The Early Ayn Rand

As a small instance: at one point, Miss Rand wishes to convey Vesta's feeling of helplessness in Roark's bed, her desperate need to confess her love to him and yet at the same time to hide it because of his aloofness. Miss Rand does not describe this conflict in any such terms, which are mere generalities. She makes the conflict real by a perceptual description, at once strikingly original and yet nothing more than a selective account of an ordinary physical fact: "He listened silently to her breathless voice whispering to him, when she could not stop it: 'I love you, Howard... I love you... I love you...' her lips pressed to his arm, to his shoulder, as if her mouth were telling it to his skin, and it was not from her nor for him." One can see the mouth on the skin as a kind of movie close-up; and implicit in the sight, in this context, is the meaning, the attempt at concealment ("and it was not from her nor for him").

A further requirement of Ayn Rand's method is that she use language exactly.

Miss Rand must name the precise data which lead to the abstraction, and the precise abstraction to which they lead. On either level, a mere approximation, or any touch of vagueness, will not do; such defaults would weaken or destroy the inner logic of the writing, and thereby its power and integrity. Miss Rand, therefore, is sensitive to the slightest shade of wording or connotation that might possibly be overgeneralized, unclear, or misleading; she is sensitive to any wording that might blur what she is seeking to capture. She wishes both the facts and the meaning to confront the reader cleanly, starkly, unmistakably. (Thus her scorn for those writers who equate artistry with ambiguity.)

When Roark first meets Vesta, for instance, he likes her — that is the fact — but "liking" by itself is not enough here. What is his exact feeling? "He liked that face, coldly, impersonally, almost indifferently; but sharply and quite personally, he liked the thing in her voice which he had heard before he entered." Or, on the level of meaning: when Vesta feels Roark's aloofness in bed, "it was as if the nights they shared gave her no rights." The last two words are followed immediately by: "... not the right to the confidence of a friend, not the right to the consideration of an acquaintance, not even the right to the courtesy of a stranger passing her on the street." Now we know what it means for her to have "no rights."

The same use of language governs Ayn Rand's dialogue. An admirer of her work once observed that her characters do not talk naturalistically — that is, the way people talk. They state the essence of what people mean. And they state it exactly. (This is true even of villains in her novels, who seek not to communicate, but to evade.) When Vesta feels ambivalence for Roark, as an example, there is a kind of surgical conscientiousness involved as she struggles to name it, to name the exact shade of her feeling, in all its complexity and contradiction.

Howard, I love you. I don't know what it is. I don't know why it should be like this. I love you and I can't stand you. And also, I wouldn't love you if I could stand you, if you were any different. But what you are — that frightens me, Howard. I don't know why. It frightens me because it's something in me which I don't want. No. Because it's something in me which I do want, but I'd rather not want it...

Such painstaking, virtually scientific precision could by itself constitute an admirable literary style. But in Ayn Rand's work it is integrated with what may seem to some to be an opposite, even contradictory feature: extravagant drama, vivid imagery, passionate evaluations (by the characters and the author) — in short, a pervasive emotional quality animating the writing. The emotional quality is not a contradiction; it is an essential attribute of the style, a consequence of the element of abstractions. A writer who identifies the conceptual meaning of the facts he conveys is able to judge and communicate their value significance. The mind that stops to ask about something, "What is it?" goes on to ask, "So what?" and to let us know the answer. A style describing concretes without reference to their abstract meaning would tend to emerge as dry or repressed (for example, the style of Sinclair Lewis or John O'Hara). A style featuring abstractions without reference to concretes would, if it tried to be evaluative, emerge as bombastic or feverish (for example, the style of Thomas Wolfe). In contrast to both types, Ayn Rand offers us a rare combination: the most scrupulous, subtly analyzed factuality, giving rise to the most violent, freewheeling emotionality. The first makes the second believable and worthy of respect; the second makes the first exciting.