We knew this would return to bite us


Greybird

Recommended Posts

Greybird,

The article you're reacting to is truly scummy, but look on the bright side.

If the Whittaker Chambers procedure had been effective, 52 years ago, there would no perceived need for this kind of take-down today.

The same goes for the GQ piece, or the Daniels/Dalrymple screed in the New Criterion.

This Hickman thing has done a thousand times more damage to Ayn Rand, if not her ideas generally, then anything written or spoken by anyone named Branden. It was first published, as far as I know, in "Journals of Ayn Rand," 1997, with a foreword by Leonard Peikoff. If ever proof was needed that Peikoff didn't care that much about Rand's reputation and basically wanted to get the Brandens by sicking Valliant on them, here it is. Either that or he was basically addled. I'm not saying the material shouldn't have been exposed to public scrutiny, but it should have been handled by a competent scholar, not rewritten in unknown ways by David Harriman.

(It seems weird, BTW, that Ayn Rand in 1928 was writing so competently in English as she seems to in this book.)

What is evident is Rand was focusing on several different things regarding Hickman and the public's reaction to him. She was trying to figure things out and posit certain possibilities. Back then actual public mobbing was much more part of the social milieu than today and consider also the big rebound she was undergoing regarding the effects of communism on her family and herself. Etc.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 245
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The first writer still uses this episode to ignore the totality of Objectivism, the argument that Life and Value are connected, the ethics of individualism the bankruptcy of the Welfare state. I clearly stated that this admiration of a criminal is clearly indefensible, but I still stand by the point I'm trying to make: If someone does something horrible and tells people they couldn't care less about society and then someone does something of incredibly positive value, say writing Atlas Shrugged and tell people they couldn't care less about society and people respond exactly the same then it must be that the real crime is that somebody didn't care enough about others to suit them. If you haven't seen this in your own life then I don't know how else to make the point.

Let's look at Evgeni Plushenko and the public reaction to him. He's a world-class Russian skater who recently won silver at the Olympics, and then apparently acted like a petulant child and whined that he deserved gold, and that he was cheated out of it by poopy-headed judges and their poopy-headed rules, etc. He is reported (perhaps falsely) to have awarded himself a "platinum" medal, and he gives the impression that he doesn't care what anyone thinks of his arrogant behavior.

The public has reacted negatively. Does this mean that they resent his "daring individuality" in "standing alone against society"? Does it mean that their primary complaint is that he doesn't care what they think?

I think it means that they see him as a great skater who is debasing himself by behaving like an envious, self-important infant.

I generally don't see the "ordinary masses" as going around resenting people for their achievements. Usually it's something more like the Plushenko case: an individual who's a little too full of himself believes he is much more talented or attention-worthy than he actually is, and his "not caring what society thinks" is actually something more like a psychological means of self-protection, or a manifestation of his envying those who have achieved more than he has. I think that such overbearing self-importance is usually a sign of weakness, and not the confidence that Rand interpreted it as being. It's a mask, and I think the "ordinary masses" are probably generally more capable of seeing through it than Rand was.

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What it reveals is what I believe to be her hunger to find a truly unashamed Individualist who had no concept of Society's constraints. She briefly and certainly went overboard with this one. As an artist, you can understand that she needed a symbol.

Yes, I strongly identify with her creative needs. I'd say that on a visceral level I'm opposed to condemning her, or any artist, for the thoughts they had while creating. I think artists should be encouraged to go where ever the hell they want with their art. They shouldn't be condemned for exploring the idea of isolating what they see as admirable traits in bad people and trying to create something good from it.

It's only when Rand claims to know the motivations of real people that I feel disappointment, or when she implies that their ordinariness is a sin or crime worse than Hickman's.

Anyway, I am infinitely more absorbed by the 'individualist as psychopath', 'loner as anti-social outcast' perception that I'm sure you have considered, or perhaps even faced in accusation as I have, from non-O'ists.

The truth is that Individualism is misunderstood and misrepresented, usually because it's feared and hated, I think.

