero. He was lost in a story concocted by his own mind, and that was what made me want to research this horrific tragedy. Since that final video, I have read the 140-page long manifesto and watched the other YouTube videos he had posted before the final one. These were all highly disturbing, and I think that many of my conclusions do not include the fact that he did have Asperger’s syndrome. Asperger’s syndrome is clear here with his unusual facial expressions, his difficulty socializing, and his apparent lack of empathy. However, that does not excuse his violent outburst on the evening of May 23, 2014.

The philosopher, Hannah Arendt, wrote about the Eichmann trial that occurred in the 1960s. Eichmann was hired by the Nazi Party in Germany, and he was given the task of deporting all of the Jews—he sent hundreds of thousands of Jews to their deaths. People called him “evil” and a “villain,” but once Arendt began studying this wrinkled, pathetic old man—she coined the phrase, “banality of evil.” This phrase meant that Eichmann was really just a dumb, dependent, title-obsessive man. He was a cog in the machine, but a deadly one. Eichmann did not think that he was responsible because he truly believed that he was just “following orders.” Arendt believed that this weasel was telling the truth. Therefore, at the time, she did not believe that people were “radically evil”—that they were not born evil.

After researching this case, I have come to the conclusion that this was a broken boy. He lived his life on a “6th grade loop” which continuously played until he went to stop it by force. Even his manifesto is written at about the 6th grade level, albeit with a few “new” vocabulary words included toward the end. But his ideas are especially childish. He was given everything, and when he wasn’t, he would have temper tantrums.

Elliot Rodger was an irrationally selfish, materialistic, dependent child. If any of you have ever read Ayn Rand’s novel, The Fountainhead, this child was a real Peter Keating. He built up absolutely no self-esteem whatsoever, and therefore, his ego (the “I” part of him) was nonexistent. This set him up for disaster.

He blames his parents for this, and so do I.

Parents are the most influential beings that a person can have—they tend to make or break the future adult. These parents did not give him a set of moral values to live by—and religion does not even need to factor in here. Learning philosophy is invaluable because it makes you question and reassess all of your most basic premises. You think logically and fix any emotionalist responses to rational concepts. This child needed a philosophy lesson badly.

Elliot Rodger emphasizes how much he was “living in the moment” and so thoroughly enjoyed his childhood, that when he was rejected by the outside world—he threw yet another tantrum…this time with tragic consequences. This could have been prevented had he been raised right—not by several nannies and several new houses, regardless of his Asperger’s syndrome.

This behavior was chosen, this is not an issue concerning his Asperger’s (although a symptom can be obsessive behavior, like the one he had toward objects, women, and difficulty socializing). But that cannot cause violence, and his premises were all wrong. The violence stemmed from a lack of knowledge. This is what Hannah Arendt and Ayn Rand meant when they both wrote about how “evil” occurs. It happens when people become irreparably broken. It happens when parents neglect their children emotionally and do not teach them about virtue. It happens when they are given everything, up until they hit the “real world” where they have to fight for survival. Capitalism forces men to prove themselves. It is the ultimate “Alpha Male” system which this child could not win—and so he tried to take it away from others.

Again, for those of you familiar with Ayn Rand’s character, Peter Keating, Peter quickly worked his way up the career ladder by stealing, looting, robbing other people, and passing their work off as his own. He was labeled a “second-hander” who took from the “first-handers” or else he would throw tantrums, similar to Rodger’s. In the beginning, he is hailed as the best architect in the country, but by the end, he is a miserable, broken, and “evil” man. This is the story of Elliot Rodger, who laughs at “the irony of the world” and feels holier-than-thou without any reasons to back up his premises.

But do not call this child a “madman”—he was a person robbed of morals. A madman is someone who is incomprehensible, someone who cannot go from Point A to Point B. That is a madman. This is someone who grew up in a surprisingly ordinary way (besides having a famous father). He talks about movies that all kids from the 90s have seen and video games that we’ve all played at some point. And even his concerns in middle school were shared by many other lonely kids at the time (myself included). But we saw ourselves as better than those who were considered “popular.” We had our set of values and we strived to achieve success, while the “popular kids” tended to fail. We grew up and moved on—allowing ourselves only to find better, more worthy people to include in our lives. But this child got caught in it, and would not budge until he got his way…

“I wanted to live in a world of fairness”—that is the common creed of the Communists and Socialists of our age, and that is exactly the creed that Elliot Rodger grew up living with. But that does not bring happiness. For material objects are not the ends, they are the products of a person’s labor. Labor is the means to get to happiness or living a good life—(if it is honest work, of course). But this boy was never taught that he had to work for his possessions.

