I read 'The Passion of Ayn Rand' - I am suspicious as hell.


Nerian

Recommended Posts

I'm aware I'm probably bringing up very old stuff that has been flogged to death amongst Objectivists, but I'm young and new and bright eyed and... I can't know what I don't know.

I don't know that much about the whole controversy and history of Ayn Rand and her followers except what I have gleemed in passing, but I found 'the Passion of Ayn Rand' at my uni library and decided to give it a read The book itself is well written and engaging, and the first page draws you in. I found myself lost in the story. The first part about 'Alice' was very good and very interesting. It seemed well researched and objective.

But towards the latter half of the book, I started to feel an eery sense that something was not quite right. I started to think, 'how could Ayn be this irrational?'. It seems absurd. She was denouncing people morally for choices in music and so on? She was getting 'angry' all the time. I felt like this is not the woman of the first half of the book. Ayn didn't seem to be preaching the Objectivism that I know. And I have learned a lot of it from Peikoff, through lectures I bought, his books, and his podcast - Objectivism straight from the orthodox horses mouth.

I started wondering to myself, could this be blown out of proportion? Could this be bent truth? Then I got to a passage about Ayn Rand's Donnahue interview. I've watched two of her Donnahe interviews many times, loving Ayn throughout. The passage claims that Ayn 'got angry' and the show was a disaster when a woman said 'now that I'm more educated, I don't agree with you.' This is when I suddenly felt that every time Barbara claimed Ayn 'got angry' was blown out of proportion. Ayn got upset, but I would not have called her 'angry'. And she was not being irrational or unreachable. I would say she was calmly offended. If you call that getting angry, then it throws into doubt every other time in the book you claim she was angry.

Then I thought, Ayn was willing to be friends earlier in her life with a conservative woman who believed in mystical nonsense, but towards the latter half she suddenly became unwilling to be friends with anyone who she deemed immoral for being irrational? What?

So I did some searching and sure enough found another book that apparently gives another side to the story. Edit: (The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics: The Case Against the Brandens.)

I don't know who is telling the truth or not, but the 'Passion of Ayn Rand' towards the latter half seemed mighty suspicious. I found myself really disliking the supposed Ayn Rand in the latter half of the book. I felt that she had totally lost touch with the love of life she was supposed to have, and that she had fallen into pure rationalism, not willing to consider facts, trying to deduce everything about music, psychology and so on purely from first principles in her philosophy. Emotional repression. And the part about Nathaniel not being allowed to have a life apart from her? I find it hard to believe she said it. But at the same time I had a hard time believing that's what became of her. It's possible that it's all true, and that Ayn lost her marbles, but in her late interviews, she didn't seem that way.

When I got to her death, I nearly cried, as if I had forgotten she had died before I was even born.

Damn, now I have to buy the other book. I got sucked into the drama!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand was addicted to amphetamines. That took a toll over the years. Ayn Rand evokes emotional responses, even more from her detractors than from her fans. As the first article quoted here notes, Jean-Paul Sartre shared the foible with her, but you do not read denunciations of Sartre as a drug-addled speed freak. Einstein's personal life was often in shambles. We could go on across your favorite pantheon.

In 1942 Ayn Rand took up Benzedrine to help her finish her novel, The Fountainhead.* She had spent years planning and composing the first third of the novel; over the next 12 months, thanks to the new pills, she averaged a chapter a week. But the drug quickly became a crutch. Rand would continue to use amphetamines for the next three decades, even as her overuse led to mood swings, irritability, emotional outbursts, and paranoia—traits Rand was susceptible to even without drugs.
"What do Auden, Sartre, and Ayn Rand have in common? Amphetamines." by Mason Currey in Slate here.

Barbara Branden was an active writer here. She first participated in the "Sense of Life Objectivists" about 2005. When that imploded, MSK invited her to Objectivist Living where she found a more responsive audience. If you understand the Objectivist culture (sometimes called "Objectivish" to allow for the latitudes), you will appreciate that Barbara Branden was somewhat limited in the places that would have welcomed her. Objectivism Online would not have, clearly.

I am not sure about Betsy Speicher's "Rand Fans". Speicher is doctrinaire. I did take away one important cultural point from Betsy Speicher: Do not call Ayn Rand "Ayn" unless you really did know her personally. I add that if we were discussing Bertrand Russell, you would not refer to him as "Bertrand."

"… there’s no question that Ayn Rand was a habitual consumer of amphetamines starting in 1942, when she was prescribed Benzedrine for weight loss (a common medical practice in that era) and discovered that it gave her the energy to put in the long hours needed to finish the first of her two major novels, The Fountainhead. Rand liked the boost that “speed” gave her, and from that time until at least 1972 – a period of 30 years – she continued to use amphetamines, moving on to Dexedrine and Dexamyl.
[…]
"Certainly symptoms of amphetamine addiction – irritability, mood swings, paranoia – showed up in Rand’s personal relationships, especially later in her life. The members of the cult-like inner circle she assembled around her in New York were terrified of the fierce, bitingly cruel attacks she would unleash against any of them who disagreed with her. Even her devoted husband Frank O’Connor would sometimes be the target of her scorn."
-- H. Bruce Miller's "Rand Watch" blog here.