In fact, it isn't even discussed much on Objectivist forums, except in passing, and I can't figure why.

'I'ism', of the moral, courageous, and considerate (in the true sense of the word) sort, is the polar opposite to narcissism, or sociopathy.

What I liked about what Rand eventually came up with is that the heroes in her novels weren't arrogant fuckheads. They weren't Hickmans. To me, they generally don't come across as smug and self-important. They don't crave attention. They don't need to constantly remind everyone of how extra-special and superior they see themselves as being.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan:

I agree with both of these points.

It's only when Rand claims to know the motivations of real people that I feel disappointment, or when she implies that their ordinariness is a sin or crime worse than Hickman's

Yep, when she behaved like a spoiled brat, she was not easy to like.

What I liked about what Rand eventually came up with is that the heroes in her novels weren't arrogant fuckheads. They weren't Hickmans. To me, they generally don't come across as smug and self-important. They don't crave attention. They don't need to constantly remind everyone of how extra-special and superior they see themselves as being.

I just hope she knew how many people her ideas influenced and how many more we will influence. We need to acquire the patience of the marxists, but as individuals we want to accomplish it now.

Excellent observations.

Adam

Post Script: Good to see you Ginny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I did a search on William Hickman, I went to Wikipedia. There you will find an entry regarding AR and 'The Little Street.'

William Hickman - Wikipedia

The part that seems to have been left out is the following, which would clearly help demonize her - Rand wanted the hero of her novel to be "A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me."

All said, you have all brought up good points. As Doc pointed out, Hannibal is an extremely memorable character. I could see AR trying to base a similarly memorable character on a real person. What better way is there to write fiction if not based on real individuals or experiences? The more you can associate realism in stories, the more drawn in the reader is (in my opinion).

~ Shane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys:

Ayn was in sync with Nietzsche for heavens sake.

This was a driven person, I wonder if she even considered anything beyond

unbowed...unrepentant...a fully actualized man who was above the herd.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam, I'm sorry, but "unbowed and unrepentent" ... so's every inmate in the prison system. They're all above common rules. They do as they please. I know I'm being real intrangisent here, but when I think of all the people who've tried so hard to live up to the AR ideal (I know, their problem), and the young Ayn ideal is Hickman, I can't accept it. Sure, she grew up and matured her outlook, but I remember the portion of (can't remember if it's NB or BB's) book, when an audience member asks about a sexual threesome or something like that. Her response: That's nothing that you (the common herd, unwashed audience that's come to hear her) to worry about. To pull it off, it would take giants. Even at an old age, she thought of herself as a giant above the rules. She was a fantastic writer, okay, a giant of a writer; that does NOT make her above the rules. I can accept rule-breaking; I can't accept calling normal people who quietly live their lives the best they can on "Main Street" evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam, I'm sorry, but "unbowed and unrepentent" ... so's every inmate in the prison system. They're all above common rules. They do as they please. I know I'm being real intrangisent here, but when I think of all the people who've tried so hard to live up to the AR ideal (I know, their problem), and the young Ayn ideal is Hickman, I can't accept it. Sure, she grew up and matured her outlook, but I remember the portion of (can't remember if it's NB or BB's) book, when an audience member asks about a sexual threesome or something like that. Her response: That's nothing that you (the common herd, unwashed audience that's come to hear her) to worry about. To pull it off, it would take giants. Even at an old age, she thought of herself as a giant above the rules. She was a fantastic writer, okay, a giant of a writer; that does NOT make her above the rules. I can accept rule-breaking; I can't accept calling normal people who quietly live their lives the best they can on "Main Street" evil.

Ginny:

We do not disagree. It is that attitude and the glow in the eyes of the "faithful" that caused me to walk away from the NBI model, even before the split became public.

However, certain minds believe to almost their core that they are above the rules. All the more reason for restraints and outright walls between government and me, you and every other individual.