Rodger then goes on and on for 40 pages in his manifesto about video games. This has been a controversial topic in many of these violent tragedies. But video games, in particular, seem to have destroyed many young people. However, I think it is important to note that his feelings began before ever playing a video game, but his situation grew exponentially worse when he was pretty much given free rein with these games during his adolescence. Parents need to watch what their kids are playing, watching, reading, and listening to because there is so much garbage out there today. In fact, in his manifesto, Rodger used video games as a way to fight the reality that he was facing. He used World of Warcraft as inspiration for his ideas of a “War on Women.” Elliot Rodger blurred games with real life because he was never taught the difference.

Elliot frequently uses the words “little,” “obsessed,” “weak,” “worthless,” and “starved” as terms of describing himself and his mental state. The kid never learned how to live on his own. He never was allowed to become self-reliant. He was extremely sheltered. “The more lonely I felt, the more angry I became,” he writes at one point. This is a typical feeling that “evil characters” feel before they lash out at the world. He was living out a fantasy storyline of his own—like when he wrote, “If I can’t have it, I will destroy it.” After that, sex became a negative thing for him and by 17 he wanted to outlaw sex. This means that for 6 years, he had been planning and plotting a way to seek revenge on others. There was no real instance where he “became a madman,” but a slow progression of events that were laid down on a boy without any moral guidance or principles.

On his “forced” plane trip to Morocco, Rodger decided that he wanted to die. That is the moment where he lost hope because he was never allowed to have any control over his life. He did not have any agency—no ego, no self-esteem—and this led him to the radical state that he worked himself up to in his twenties.

Movies and video games surrounded this kid, and he lived in a fantasy realm for most of his life. (And Soumaya, his stepmother, seemed to be the only adult capable of trying to teach Rodger something, albeit in the least effective way). Then, in his mid-teens, he turned to books, instead of thinking about his future and getting a job. These books provided him with the “anti-hero” type of mindset that he had always wanted, and he amateurishly clung to them.

By page 66 of Rodger’s manifesto, he begins using terms like “destiny” and “injustice” to prove that he was made by some “creator” to right all the unfairness that happened to him in the world. The amount of hate that he had for others was very high when he was only 18. He says at one point in his manifesto, “I am an intellectual who is destined for greatness. I would never perform a low-class service job.” But that is exactly the problem. A true intellectual or “great man,” as Aristotle discusses in depth, does not change based on external forces. The “great man” cares for a few things that bring happiness (eudemonia) to his life, and the rest is irrelevant. He has a proportionate amount of self-confidence, and he quietly respects himself for the virtues that he has learned over the years. This sentence is yet another temper tantrum, only in adult form, but it renders him more of a child than anything. Elliot Rodger was not an intellectual, but a bitter fool—a frustrated and miserable Peter Keating archetype due to his parents’ neglect.

Rodger repeatedly asked his mother (and later on several more occasions) to “sacrifice her well-being for the sake of [his] own happiness” by marrying another rich man. Elliot’s hope was only reignited when he thought that some base exterior change could fix all of his moral problems—only to be dismayed once again…and again…and again. This child calls his mother “selfish” for not remarrying into a rich family—when what he really is saying is that she is not “sacrificing” herself for his needs. She is not giving up her life for him. She is not being altruistic because that is a vice (read Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness for more).

And yet, his “selfish” mother continued to support him and told him he had a talent for writing. But his motive from the beginning was to get rich quick off of his “bestseller” books, and then maybe girls would like him. This motivation never works. He didn’t even mention that perhaps some girl would like him for his talent to produce something of his own, proving just how lost he was. Elliot considered himself to be talentless and fervently refused to work or produce anything at all that would have given him some kind of value. Rodger continues to write in his manifesto that he “deserves” things when, in reality, he does not. Rodger did not earn (nor try to earn) a single thing in his life. He was never taught that money could not solve his problems. Money is merely another reward for the productive, creative thoughts that you make, but nothing more. Rodger looked to rewards as ends in themselves: money, girls, fame.

This kid never took the responsibility into his own hands of actually trying to change his life. He would pray to the stars and the universe, but never to himself and his own self-esteem. Rodger did not understand that money cannot replace moral values. Every time that he “actively” tried to change his life, he would never approach a girl or try to communicate with her. He made continual excuses due to his extremely low level of self-esteem. This isolated him further (not to mention looking for those bright and intelligent girls in all the wrong places). He writes at one point, “I was a ghost”—little did he know that he had died morally way before any of this took place.