From all evidence, Sir Isaac Newton was an Arian unitarian who denied the Trinity. He perjured himself, swearing to believe in the Trinity in order to accept his appointment as a mathematics professor at Cambridge. Then, there was was that dark romance with the boy from France… Really, you know, we flip the light switch and are grateful for the generators, regardless of the personal problems of the people who created them.

There's a lot more to Ayn Rand than most people, even her fans, know. "The Objective Virtues of Stamp Collecting" on my blog here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter, when you refer to another book, please come with the title.

I go back over 50 years with the Ayn Rand Objectivism stuff. I was there when they put her in the ground. I saw her in action in different venues such as the Ford Hall Forum. I went there every year for years starting in 1968.

I saw her on the Late Night with Johnny Carson show in 1967, on TV in Tucson. Her public demeanor was positive, just as you experienced her. In the more private, smaller social contexts she could be less beneficent. The reasons are complex and variable and no one can understand all that went on and why back then in the life of this woman. I can speculate with the best of them, but such is not acceptable testimony. Barbara Branden knew her all the way back to, like, 1950. She saw Rand at her best and her worst as she changed over time. The writing of Atlas Shrugged must have had had a tremendous effect on her, especially that damn speech.

MM: We do not know what Rand was addicted to or how badly except the cigarettes.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

There are two other, more recent biographies of Ayn Rand. One is by Jennifer Burns, and one is by Anne C. Heller. In your university library, you may have The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies or your may have access to it through JSTOR. In the V13N1 issue (July 2013), there is a double review of these two biographies by Robert Campbell that is really helpful for deciding which, if either, you might like to read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure why you're so suspicious, people change with age and can grow more cynical. There's a Barbara Branden video on Youtube where she talks about how dissappointed she was that Atlas Shrugged got negative reviews and/or was ignored. The Romantic Manifesto (as well as a hit piece by Murray Rothbard) document Rand's taste in art/music.

As for the Donahue interview and Ayn 'getting angry', I'm not sure what standards you are using but I'm pretty sure there aren't many guests on Donahue that have gotten more upset than Ayn Rand. Given the audience that watches Donahue it would have been more rational to address the woman who questioned Ayn in a more calm manner.

I've come to question some of the things in Passion of Ayn Rand, but I think it's mainly true. Ayn worked very hard to try to create an intellectual framework for capitalism and did a pretty good job of it. But she had too much confidence that people would have a positive reaction to it (just like Dagny had too much confidence). I think she became more cynical after the Branden breakup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, whether she lost her mind towards the end of her life or not, her main ideas and novels stand untouched. I was aware Newton wasted the latter half of his life on chasing the mysticism of alchemy.

Do not call Ayn Rand "Ayn" unless you really did know her personally. I add that if we were discussing Bertrand Russell, you would not refer to him as "Bertrand."

No. I see nothing wrong with it. If you give me a rational reason why I shouldn't, then I won't. But I won't accept convention or a command. By convention, many people would refer to Albert Einstein as Einstein but not Albert, but I don't see anything wrong with it.

Peter, when you refer to another book, please come with the title.

I go back over 59 years with then Ayn Rand Objectivism stuff. I was there when they put her in the ground.

I saw her of the Late Night with Johnny Carson in 1967, on TV in Tucson. Her public demeanor was positive, just as you experienced her. In the more private, smaller social contexts she could be less beneficent. The reasons are complex and variable and no one can understand all that went on and why back then in the life of this woman. I can speculate with the best of them, but such is not acceptable testimony.

MM: We do not know what Rand was addicted to or how badly except the cigarettes.

--Brant

Interesting. I guess I'll have to find more on the other side.

I guess I will never know because I don't have access to any original documents, and I don't know who can be trusted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walt Disney was anti-Semitic. I still enjoy Disney World.

Don't let Ayn Rand's personal drama overshadow the value you have found in philosophy. She was human.

On another note, MEM may be picking up on the same thing I did. You seem very passionate and emotional about this topic. There's nothing wrong with that, but your referring to "Ayn" by her first name indicates that maybe your personal connection with her on this topic is bordering on unhealthy. You talk of her as if you knew her personally, and you seem to be taking personal offense on her behalf. You did not know her, and there's no rational reason for you to be taking this personally. Perhaps I'm reading more into it than is there, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I will never know because I don't have access to any original documents, and I don't know who can be trusted.

Without Babara's biography, understanding Ayn Rand would be as an untouchable myth. You get Rand the human being. Everything I experienced first hand jibes with what Barbara wrote.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not follow everyone else here down the rabbit hole, but you are actually referring to three different works.

