Ayn Rand on writing book reviews

"In 1969," editor Robert Mayhew says, "Ayn Rand gave a course on nonfiction writing to . . . friends and associates" who might become writers for her magazine, The Objectivist.[1] The course, edited, now appears in book form as The Art of Nonfiction. One small part of her course focuses on writing book reviews, an important element of her magazine dedicated to applying philosophy to contemporary culture. Following are my notes from the first half of Chapter 9, "Book Reviews and Introductions," plus a few comments.

What is a book review? I would say a book review is an essay that describes the essential nature of a particular book and evaluates it. A book review presents both facts and values--what a book is and what it is worth.

Why write a book review? The general reason for reviewing a book is to announce to a certain audience that a particular book exists. As a reviewer, you could also have special purposes. For example, you might want to encourage a particular writer by publicizing his book, thus increasing its sales and influence.[2] I can see at least two other special motivations. First, to save your audience from wasting time and money, you might occasionally review a book that is wildly popular and seductively advertised, but has an undeserved reputation. Second, you might want to write an informal review for yourself as a way of recording your thoughts about a book that will probably be important to you throughout your career. For example, a student of history planning to teach someday might want to write an informal book review of a classic history text such as the seminal work, The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea, by Arthur O. Lovejoy. As another example, an author writing a book of his own might informally review each work he frequently cites--as a way of preparing for discussions of his sources with critics in his field. (Upper level undergraduate, as well as graduate, students of history will recognize these informal reviews as resources for writing a bibliographic essay to accompany a thesis or dissertation.)

What are the main components of a book review? Generally, a book review mostly describes the essential nature of the book: What is the book's subject? Its theme? Its style? Its approach (for example, tutorial or scholarly)? The review should not recapitulate the book, following it step by step, and should not misrepresent the book by reporting nonessentials while ignoring essential characteristics.

Use quotations from the reviewed book as proof statements. Ideally, the quotations will show the book's subject matter, theme, style, and approach, thus confirming what you have said and earning the reader's trust. A major problem, however, is finding quotations that serve those purposes but are also brief and representative of the whole book.

The second major component of a book review, after describing its nature, is your evaluation of the book. Is it a "good" book--if so, for whom and why?[3] Any evaluation, I think, should be backed up quickly with facts and reasons. "Good" alone is floating. More precise terms would be more helpful: "informative," "thoughtful," and "objective" are examples, if established in the text of a full review.

The third major component of a book review is a brief sketch of "the book's philosophical and stylistic flaws." Indicate the author's errors that might confuse a less experienced reader of the book. Do not debate the author or propagandize ("A review is not a polemic," Ayn Rand says), but instead briefly refer the reader to other works that offer a correct view.[4]

What are pitfalls for novice book reviewers? One pitfall in writing book reviews is focusing--without telling your readers what you are doing--on a small element of a book because it is especially interesting to you but is not representative of the book as a whole.[5] A second pitfall is telling an author of a book how you think he should have written it. To do so is a context-dropping act of arrogance.[6] A third pitfall is failing to make clear to your reader when you are speaking for yourself (in evaluating the book) and when you are speaking for the author (by describing the book). This difficulty arises frequently because, rather than presenting a block of facts followed by a block of evaluations, an effective book review usually interweaves descriptions with evaluations.[7]

In summary, an objective book review tells and shows readers what a book is and what value it has.

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

[1] The course was recorded and, many years later, transcribed and edited. The result is Ayn Rand, The Art of Nonfiction: A Guide for Writers and Readers, editor Robert Mayhew, New York, Penguin/Plume, 2001. For the Mayhew quotation: p. xi. To buy the book: http://www.aynrandbookstore. [2] For Rand's purposes in reviewing books in The Objectivist: ANF, pp. 145-146. [3] For Rand's comments on the first two major components of a book review: ANF, pp. 147-149. [4] For describing a book's flaws: ANF, pp. 149-150. For not using a book review to propagandize: ANF, p. 152. [5] For the reviewer needing to say he is giving special attention to a minor part of the book: ANF, pp. 148-149. [6] For stating flaws and offering possible solutions, rather than prescribing the way an author should have written a book: ANF, pp. 150-151. [7] For distinguishing but interweaving description and evaluation: ANF, pp. 151-152.

What is "essentializing"?

As a student of history and philosophy, one of the best items of advice that I have received is: "Learn how to essentialize." So, I have been a student of essentializing, and I am still looking for ways to improve. Following is my interim summary.

