Jennifer Burns a bridge or two


9thdoctor

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Michael M,

I think you're referring to Burns' claim that Neil Parille leads a "neo" faction.

You haven't even read any of Neil's posts on this site?

Robert Campbell

Yes, I actually did read one. Also, about 1966 or 67 I went with a buddy of mine and his family to see a Figure-8 Demolition Derby. I am pretty open to new experiences, but the noise and the destruction just did not interest me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil,

The fiction-writing lectures were rewritten by Tore Boeckmann.

The nonfiction-writing lectures were rewritten by Robert Mayhew.

Boeckmann and Mayhew both acknowledged extensive revising, cutting, and reorganizing, It's a reasonable inference that they also changed Rand's words in the portions they retained, particularly since Mayhew went on to rewrite the Q&A sessions and we know how extensive his changes to those were.

Access to the Archives is required for any analysis of the nonfiction-writing lectures, because the audio versions aren't publicly available.

The fiction-writing lectures have been available on recordings over the years, although the audio has been significantly abridged.

Chris Sciabarra has commented on the abridged recordings of the fiction-writing lectures, but the JARS archives are currently being transferred to Penn State University Press and I shall have to cast about for the reference.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might be that writing an article that didn't require referencing affected all these details causing slop about the edges. That BB's bio was published in 1986 instead of 1984 is in itself a completely inconsequential mistake. Where her article seriously fails is exactly where her book fails although not as badly as Heller's: very poor understanding and appreciation of the philosophy itself and its possible place in the intellectual and cultural history of America and its so far complete irrelevance to the non-English speaking world, with the big problem being its over-emphasis on itself--the ethics, the jejune morality--and its under-emphasis on real critical thinking, individualism and politics.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During her years in the Archives, Burns was able to make spot comparisons regarding the fiction and nonfiction-writing lectures, the Q&A sessions, and the radio interviews. How many, I don't know. Her work was much more heavily focused on the letters and journals.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... : very poor understanding and appreciation of the philosophy itself and its possible place in the intellectual and cultural history of America and its so far complete irrelevance to the non-English speaking world, with the big problem being its over-emphasis on itself--the ethics, the jejune morality--and its under-emphasis on real critical thinking, individualism and politics.

--Brant

Apparently, you should write your own book. Personally, viewed in the scope of the history of philosophy, Ayn Rand might prove to be up there with Hegel as an influence on the wider culture. The brouhaha over Paul Ryan would indicate that. The constant and consistent book sales for decades, long before the rolling crises of the Bush-Obama years, underscore the causal factors.

Perhaps the essential difference between Rand and Hegel makes sociological analysis difficult. In other words, we don't march around with armbands waving flags and calling each other "comrade." (Well, the Libertarian Party does line up in alphabetical order by state...) Mostly, individualism is what individuals do, so the granularity is finer.

The broad application of critical thinking does not mean that everyone will agree. In fact,that would indicate a lack of critical thinking. Rand's works are also responsible for that, perhaps not causally, but as reinforcement to those who would be critical thinkers anyway.

Overall, I see Objectivism as being very successful, so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burns' position, IIRC, is that the editing of the Letters wasn't nearly as heavy-handed as the editing of the Journsls.

Let's not forget the evidence of 'selectivity' in the Letters volume. In the preface Berliner claimed to have only omitted repititous material and routine business correspondence. Yet the very unique Dudley letter didn't make the cut. 'Splain that one to me, Mike.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?s=0e37e163430eb8b8f1706867b4061181&showtopic=11147&page=5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

I don't see the wrong date for The Passion of Ayn Rand as such a big deal either. Though academic historians do generally exhibit overactivity of the caudate nucleus...

But then there's this:

The archive was critical to my project because there was

no scholarly book on Rand and little reliable published information

about her. Only by using the Ayn Rand Archives could I deflate the

myths and pry away the legend that had surrounded Rand for de -

cades. (p. 54)

The Passion of Ayn Rand turned out to be plenty reliable—though in 2001 a researcher might have considered its reliability a hypothesis to be tested.