He blamed society, not himself, for denying him pleasure. What a skewed view of reality is that? Rodger had to try to open himself up to new experiences. If people aren’t worth your time (usually the “popular kids”), then don’t even bat an eyelash at them. Focus on the positives.

Currently, in the media, he is being called racist, sexist, entitled, elitist, spoiled, and these labels are true. He had attacked groups because he lacked an ego of his own. He was shaped by groups himself. He didn’t know what being an individual entails. Rodger may have said to himself that he was special, but he didn’t really know what he was, besides what others said of him. Elliot Rodger was an altruist, a self-loathing looter who lived with an “anti-life” mentality. For by actively rejecting sex, he accepted death.

He could not be fixed after he grew up without any value-based foundations.

By page 87 of the manifesto, Rodger openly declares that he believed he could kill another man. He had prepared himself mentally, and truly felt “worthless” at this point. You see, there was no “snap in his mental state.” Rodger had been boiling over since his temper tantrums at the age of 3. This child never grew up, and could not handle living alone. His parents are to blame, just as much as he himself is to be blamed.

He was so completely self-absorbed without having a real “self.” I have heard people use the term “narcissist,” which may be the correct term because it has such a negative connotation with it. However, “rational selfishness” is not a bad thing, according to Ayn Rand (again, read The Virtue of Selfishness). There is an important distinction to be made between those who do things to promote their own happiness and those who are hurting others in order to obtain some unidentified fantasy.

On page 101 of Elliot’s manifesto, he mentions explicitly that he wanted “revenge.” At the age of 20, Elliot Rodger declared that he was done with hope and expecting things to change. He understood that he was living in a vicious cycle, but he didn’t understand why. It is here that he also begins talking about his “Day of Retribution.” He had been slowly concocting this plan for over a year. This was premeditated mass murder. Someone at any point could have stopped this, especially his parents. Yes, his parents did hire a few psychiatrists toward the end (according to Elliot), but it was already too late. His plan was already in action.

Rodger notes that, at first, he felt sick at the thought of holding a gun and possibly using it in his plan, which means that he had a conscience. By page 109 of the manifesto, he decided to plan out a “mass murder.” He felt compelled to do it because he was so focused on himself and what his world led him to. Rodger did not care about the world outside of his own narrative (he never mentions 9/11 or the war in Iraq), and that was a major mistake.

Elliot Rodger did not have a “twisted world,” but a “twisted logic.” He thought that Point A (money) would lead him to Point B (girls) which would equal Point C (“peaceful revenge”). If that line of thought did not work out, then he was a worthless outcast, and a loser, which could only equate to violent revenge in his mind.

There is a particularly female-hating passage on page 117 of Elliot’s manifesto, where he “comes up” with this “original” idea that women are like a plague that needs to be controlled and quarantined. This is where many people say that he is a “misogynistic psychopath.” However, he seems to be placing all of his frustrations on females, (even though he seemed to have a pretty good track record with his grandmothers and mother). He was venting his hatred for all of humanity onto a particular group, and once again—just as Hitler did with the Jews—it’s called selecting a scapegoat.

Rodger believed that his act would cause some tremendous change, but it didn’t. Instead, his case was added to the growing pile of an increasing problem concerning mass murderers in this country. He was not philosophically learned or intelligent to any degree, because the first thing that educated people do is think. Rationally. But Elliot Rodger behaved in exactly the same way that he claimed girls were by “behaving irrationally.”

One important idea that should be pointed out is the religious undertone that his manifesto espouses. He wanted to play god, but he also referred to the sex that people had as “heavenly” and that he was living in “hell.” Although he doesn’t seem to be very religious, this Judeo-Christian view of the world was ingrained in his perspective of it.

Elliot claims toward the end of his manifesto that he never lost that last flicker of hope—he thought that in some miraculous way, he could be saved—but it was all too late without him even realizing it.

“Give me, give me, give me” was this child’s war cry. It was just another tantrum…but it hurt so many. Rodger felt entitled, as many people have been stating. He was not “a madman,” but a kid who grew up without any values, and after a series of circular events—he concluded that man is evil. His last straw was in Santa Barbara.

Elliot Rodger professed himself as a “god” and as the “good guy” and wrote that “Finally, at long last, I can show the world my true worth” as the last line in his manifesto—but the thing is, he never had any worth.