Ayn Rand on a bad day with power. I sure am not comfortable with that scenario. Did she not say that Dominique was herself on a bad day! Good enough for me, I am no statue.

Adam

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, Adam. I know that a large part of my anger at this is hurt disappointment. If this lady was really so f@#$%ing smart, she should have seen a few things more clearly. There's got to be something psychopatic about such tunnel vision. Well, I'm taking her at her word. "Judge, and be prepared to be judged." I'm judging, goddam it.

Ginny

Living near Main Street and pissed as hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam, you said, "This was a driven person, I wonder if she even considered anything beyond unbowed...unrepentant...a fully actualized man who was above the herd."

Adam:

Quite the contrary, Hickman is actually a person who did not have the courage to face his conflicts and instead projected those to individuals that he never knew nor did him any harm. If I were to speculate, that when he killed that girl to replace (in his mind) another person entirely.

In defense of Rand, she merely took certain aspects of Hickman to be presented in her novel "The Little Street" and thus, it would be called art and not fanaticism. Much like when I say I admire Hannibal Lecter's insight to human behavior and psyche (however fictional that may be) and decided to write about the possibility of knowing yourself and other person's motives clearly. Rand also once liked Nietzsche but for only the resoluteness of his character. Later on, she checked her premises, knew that she was mistaken and moved on.

Rand is not above the law. Any law of man would have to come from certain premises that refer to self-evident facts (natural laws?) and everything must be inferred from there. I think she wanted to re-write whimsical "rules" such as trial by publicity. Sadly, Rand did not come to know this killer personally, she probably relied instead on media like her Wynand papers. If she did, she would not have used that coward as part of her character's psyche.

Edited by David Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this lady was really so f@#$%ing smart, she should have seen a few things more clearly.

She was what, 23? And in a new country, learning a new language. Was she married yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Adam, you said, 'This was a driven person, I wonder if she even considered anything beyond unbowed...unrepentant...a fully actualized man who was above the herd.'"

David:

"Hickman is actually a person"

I do not know or care who or what Hickman was, he is irrelevant to my points.

In defense of Rand,

I do not believe, Ayn needs any defense. She was never perfect, she had flaws then, has flaws now and will have flaws in the future,

So what, I do not expect perfection from my teachers.

Rand is not above the law. Any law of man would have to come from certain premises that refer to self-evident facts (natural laws?) and everything must be inferred from there. I think she wanted to re-write whimsical "rules" such as trial by publicity. Sadly, Rand did not come to know this killer personally, she probably relied instead on media like her Wynand papers. If she did, she would not have used that coward as part of her character's psyche.

This last quote is debatable. I believe there is a part of many of us who believe they could reorder society better than as it exists today.

None of us can know whether she thought that she could be, or was, above the law.

Let me ask you a question? When a country becomes papered with laws from one end to the other shouldn't an honest man become an "outlaw?"

What did you think of the Seven Samurai? Or, the American remake The Magnificent Seven? Or, even El Camino? Or Boondock Saints?

Adam

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

C'mon Adam, The Magnificent Seven isn't the same as raping and chopping up a twelve year old. You know that.

Ginny

Yes, Ginny, I know.

I think you are correct about how frustrating her statements about this crime can taint our judgment of her.

I also agree with her judge and be ready to be judged. I have thought worst thoughts.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Adam, you said, 'This was a driven person, I wonder if she even considered anything beyond unbowed...unrepentant...a fully actualized man who was above the herd.'"

David:

"Hickman is actually a person"

I do not know or care who or what Hickman was, he is irrelevant to my points.

In defense of Rand,

I do not believe, Ayn needs any defense. She was never perfect, she had flaws then, has flaws now and will have flaws in the future,

So what, I do not expect perfection from my teachers.

Rand is not above the law. Any law of man would have to come from certain premises that refer to self-evident facts (natural laws?) and everything must be inferred from there. I think she wanted to re-write whimsical "rules" such as trial by publicity. Sadly, Rand did not come to know this killer personally, she probably relied instead on media like her Wynand papers. If she did, she would not have used that coward as part of her character's psyche.