What about The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand (Rasmussen and Den Uyl, 1984)? Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical (Sciabarra, 1995)? The Ayn Rand Companion and The New Ayn Rand Companion (Gladstein, 1984 and 1999)?

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ND,

In the preface Berliner claimed to have only omitted repititous material and routine business correspondence. Yet the very unique Dudley letter didn't make the cut. 'Splain that one to me, Mike.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?s=0e37e163430eb8b8f1706867b4061181&showtopic=11147&page=5

I've also wondered about the Dudley letter ever since it surfaced on ebay.

It turns out that Burns almost certainly cited the Dudley letter in her dissertation (the date's off by two months, but it appears to be the same item). But didn't mention it in her book.

I asked her about this; no response.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno...

For one thing, the wder world - as Jennifer Burns - makes a big deal out of Ayn Rand's personal life. The closest I know among other philosophers is Wittgenstein's Poker (read my review here). The authors, David Edmonds and John Eidinow, touch softly on the homosexuality of both Popper and Wittgenstein. (Wittgenstein's is attested. Popper's is inferred.) Similarly we speculate about Sir Isaac Newton. Ultimately, though, it loses interest. Our focus is on ideas not the human foibles of those who propose them. Indeed, on the matter of homosexuality, academics fall over themselves excusing Socrates and Alcibiades without besmirching the Socratic dialog, least of all his Death as told by Plato. But with Ayn Rand, the matter is different.

As for the ethnographic angle, I look to Shakespeare in the Bush by Laura Boihannan. You have to be objective. With Margaret Mead, it was not the Samoan girlls lied to her, but that she did not detect it. So, too, with Burns, as an outsider does she miss much of the nuance.Speaking as a social scientitist, the idea that James Valiant is the leader of a cult of neo-Objectivists is simply laughabale. Some of us here know Erwin S. Strauss. Is he the leader of a cult of neo-Fans? I have never read James Valiant or Neal Parielle. Leonard Peikoff's opinion of Ayn Rand's bedroom holds very little interest for me. I do not even read it.

I like your reference to Wittgenstein's Poker, an excellant book. Another aspect of these two philosophers is also brought out - the almost cult-like following that each had in academic quarters. The behavior of Wittgenstein and Popper - and particularly their followers - is discussed in some detail and is not unsimilar to the "cultishness" (a misnomer, but I believe those using that term do it intentionally as an attempt to dismiss any consideration of Rand as a serious philosopher) behavior chronicled in exhaustive detail in Burns and Heller.

A difference between Randians of all stripes and the Wittgenstein-Popper loyalists, is that, in the case of Rand, we are dealing with a much larger readership that is motivated by her political-economic agenda - a burning desire to change the world. Wittgenstein-Popper had political viewpoints (in the case of Popper, stated explicitly in many of his books), but they did not issue manifestos as Rand clearly did.

You note that Rand's critics on the Left (and the Buckleyite Right) relish in the lurid discussion of Rand's personal life, especially her sexual behavior and her interpersonal relations with members of her Inner Circle (the "Collective") and point out that academics (usually) treat most other philosophers with more latitude in that area. I think that the reasons for this contrast are quite clear. In the case of Socrates and Alcibiades, our contemporaries do not feel that they have a personal stake in the outcome, but in the case of Rand, that is not true. Many academics (and their MSM-journalists cohorts) have very strong political views of a collectivist nature, and they take personal umbrage at Rand's relentless criticism of views they hold dear. In other words, Randianism is a threat to the dominance of their world-view, whereas most other philosophers -particularly those before the 19th century - do not pose that sort of threat.

It is so much easier to attempt to dismiss a philosopher by pointing out discrepancies (real or exaggerated) between their stated views and actions in their personal life, along the lines of, "See, they are hypocrites! Even they do not believe what they have written! Why should we pay any respect to their philosophies!" I think there are many criticisms that one could make of various aspects of Rand's philosophies, many of which have been discussed here on this forum. But most of the criticisms stated here, are not what you see in attacks by the Left. They would rather revel in the sensational and salacious. Gossip is so much easier than pointing-out errors in her epistemology.