***

Links: https://www.youtube.com/@DrGrande; https:www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLLy1Awig0E&ab_channel=IntoTheFireTrueCrimeStories; https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/rodger_my_twisted_world.pdf; https://www.amazon.com/Virtue-Selfishness-Fiftieth-Anniversary/dp/0451163931/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1YXNM861KJ1O4&keywords=the+virtue+of+selfishness+by+ayn+rand&qid=1700164079&s=books&sprefix=the+virtue+of+sel%2Cstripbooks%2C178&sr=1-1

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

Who Am I and What Do I Believe In?

As I wrote about in the previous blog post, Atlas Shrugged and, subsequently, all of the other works that Ayn Rand produced have changed my life. My interest in her led me to the Ayn Rand Institute where I interned, joined the Objectivist Academic Center, attended conferences, and even became a student leader for them. I learned more about Rand’s philosophy as well as how to communicate and write more effectively. It served as my saving grace away from my constantly learning what not to do or think in college. I will forever be grateful for my opportunities there, and I still tune in to their podcasts every week!

Once I had finished consuming all of Rand’s works, I felt comfortable enough considering myself an Objectivist. Objectivism is defined briefly in the “About the Author” section of the Appendix in Atlas Shrugged, where Rand writes: “My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.” To break that down a bit more take a look at the Ayn Rand Lexicon online where she breaks down the branches of Objectivism further in “Introducing Objectivism” in The Objectivist Newsletter (Aug. 1962):

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

  1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
  2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
  3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
  4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

She also includes in “Philosophy: Who Needs It” from her book, Philosophy: Who Needs It that “[t]he fifth and last branch of philosophy is esthetics, the study of art, which is based on metaphysics, epistemology and ethics.”

In essence, I want to be clear to my readers that I am, in the crudest sense, an atheist who believes in capitalism. And all of my work, motivation, and subsequent goals since I was fifteen have stemmed from those values that I have held close to me. Anyone who is offended by such views is free to put my work down and forget about my existence. But for those who share my views, welcome and enjoy my work.

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

Literary Critique of Sally Rooney’s Normal People (Part II)

Here is the back cover blurb for Sally Rooney’s book, Normal People:

Connell and Marianne grew up in the same small town, but the similarities end there. At school, Connell is popular and well liked, while Marianne is a loner. But when the two strike up a conversation—awkward but electrifying—something life changing begins.

A year later, they’re both studying at Trinity College in Dublin. Marianne has found her feet in a new social world while Connell hangs at the sidelines, shy and uncertain. Throughout their years at university, Marianne and Connell circle one another, straying toward other people and possibilities but always magnetically, irresistibly drawn back together. And as she veers into self-destruction and he begins to search for meaning elsewhere, each must confront how far they are willing to go to save the other.

Normal People is the story of mutual fascination, friendship and love. It takes us from that first conversation to the years beyond, in the company of two people who try to stay apart but find that they can’t.

Not only is the writing immature in certain ways, but the characters from the beginning are immature. I understand that someone reading this who is younger or older than her intended audience may think this portrayal of young adults is accurate, but I, (who am of that age range), found them extremely immature. They act more like teenagers and remain one-dimensional throughout. Take, for instance: “It occurred to Marianne how much she wanted to see him having sex with someone; it didn’t have to be her, it could be anybody” (12). Marianne lacks a self, a side to love. I believe this comes from her author’s devotion to Marxism, where sacrificing herself to other people is the only way she can feel much of anything. “She just let things happen, like nothing meant anything to her” (22). Marianne remains this passive, bleak, almost deterministic character throughout the book.

But Marianne is no better than Connell. Who cares so much about other people in high school that he only has sex with Marianne in secret? Marianne asks him: “Would you be embarrassed if they found out? she said. In some ways, yeah” (94). It just seems so childish for a person who is no longer a boy. In a similar Marxist fashion, Connell is also focused on Marianne’s class, as if being wealthy makes you a different species. Rooney writes: “If anything, his personality seemed like something external to himself, managed by the opinions of others, rather than anything he individually did or produced” (73). So, Connell is a chameleon. He is a person who just feeds off of others. [And might I add that he is not the only character who is like this, Rob is another. For “Nothing had meant more to Rob than the approval of others” (219).]

I must say that I don’t believe Rooney’s attempts to just drop complaints about class and expect her readers to blindly shake their heads in agreement, just like she did with those Leftist book titles. I went to public school, and I had friends from all ends of the class spectrum, especially for a child who has no control over where or how they grow up, your “class” in America does not make you into something alien as this Marxist author is trying to imply. Who cares about your class or station or rank when you are in high school? Again, I find it childish.