This last quote is debatable. I believe there is a part of many of us who believe they could reorder society better than as it exists today.

None of us can know whether she thought that she could be, or was, above the law.

Let me ask you a question? When a country becomes papered with laws from one end to the other shouldn't an honest man become an "outlaw?"

What did you think of the Seven Samurai? Or, the American remake The Magnificent Seven? Or, even El Camino? Or Boondock Saints?

Adam

Excellent points Adam. As I said before, she saw someone in a certain context and that holds true. It's her right. I've only watched Samurai Seven. Revolting. Except for it's entertainment value, it only portrayed man as cattle. Even the 'noble' spirit of samurais was twisted in that movie.

Thank you for reminding me that an honest man needs no defense against banal hostilities of this kind.

Edited by David Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, I, too, when I first read Rand’s Journals, knew that the issue of Hickman would one day be discovered and provide precisely the ammunition Rand-haters wanted. (I think that the material in her Journals about her functioning as Nathaniel’s therapist, presented by Valliant in his book, will eventually be discovered by psychologists and will also result in a storm of outrage.) And yes, we’re seeing overkill, as in “The only way to protect ourselves from this thinking is the way you protect yourself from serial killers: smoke the Rand followers out, make them answer for following the crazed ideology of a serial-killer-groupie, and run them the hell out of town and out of our hemisphere.” (I wonder if he also thinks we should be strangled and dismembered.)

But I must also say that my blood ran cold when I read Rand’s Journal entries about Hickman. I agree with Jonathan’s statements that: “I don't like the smearing of Rand, but I understand why some people may be revolted by some of her comments. I think there is a legitimate basis for concern about some of her views as stated in her journals” – and that “her seething contempt for good people who expressed outrage about Hickman's crimes, and her claim that they had worse sins and crimes in their own lives, is reasonable grounds for very harsh criticism of her.” Good God, think what Hickman did! He raped, strangled, and dismembered a child! Think of the terror and the agony his victim endured at his hands. Would anyone care to tell her that his act was “a daring challenge to society”? Would she have admired Hickman’s “limitless daring?” Would she have agreed that “he makes you like him the whole time you are in his presence?”

Brant, you wrote: ”But in the context of her life and how young she was, morally she gets a pass on this. When you write notes to yourself trying to find your way to a proper view of man for your art's sake, 95% deserves the wastebasket. You should see the crap I put on paper when I was 13 and my hormones were out of control. You should, but you won't; I tossed it.”

Brant, she was not 13, she was 23 years old, She was not a child She knew exactly what Hickman had done, an act so vile. that I don't know how anyone could see it as less than the act of a thoroughly evil man, a man beyond redemption and beyond the possibility of redeeming virtues.

Ginny, you wrote: ”I know Barbara keeps saying that AR was a terrific person, and on a level, I believe she was, but I've respected this woman my adult life, and this doesn't compute in my brain. And no, I don't think it's unfair for people to judge her negatively on this. God knows, she judged harshly enough."

GInny, it doesn’t compute in my brain, either, And what I wrote in Passion, and have stressed again and again, is that “her virtues were larger than life – and so were her shortcomings.” Her attitude toward Hickman is surely evidence of the latter.

I think we will be making a serious mistake if we attempt to counter the attacks against her – attacks which are now being echoed in endless articles, blogs, and forums – by insisting that her attitude was in any sense reasonable and understandable. It was not. It was wrong-headed and irrational. But there is a powerful defense that can be offered: that in later years she completely reversed her attitude, and that she then wrote so irrefutable a defense of reason, so incontrovertible a rejection of force, that she forever changed the lives and the thinking of millions of her readers.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, I, too, when I first read Rand's Journals, knew that the issue of Hickman would one day be discovered and provide precisely the ammunition Rand-haters wanted. (I think that the material in her Journals about her functioning as Nathaniel's therapist, presented by Valliant in his book, will eventually be discovered by psychologists and will also result in a storm of outrage.) And yes, we're seeing overkill, as in "The only way to protect ourselves from this thinking is the way you protect yourself from serial killers: smoke the Rand followers out, make them answer for following the crazed ideology of a serial-killer-groupie, and run them the hell out of town and out of our hemisphere." (I wonder if he also thinks we should be strangled and dismembered.)