As for Heller and Burns, there is nothing that is particularly surprising in their more open attacks on Rand that are seen in their recent articles or on personal appearances in conferences or the media. They are playing to their audience, telling them what they want to hear. Neither Heller nor Burns stated that they admired or adhered to Rand's philosophy, that was not their goal. Their goal is to sell a lot of books and advance their careers. Big surprise.

In the case of Burns' article being discussed here, I found her feigned surprise at Rand fans taking umbrage at her description used in her book (and virtually in every article and personal appearance that she has made since her book was released) of Rand's philosophy as "the 'gateway drug' for college-age students into the extreme Right," as laughable. Give me a break, Jennifer! Your protests to the contrary, I think that you knew exactly what you were doing with that catch-phrase, and who it would appeal to. The term, "gateway drug", is clearly pejorative and practically no one reading or hearing that description would take it as a compliment. Please!

But again, so what? These are non-Objectivists writing to a much larger audience than "Randians," most of which snap-up any book featuring a discussion of Rand, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another passage in the essay appears to be accurate, as far as it goes.

Surely, I thought, if anything would get me kicked out of the

archive it would be mentioning the bowdlerization of Rand’s works.

So I was shocked one day when a visiting Objectivist scholar—of the

official ARI type—began harrumphing over a copy of the Journals of

Ayn Rand. He sighed, he snorted, he shifted in his chair and shook

his head. I ventured a feeler and received an earful. “It’s ridiculous!”

he practically shouted. “Why do this! Why make these changes?” Jeff

glided up to our table and tsk-tsked. That was before I got here, he

explained with a shudder, a kind of archival dark ages before the professionals

had arrived. Now, the estate made the originals available

to scholars. There is even talk of doing an official concordance, he

told us, to establish where the published version differed from the

archival materials. (p. 60)

It would be interesting to know who this ARI-affiliated individual was, as there is no longer any apparent reason to conceal his identity. (To this day, Burns has never publicly referred by name to anyone she encountered at the Archives, except Jeff Britting.)

What her account leaves out is that Jeff Britting was, of course, expected to assist and comply when the next rewritten edition of Rand was being prepared. Both Ayn Rand Answers (rewritten by Mayhew) and Objectively Speaking (rewritten by Podritske and Schwartz) were done in their entirety while Britting was running the Archives and Burns was doing her work there.

Just as he was, of course, expected to assist and comply when Leonard Peikoff conferred upon Jim Valliant his access-all-areas (there's a project that the Archives may not want to boast about—but it was all done while Britting was in charge and Burns was a frequent visitor).

What it also leaves out is that Jeff Britting decided who counted as a scholar and who didn't—when it hadn't been decided for him, by those higher in the management chain.

For instance, when I was working on "The Rewriting of Rand's Spoken Answers," I made two polite inquiries, by email, about the Archives' holdings.

Such as, do they have a recording of Rand's 1966 Q&A at the Ford Hall Forum (nothing ever commercially released, just one answer used by Mayhew), and, if they do, how long is it? Or do they have audio on her 1967 Q&A in the same venue (nothing commercially released, 22 answers used by Mayhew)?

Pretty innocuous, I should have thought. I wasn't asking for access to any recordings, even to the transcripts they have on file. Just whether these items are still extant and in their possession.

Not a peep out of Britting, either time.

Since Jennifer Burns read a draft of my article, gave me advice on revising it (most of which I took), and I credited her in the acknowledgments, I'm sort of wondering what's next on that front.

A public repudiation would be awkward, to say the least.

A statement that the article might have been OK from an alternative writer in some alternative universe, but with this writer in this universe its content is wholly nullified by anti-Peikovian animus?

It would fit with the complaint about "neos."


Except ... ummmm … who do you suppose gave Berliner, Harriman, Boeckmann, Mayhew, Podritske, and Schwartz their licenses to rewrite?

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, OK...

Where The Art of Fiction is concerned, Stephen Cox was the reviewer, in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Volume 1, number 2, pp. 313-331.