WHAT IS ESSENTIALIZING? As a noun, the term essential is shorthand for the phrase "essential characteristic." Characteristic of what? Of any existent--a table, a man, a society, or a philosophy.[1]

In a metaphysical (ontological) perspective, an essential is a certain kind of feature of a thing--a feature that causes all, most, or many of the thing's other characteristics to be what they are.[2] For example, in a philosophical (not biological) context, an essential characteristic of man is his ability to reason. That ability does not cause his chromosome count to be what it is, but his ability to reason does enable him to write symphonies, plan a garden, design a computer program, choose a suitable spouse, measure a board for framing a new house, and debate laws.

BENEFITS. Epistemologically, an essential is a characteristic which explains all, most, or many of the other characteristics of a thing. (What is a cause in reality is an explanation in cognition of that reality.)[3]

As a second benefit, identifying essential characteristics also allows me to simplify my mental activities. Holding all of a thing's characteristics in mind at one time is impossible. Rather than needing to remember thousands of characteristics of a thing, when I think of that thing, I can remember an essential characteristic that causes and thereby explains all, most, or many of the other characteristics.

When I recall the definition of a thing, I am recalling its essential characteristics. A table is an "item of furniture, consisting of a flat, level surface and supports, intended to support other, smaller objects."[4] In part, its essential characteristics are its structure (a flat surface raised off the floor to a level accessible to human hands) and its purpose (to support other objects in a way accessible from all sides). Remembering structure and purpose is much easier than trying to remember a table's many other, inessential characteristics.

A METHOD. Essentializing is a mental method. It is looking for the underlying characteristic of a thing -- whether the thing is a perceptible object, such as a table, or a set of wide abstractions, such as a philosophy. For example, an examination of Ayn Rand's philosophy leads to an identification of an essential characteristic ("essence") of Objectivism as the concept of objectivity.

The process of essentializing is analogous to harvesting a carrot: Follow the many little green leaves to the single large root, and then extract it. The process of essentializing is a form of integration, that is, a form of finding the One from which the Many appear.[5] Consider an example. For students of philosophy of history, Leonard Peikoff has sketched a method of finding the philosophical roots (the fundamental ideas that cause it to be what it is) of a particular society, such as Germany in the 1920s.[6] Generalizing his comments further, I would suggest that the method of essentializing has four main steps:

1. Immerse yourself in identifying the many characteristics of the thing you are examining. The question to ask at this stage is Aristotle's basic question of all inquiry: "What is it?"[7] Whatever you are studying -- whether a new life-form in the jungle of the Amazon River Valley or a long paragraph in a philosophy textbook -- ask yourself particular questions whose answers will help you characterize the object. Examples for a physical object are: How much does it weigh? What color is it? Does it have parts? If so, how do they interconnect? At this stage, do not be concerned with the importance, breadth, or relationship of the characteristics. Simply collect them.

2. Classify the answers. For example, for a rare monkey, red hands and purple ears might fall under the heading of skin color, and skin color and shape of eyes fall under the heading of physical characteristics.

3. Sort the characteristics by fundamentality--that is, by cause and effect. Which of the characteristics are effects, and which are causes of other characteristics? An illustration: Philosophically speaking, man's ability to reason is a cause (an enabling cause) of man's ability to create music--not vice versa.

4. Look for the characteristic that explains most other characteristics. It is the essential characteristic. Sometimes, the thing being essentialized may have more than one essential characteristic. For example, an essential characteristic of Nazi philosophy was a set of three ideas--irrationalism (in epistemology), altruism (in ethics), and racial collectivism (in politics)--working together.[8]

CONCLUSION. What is the essential nature of the method of essentializing? Ask questions to find the "root," the characteristic of a thing that causes and thereby explains all, most, or many of the other characteristics of the thing.

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

[1] For Ayn Rand's discussion of essential characteristics: Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Ch. 5 ("Definitions"), especially pp. 42, 45-46, and 52; also see pp. 230-231. Leonard Peikoff discusses essentializing in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, pp. 96-101. [2] For the meaning of "fundamental" and "essential," see: Ayn Rand, ITOE, p. 45. [3] For the distinctions between metaphysically fundamental as cause and epistemologically essential as explanation: Rand, ITOE, 2nd ed., p. 45. [4] For the quoted definition of "table," see: Rand, ITOE,, 2nd ed., p. 41. [5] For integration: Leonard Peikoff, OPAR, p. 77. [6] For the example of philosophical detection, a form of essentializing, in analyzing a culture: Leonard Peikoff, Ominous Parallels, pp. 143-144. [7] For the basic questions of inquiry: Aristotle, Analytica Posteriora, Bk. I, Ch. 1, lines 89b21-25. [8] For the essential philosophical characteristics ("the essence") of Nazism: Peikoff, Ominous Parallels, p. 97.