But I must also say that my blood ran cold when I read Rand's Journal entries about Hickman. I agree with Jonathan's statements that: "I don't like the smearing of Rand, but I understand why some people may be revolted by some of her comments. I think there is a legitimate basis for concern about some of her views as stated in her journals" – and that "her seething contempt for good people who expressed outrage about Hickman's crimes, and her claim that they had worse sins and crimes in their own lives, is reasonable grounds for very harsh criticism of her." Good God, think what Hickman did! He raped, strangled, and dismembered a child! Think of the terror and the agony his victim endured at his hands. Would anyone care to tell her that his act was "a daring challenge to society"? Would she have admired Hickman's "limitless daring?" Would she have agreed that "he makes you like him the whole time you are in his presence?"

Brant, you wrote: "But in the context of her life and how young she was, morally she gets a pass on this. When you write notes to yourself trying to find your way to a proper view of man for your art's sake, 95% deserves the wastebasket. You should see the crap I put on paper when I was 13 and my hormones were out of control. You should, but you won't; I tossed it."

Brant, she was not 13, she was 23 years old, She was not a child She knew exactly what Hickman had done, an act so vile. that I don't know how anyone could see it as less than the act of a thoroughly evil man, a man beyond redemption and beyond the possibility of redeeming virtues.

Ginny, you wrote: "I know Barbara keeps saying that AR was a terrific person, and on a level, I believe she was, but I've respected this woman my adult life, and this doesn't compute in my brain. And no, I don't think it's unfair for people to judge her negatively on this. God knows, she judged harshly enough."

GInny, it doesn't compute in my brain, either, And what I wrote in Passion, and have stressed again and again, is that "her virtues were larger than life – and so were her shortcomings." Her attitude toward Hickman is surely evidence of the latter.

I think we will be making a serious mistake if we attempt to counter the attacks against her – attacks which are now being echoed in endless articles, blogs, and forums – by insisting that her attitude was in any sense reasonable and understandable. It was not. It was wrong-headed and irrational. But there is a powerful defense that can be offered: that in later years she completely reversed her attitude, and that she then wrote so irrefutable a defense of reason, so incontrovertible a rejection of force, that she forever changed the lives and the thinking of millions of her readers.

Barbara

An excellent essay (as usual), Barbara. Could you tell us something, if you have the information. Did this Hickman creature look like a Viking?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When a certain object of attention on the part of Ayn Rand was first reported in regard to her journals — and recently amplified by Jennifer Burns's book — I knew that one day it would result in the foulest of smears on Rand and on anyone who ever read or admired her.

Three questions:

1. Did she, at any time, admire this Hickman creature, even knowing that he was Mr. Evil.

2. Did she at a later time revise her judgment, concerning Hickman?

3. Did she ever write or tell anyone that she had revised her thinking.

If the answer to 1 is Yes, then it is a semi smear, at best depending on the answer to 2.

If the answer to 3 is No, then a later negative judgment on Rand is justified.

Rand herself wrote judge and be judged, yes? We shall be judged on what we do, what we say and what we write. So it is written, so let it be done.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baal, I know you describe yourself as literal minded, but I think you just hit on something quite unexpected. Hickman's looks. Rand was clearly infatuated by a certain look in men. I'll bet anything this guy was a hunk. ---- I just googled the guy and found a picture. Yep, he awfully good-looking. Why am I not surprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant, she was not 13, she was 23 years old, She was not a child She knew exactly what Hickman had done, an act so vile. that I don't know how anyone could see it as less than the act of a thoroughly evil man, a man beyond redemption and beyond the possibility of redeeming virtues.