Cox questions Boeckmann's editorial procedure, particularly in light of Rand's skill at extemporaneous speaking and her fastidiousness about language, but for specifics he has only Boeckmann (and Peikoff's) prefatory statements to go on.

There are separate remarks by Chris Sciabarra ... to be researched.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the early 70s Tibor Machan wrote in Reason that Wittgenstein and Rand had more in common than most would expect. I can't judge this except to say that I think Objectivists would profit from On Certainty.

Another parallel is that they both had non-professional, non-academic followings. Janik and Toulmin write in Wittgenstein's Vienna that he was much in vogue among the trendies in roaring-twenties England. Eugene Goosens, for example, wrote a "Wittgensteinian" oboe concerto. Yet another is that their personalities and their decidedly non-academic writing styles are part of their respective legends or, if you will, personality cults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

I don't see the wrong date for The Passion of Ayn Rand as such a big deal either.

I think a bigger deal is Burns' statement:

"When the superstar novelist of heroic and selfish capitalism died in 1982, she left her estate in its entirety to Leonard Peikoff, her most faithful student and designated 'intellectual heir.'”

I'm not aware of Rand's having publicly or privately designated Peikoff her "intellectual heir." I've seen a lot of people question Peikoff's claim that he was so designated by Rand. So, I guess that the question is, does Burns' repeating the claim mean that she has accepted the claim without evidence, or might it mean that she saw a document in the archives in which Rand actually referred to Peikoff as her "designated intellectual heir."

Btw, speaking of "intellectual heirs," remember that it's never too early to designate yours! You never know what might happen, and wouldn't it suck if someone like Gregster, Nicky, Thomas Miovas or Doug Bandler ended up being your intellectual heir because you just up and died prior to designating Ed Hudgins or Bob Campbell? Do it today!

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

Peikoff seems to have done like Napoleon, and placed the crown on his own head.

If there are any actual documents supporting Peikoff's self-designation, Jennifer Burns has been in a position to see them and report on them.

I figure she put it in as a poke against the "neos."

Her audience outside of Randland wouldn't know or care.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

I don't see the wrong date for The Passion of Ayn Rand as such a big deal either. Though academic historians do generally exhibit overactivity of the caudate nucleus...

But then there's this:

The archive was critical to my project because there was

no scholarly book on Rand and little reliable published information

about her. Only by using the Ayn Rand Archives could I deflate the

myths and pry away the legend that had surrounded Rand for de -

cades. (p. 54)

The Passion of Ayn Rand turned out to be plenty reliablethough in 2001 a researcher might have considered its reliability a hypothesis to be tested.

What about The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand (Rasmussen and Den Uyl, 1984)? Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical (Sciabarra, 1995)? The Ayn Rand Companion and The New Ayn Rand Companion (Gladstein, 1984 and 1999)?

Robert Campbell

Forgot about Chris in my hurry up post. And the JOARS. Haven't looked at R and U for a long time.

--Brat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

I've never encountered a direct statement from Jennifer Burns about her ideology.

She has said that she is not a social conservative.

A comment she made about leaving UVA is supportive of the recently fired then rehired President, who is definitely on the Left. But the infighting at UVA has involved a whole tangle of issues.

The closest she gets in the Raritan article is here:

I started my research during the era of the

Patriot Act, and as I drove back and forth to the archive listening to

the notoriously lefty public radio station KPFA rant about the latest

infringement on civil liberties, I would think to myself: where is Ayn

Rand now that we need her so badly? (Of course, it is debatable

whether Rand’s hawkish patriotism and desire to defeat Islamic “barbarism”

would have overruled her civil-libertarian side, but I fancied

the latter impulse would hold sway.) (p. 56)

KPFA is not an NPR station. It's a Pacifica station. I don't recall Pacifica stations being called "public radio," but the KPFA website identifies them that way.

Obviously she would prefer not to publicize her own views, whatever they are.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of Jeff Britting, here's a series of events that took place in 1997, when Britting was already in the employ of the Ayn Rand Institute.