Throughout the text, there is this confusion about sexuality, mainly concerning Marianne. Again, being the good little Marxist, she is open to open relationships, bisexuals, homosexuals, threesomes, whatever happens to her happens. Of course, she can never be happy when she does nothing to better herself or her situation! The whole beginning felt like an inferior version of The Breakfast Club. Why does adulthood seem synonymous with doing immoral things, as if losing your soul is cool? So, Marianne sleeps around and takes up smoking and looks anorexic and depressed all the time. Is that what it means to be an adult? She has conversations with Connell like, “I think I was starting to have feelings for you there at one point. […] You just have to repress all that stuff, Marianne, he said” (101). So not falling in love with anyone is cool? Both main characters made me cringe with their “look at me, I’m so adult” behavior. For example, Marianne discusses getting pregnant with “I like to upset people’s expectations” (105) as her justification for doing so. Anyone who does things just for other people is not ready for any kind of responsibility in this world. And look, I’ve gone through my teenage “scene phase,” but by high school, and especially college, I was ready to be a responsible adult, and I never felt like truly, passionately loving another human being was “uncool.”

The only “change” occurs in the middle of the book when Marianne and Connell’s social status reverses—now she’s considered “cool” and he’s not. But what actually changes in terms of their appraisal of themselves and how they feel? Nothing changes in the book; there is no character change. I’m not even sure it can be considered a complete book at all. Neither character realizes their immaturity, although they do manage to say “I love you” by the end. But is that considered a change when they become separated again by choice?

If anything, each character only becomes more depressed. I would blame their Marxist ideology on such emotional turmoil, but let’s look at some phrases each character uses first. They refer to themselves as “self-hating” (pg. 139); that “they had the same unnameable spiritual injury” (175); that “human life was pointless” (232); that “She hates the person she has become, without feeling any power to change anything about herself” (244); that they were “becoming unrecognizably debased” (245); that “deep down she knows she is a bad person, corrupted, wrong” (247); and yet, “No one can be independent of other people completely” (pg. 269). By the end, Marianne has let herself embrace becoming a sexual plaything, and Connell is so depressed that he wants to kill himself. Now, do these sound like well-adjusted young adults to you, dear reader?

I believe that this is a true vignette of what happens when young people try to erase their egos. They can no longer love passionately; they wallow in their own self-hatred. I implore anyone who has not yet read The Fountainhead to read it. This is real literary fiction where the character of Keating is shown in exactly the same way as Marianne and Connell—parasites. But Ayn Rand can explain Keating’s behaviors through philosophy, unlike Rooney, who gives you a sketch of two messed-up people. You can only grow to hate yourself or consider yourself a monster when your life does merely become a string attached to a web of other people. When you become other people, like a chameleon, then how can you act? To live on this earth with any agency, and, ultimately, any happiness, then you must uphold your ego.

The fact that people are praising Sally Rooney as some kind of voice for the millennial generation greatly disturbs me. Wake up, readers! It’s frightening that people are espousing how much Rooney is exposing their own feelings on the page. It means that those people are fighting against what makes them human on a daily basis.

The book would be better if she wrote about it as an anecdote of how not to behave, but instead, she loves her characters (as most writers do), and she wants them to represent how she sees the world. But it’s wrong and surprisingly immature for someone her age.

I am just a few years younger than her, and I learned that this kind of wallowing is for teenagers at most. But there should not be a kind of anger, bitterness, and frustration that should carry through into your 20s and 30s. If anything, this proves that millennials are less mature than the previous generation.

Yet, the publishing industry opened its arms wide to accept their new literary figurehead onto the scene, because nothing has changed there. Normal People seems to be about outcasts who are not really even outcasts. They are, in fact, cultural representatives of the Left, which is what the publishing industry comprises. Rooney’s characters are moochers, sucking off the teat of literary fiction’s prestige to feed their own lack of character.

Rooney paints characters who have no “self” in a world where sex is merely about power and manipulation and not something beautiful to be cherished. She destroys the ego, which is necessary for our survival. Yet, no one in her story has agency. Marianne unconditionally loves Connell, while he is afraid of dominance and of becoming a man. But, to me, being submissive is a gift that a woman gives to a man she truly values and trusts. It is the very expression of love for a woman, as dominance is for a man. But Rooney does not think monogamy or boyfriend/girlfriend dynamics truly exist. (Because you have to have a self and be confident enough to form such relationships). She hates “masculinity,” believes in “the patriarchy,” and that capitalism is a “coercive system.” The same old, same old ideology. She is just another liberal, checking off her list of things to drop in her story. Well, she does not speak for me, nor does the entire publishing industry. I refuse to recognize Sally Rooney as the great millennial writer who is a perfect representative of literary fiction.

End of Part II

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.