Barbara

23 yo people can be incredibly naive on at least some thing. I've read somewhere that adolescence actually continues well into the mid twenties.

Nor should the circumstances of her life at that point--freshly arrived in the USA from the turmoil of the Russian Revolution (where she encountered the idea of "the People" in all its ugliness)--be left out. Presumably she would have said some very different things later on in life on the subject of Hickman. However, since all this was in her Journals, quite possibly she didn't feel compelled to announce her change of mind (if she even remembered these entries) just to guard herself from curious people who might read her personal writings after her death.

Barbara, I'll take this opportunity to ask you, as someone who actually knew her, if it was possible that Rand herself had Asperger's. There are, as Sherlock Holmes would say, several points of interest that are suggestive of the possibility. For instance, her general lack of friends as a child, and her severe judgment of other children who were not as intellectually inclined as she was.

Jeffrey S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baal, I know you describe yourself as literal minded, but I think you just hit on something quite unexpected. Hickman's looks. Rand was clearly infatuated by a certain look in men. I'll bet anything this guy was a hunk. ---- I just googled the guy and found a picture. Yep, he awfully good-looking. Why am I not surprised.

I've talked about this issue before too, and as a response to this topic and as also admitting that I'm one of those who Barbara refers to as 'Rand-haters'. To Barbara's credit, she does not sweep this problem under the rug.

But why do I dislike Rand so much? Well, first of all I have to admit that I can't really escape the reality that I have strong feelings and strong feelings don't jibe if I felt Rand was just a fool. Her writing and ideas are powerful and I have to admit that, otherwise why would I even care?

She tackles what I consider (and certainly most, if not all others here) to be a huge, worthy, and important topic - building a philosophy that has a profound impact on our personal lives, and politics and so on. She attacks the Big Questions of humanity with reason as the fundamental base and with a keen intellect. What could be better than this? Hence the "power" I speak of.

I have a disdain for Rand on a number of levels but most importantly my "hate" if you could call it that, is borne from the fertile and explosive combination of intelligence and corruption. Corruption can be somewhat benign (yet still disdain-worthy if not quite hateable) as so eloquently put by Blanshard when speaking about Neitzsche. This is how I feel about Rand (but it goes further).

" I must confess that often, when I have tried to read the most popularly effective of German philosophical writers, Nietzsche, I have felt like throwing the book across the room. He is a boiling pot of enthusiasms and animosities, which he pours out volubly, skillfully, and eloquently. If he were content to label these outpourings “Prejudices,” as Mr. Mencken so truly and candidly labels his own, one could accept them in the sprit in which they were offered; there is no more interesting reading than the aired prejudices of a brilliant writer. But he obviously takes them for something more and something better; he takes them as philosophy instead of what they largely are, pseudo-Isaian prophesyings, incoherent and unreasoned Sibylline oracles. "

But as problematic as this is, I say 'benign' because Rand's corruption goes so much deeper.

So what I'm left with, is a powerful figure pursuing the noblest of causes with enviable skill, but with a corruption that goes far beyond mere errors of prejudice - through a number of situations that I assess (arguably of course) as dishonest, right through to psychopathy (re Hickman)- not necessarily in that order. So, for me, her ideas transcend merely just being wrong; they are wrong, powerful, dishonest, and as a result are often dangerous.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barbara, I think the way to judge Ayn here is by referring to We the Living, not some stupid crap she wrote 5 or 6 years before about someone named Hickman not for publication. She may have consciously completely reversed herself in her evaluation of him, but wrote nothing about it because it represented material she didn't need. She obviously had a huge blind spot in her mental structuring that was not there because of choices she made, but dictated how she looked at and evaluated the world. Her orientation was philosophical, not psychological and she really didn't know or understand evil. This is true in everything she wrote. The best she did was Toohey. You cannot read into what she wrote about Hickman as representing a true sanctioning of his evil; she didn't begin to get into his head with her naive suppositions.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now