Chris Sciabarra describes (in a 1999 article in Liberty magazine: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/randt1.htm) what happened after he learned that ARI had acquired a copy of Ayn Rand's college transcript:

I called the Institute and spoke with an individual connected to the archive project. Yes, the ARI had secured two versions of the transcript, with not much difference between them. I explained to the Institute archivist that the transcript was of enormous historical value because it would help us to substantiate whether Rand had actually studied with Lossky. But the archivist did not notice any listed courses on the history of ancient philosophy, the Lossky class that Rand claimed to have attended. And it did not appear that Lossky’s name was even in the document, he said. In fairness, however, all of the professor signatures, allegedly inscribed after each course listing, were illegible, I was told. If Lossky’s signature was actually on the transcript, it could not be deciphered. Perhaps I was correct in my thesis that this course was untraceable, the archivist suggested.

He seemed persuaded, however, that, with the Institute providing me with a copy of the document, I could marshal my own resources to probe its mysteries so as to gain important insight into Rand’s college education. I told him that time was of the essence. I knew that both Boris and Andrew Lossky were in the twilight of their years, and that the former was now ill, residing in a Russian nursing home in Paris. I was blunt: "When these individuals die, a world dies with them." I proposed to act as a scholarly liaison, to work with the Losskys and with several other colleagues, including the distinguished philosopher George Kline, in an effort to preserve the integrity of the historical record.

Nevertheless, the Institute was concerned that I would publish my work on the transcript prior to the publication of its authorized Rand biography, for which my research would be used. I assured them that if they wanted to make the "big splash" with this information, I would wait for them to publish it first. In any event, I explained, anything that I might publish--whether as an article or as an appendix to an extended second edition of Russian Radical--would be more of an interpretive, rather than a purely journalistic, essay on the transcript’s contents.

It took weeks for us to hammer out the terms of a formal agreement. I sought no compensation for my work. I stipulated that I wished to retain the right to publish my own reflections on this material at a later date. I also insisted on an acknowledgment, in print, in their projected biography, for any material that I might specifically uncover.

Literally minutes before faxing me the document, the Institute wanted one last assurance. I was asked to sign a written guarantee that neither I nor George Kline nor Boris Lossky would publish the transcript or any articles about it. I was puzzled. My colleagues had never expressed any interest in publishing anything about this transcript. Yet, since I was not their agent, I could not bind either of them legally on such grounds. I assumed that the Institute wished to prevent publication of transcript information prior to the release of its authorized biography or an alternative negotiated date. My assumption was incorrect.

I was told, in essence, that the Institute did not want me to ever write on this subject. In other words, I was supposed to do all the detective work, provide the ARI with the results of my research, and never benefit from it personally. I wondered aloud: "Have you ever heard of the trader principle?" There was no response.

Within a couple of years, Chris had gone around the Archives and gotten a copy of the transcript through his own channels, subsequently publishing two articles about it in JARS.

Not named in the article, the persons with whom he dealt were, in fact, Scott McConnell and Jeff Britting.

In his brief, sanitized Rand biography, published in 2004, Britting used some information from Chris Sciabarra's research without crediting him. Meanwhile, he made sure to include Jim Valliant's opus (then in press) in the reference section.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like your reference to Wittgenstein's Poker, an excellant book. Another aspect of these two philosophers is also brought out - the almost cult-like following that each had in academic quarters.

The behavior of Wittgenstein and Popper - and particularly their followers - is discussed in some detail and is not unsimilar to ...

Yes, that is an excellent point. I forgot that both Popper and Wittgenstein were conscious of the students in their camps or shadows or circles. In fact, this is something of a tradition in academics, which we in America have not followed. We are off on our own, for better or not. I believe that by 1850 Ohio alone had more universities than Germany, or maybe all of Europe... But in Europe professors shopped for schools and their students followed them. Before German unification, competition for professors and among schools was acute. Every montebank "Faustus" brought his coterie with him. The local dukes were happy for the "esteem" which that then cast upon their local schools. This aspect of Ayn Rand's so-called "cult" is not explored, but clearly deserves some attention.

... we are dealing with a much larger readership that is motivated by her political-economic agenda - a burning desire to change the world.

Yes, indeed! Popper's Open Society and Its Enemies is pretty weak about on the level of Rodney King's "Why can't we all just get along?" That wertfrei plea for tolerance might well be deep and cogent, but mostly lacks any force of conviction. Rand, of course, is just the opposite. As we know, it is not that she was uncompromosing, but rather the topics on which she did not take or beg for quarter: "America's Persecuted Minority: Big Business" is only the tangible. I doubt that Diane Feinstein or Elizabeth Warren would denouce reason qua reason. (In fact, during her campaign Senator Warren actually said that entrepreneurs should take home tons of money ... only that they need to pay taxes like everyone else...)

... It is so much easier to attempt to dismiss a philosopher by pointing out discrepancies (real or exaggerated) between their stated views and actions in their personal life, along the lines of, "See, they are hypocrites! Even they do not believe what they have written! ..."
Right, again, JB! The essence, though, is that Plato and Popper are excused. As you pointed out, the nearness of time makes a difference. Plato's failure in Syracuse is not held against him. I think that the essential difference though is that Ayn Rand always intended her philosophy to be personal: "How do you live a rational life in an irrational world?" That is a fundamental question for any philosophy. Existentialism says to take responsibility for your situation. Again, of course, Sarte is not held up as a personal failure despite the fact that he abused Simone de Beauvoir.
Neither Heller nor Burns stated that they admired or adhered to Rand's philosophy, that was not their goal. Their goal is to sell a lot of books and advance their careers.

I find that curious. Maybe it is just me. When I worked for Coin World, I was assigned to write a biography of Ulysses S. Grant. I resisted. But the more I dug, the more I came to appreciate the man. In my biographies of Newton, I was simply overswhelmed by the man. Even granted that Ayn Rand is not Sir Isaac Newton - but may be on par with Grant - I find it curious that her biographers Heller and Burns remain clearly antipathetic to her. Ayn Rand: Evil Genius of Capitalism would be fitting for them.

... of Rand's philosophy as "the 'gateway drug' for college-age students into the extreme Right," as laughable.

I agree that the choice of phrase is intended as perceived. Burns just never warmed to her subject and seems to be cashing in on her association.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the designation "intellectual heir" as applied to Leonard Peikoff, I recently came across a usage of that in print dating from 1984. I'd previously thought that the first time it was used in print was Peikoff's self-description in "Fact and Value," published May 18, 1989, in The Intellectual Activist.

The place I found Peikoff described as Rand's "legal and intellectual heir" is on an advertising front page of the Signet paperback edition of Philosophy: Who Needs It. The page contains a quote by Rand, a brief plug by Alan Greenspan, and the following statement:

This is Volume I of The Ayn Rand Library, a new series consisting of posthumous works by Ayn Rand and of distinguished books on her philosophy. Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand's legal and intellectual heir [emphasis added], is the editor of this series. Among other titles, future volumes will include Ayn Rand's unpublished fiction, journals, letters and lectures.
.

The Signet paperback edition's first printing was November 1984. The original hardcover, published by The Bobbs-Merrill Co., appeared not long after Rand's death. She died in March 1982. The original Introduction by Leonard Peikoff is dated May 1982.

I don't have a copy of the original hardcover. If anyone reading does have it, possibly you might want to look to see if, either in internal or jacket advertising, Peikoff is referred to as Rand's "intellectual heir."

---

On the reverse side of the front page in the Signet paperback is an advertisement for The Early Ayn Rand. The copy starts with a sentence describing Peikoff as "Ayn Rand's longtime associate and literary heir."

---

A couple passages of historical interest from Peikoff's Introduction.

[ellipsis in original]

Philosophy: Who Needs It is the last work planned by Ayn Rand before her death in March [1982].

The book was first suggested by a Canadian Objectivist, Walter Huebscher. In the fall of 1981, he wrote to Miss Rand: "In [your articles], you detail dramatically how everyone, through each statement he makes, uses philosophical premises....If [such] articles were published in a single volume, I believe that it would focus direct attention on philosophy's powerful influence, identify the philosophical roots of some of today's most dangerous trends, [and] indicate that it is possible to reverse a cultural trend, that everyone can and should get involved in doing just that."

Miss Rand was pleased with Mr. Huebscher's idea of a collection taken largely from her newsletter, The Ayn Rand Letter, and featuring as its title piece one of her favorites among her own articles, "Philosophy: Who Needs It"--originally a speech given at the United States Military Academy at West Point. In subsequent months--with her publisher at Bobbs-Merrill, Grace Shaw, and with friends and associates--she several times discussed her concept of the book. She indicated its content and structure in general terms. She mentioned articles whose inclusion would be mandatory, and others that she regarded as optional. She did not live long enough, however, to determine the final selection of pieces or their sequence. It has fallen to me to make these decisions, guided, wherever possible, by Miss Rand's stated wishes.

.

At the end of the Introduction, Peikoff describes how then-current readers could get further information about Objectivism.

Since Miss Rand's death, her associates in New York have received a great deal of mail inquiring how one can learn more about her ideas; how one can obtain back issues of her magazines; what current publications, schools, courses now carry on her philosophy; what work is done by the Foundation for the new Intellectual; etc. If you are interested in any of the above, I suggest that you write to: Objectivism PW, P.O. Box 177, Murray Hill Station, New York, N.Y. 10016. I regret that, owing to the volume of mail, you will probably not receive a personal reply; but in due course you will receive literature from several sources indicating the direction to pursue if you wish to investigate Ayn Rand's ideas further, or to support them.

Meanwhile, if you are about to read these essays for the first time, I envy you, because of what you still have in store for you. Ayn Rand has changed many people's minds and lives. Perhaps she will change yours, too.

Leonard Peikoff

New York City

May 1982

.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burns has on at least one other occasion called Peikoff Rand's "intellectual heir."

During the days of VHS videos, a video was made about Leonard Peikoff. (I forget the name.) I haven't seen it, but someone said that in it Peikoff claims that Rand called him his "intellectual heir."

CORRECTION: I think it is Leonard Peikoff: In his Own Words, a DVD from 2000.

I once debated this with Valliant. He seemed to concede that Rand probably didn't say "Leonard Peikoff is my intellectual heir" (or words to that effect) but that Peikoff was entitled to call himself this because she liked his course on Objectivism, he wrote the first Objectivist book*, and stuff like that. I don't trust Valliant, but he does have some connections to the ARI, so this might represent the official view.

-Neil Parille

*I'm not positive OP was the first book by an Objectivist. Bob Hessen wrote a book earlier than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

I've never encountered a direct statement from Jennifer Burns about her ideology.

She has said that she is not a social conservative.

A comment she made about leaving UVA is supportive of the recently fired then rehired President, who is definitely on the Left. But the infighting at UVA has involved a whole tangle of issues.

The closest she gets in the Raritan article is here:

I started my research during the era of the

Patriot Act, and as I drove back and forth to the archive listening to

the notoriously lefty public radio station KPFA rant about the latest

infringement on civil liberties, I would think to myself: where is Ayn

Rand now that we need her so badly? (Of course, it is debatable

whether Rand’s hawkish patriotism and desire to defeat Islamic “barbarism”

would have overruled her civil-libertarian side, but I fancied

the latter impulse would hold sway.) (p. 56)

KPFA is not an NPR station. It's a Pacifica station. I don't recall Pacifica stations being called "public radio," but the KPFA website identifies them that way.

Obviously she would prefer not to publicize her own views, whatever they are.

Robert Campbell

Okay, thanks, Bob.

I think I'll refer to Burns as a Paleo or Classical Objectivist and as Jeff Britting's officially designated intellectual heir.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Burns ever claim to have read any of Rand's fiction? She seems to be more of a Keating than a Roark.

--Brant

not nearly as bad as Peter, of course

(I'm better and worse than Roark--just for the record, and I'm not gonna tell how, but he's better and worse than me)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Literary heir" is defensible, since he inherited her copyrights. The fact that he was never a fiction writer argues that this is indeed what the phrase means.

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