The Passion of Ayn Rand

The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics: the Case Against the Brandens

and

"Why No One Takes PARC Seriously Anymore," an extended discussion here on Objectivist Living.

Don't forget to read Judgment Day by Nathaniel Branden.

Also here on OL you will find a discussion about "The Rewrite Squad" tracking details of how Rand's works were edited to remove references to Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden, as well as to over-write some other problems.

So I did some searching and sure enough found another book that apparently gives another side to the story. Edit: (The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics: The Case Against the Brandens.)

Damn, now I have to buy the other book. I got sucked into the drama!

Again, myself, I just read the original works. I read "Passion" and "Judgment Day" when they came out. They speak for themselves, even though many people speak passionately and judgmentally about them.

You can find over 50 titles by and about Ayn Rand. If you start with Ayn Rand, you will finish better.

("Ayn Rand Worshipped a Serial Killer" here and about a million other places online.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was aware Newton wasted the latter half of his life on chasing the mysticism of alchemy.

I guess I will never know because I don't have access to any original documents, and I don't know who can be trusted.

Newton did not "waste the latter half of his life chasing the mysticism of alchemy." First of all, when he started, alchemy was all that existed. Robert Boyle's Skeptical Chymist came out in 1661, when Newton was on vacation from college, inventing calculus. Newton's chemical experiments ran through the first half of his life. They served him well when for the last thirty years of his life, he was Warden and then Master of the British Royal Mint. He conducted his own metallurgical surveys, having acquired some skill while working in "alchemy."

As for whom to believe… Well, with Newton, too, we have the papers, but not all of them. Newton burned many of his notes from his time at the Mint when he prosecuted counterfeiters. We allow today that he probably did not resort to actual torture, only that he was "harsh" and "unrelenting." Opinions and opining can only be resolved with facts. Even in the case of Newton's gold assays, those are argued even today, though we have the material evidence. Do you believe the Mint, Cambridge, or the South African Gold Council? Does it matter?

Obviously, I have an interest in Newton's work as it impacts numismatics. My wife offered me a new telescope for my birthday. So, that, too, intersects the curve of Newton's life. I don't care who he slept with. It is interesting that he apparently was a hypochondriac who concocted his own curatives, but not largely relevant to physics, mathematics, astronomy, or numismatics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walt Disney was anti-Semitic. I still enjoy Disney World.

Don't let Ayn Rand's personal drama overshadow the value you have found in philosophy. She was human.

On another note, MEM may be picking up on the same thing I did. You seem very passionate and emotional about this topic. There's nothing wrong with that, but your referring to "Ayn" by her first name indicates that maybe your personal connection with her on this topic is bordering on unhealthy. You talk of her as if you knew her personally, and you seem to be taking personal offense on her behalf. You did not know her, and there's no rational reason for you to be taking this personally. Perhaps I'm reading more into it than is there, however.

I read that bewildered. What a misunderstanding.

I'd like to know if it's true. That's all. I googled and found out there's this huge rift, and now I want to know the other accounts.

I don't feel by calling someone by their first name that I am indicating I knew them personally. Maybe that's a strong convention that I'm unaware of. I haven't been given any good reason to not call someone I didn't know by their first name, but I suppose I will use the last name to avoid people getting the wrong impression. I just didn't want to type the full name and chose Ayn over Rand. Maybe that's because I think it's a pretty name. (Finnish is so pretty. Aina. Ayn.) However, I do tend to like reasons for not doing things.

I'm confused. I think there was a misunderstanding. Please indicate where I took offense for Rand, and I'll retract it. I never felt offense, and how could I? Please indicate where I took anything personally. I don't see it. I ask meaning it sincerely. I must have miscommunicated.

I'm a curious investigator. I see this goes way back, and now I really see the can of worms I'm unleashing on myself. :smile: If I seem passionate about it, I take it as a compliment. It wouldn't change my estimation of the philosophy. I don't feel threatened in the slightest either way. I just realize that I have no idea if what is in Passion of Ayn Rand is accurate or not so I want to see if there's any evidence for the contrary.

I don't mean to step on any toes. I'm just interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure why you're so suspicious, people change with age and can grow more cynical. There's a Barbara Branden video on Youtube where she talks about how dissappointed she was that Atlas Shrugged got negative reviews and/or was ignored. The Romantic Manifesto (as well as a hit piece by Murray Rothbard) document Rand's taste in art/music.

As for the Donahue interview and Ayn 'getting angry', I'm not sure what standards you are using but I'm pretty sure there aren't many guests on Donahue that have gotten more upset than Ayn Rand. Given the audience that watches Donahue it would have been more rational to address the woman who questioned Ayn in a more calm manner.

I've come to question some of the things in Passion of Ayn Rand, but I think it's mainly true. Ayn worked very hard to try to create an intellectual framework for capitalism and did a pretty good job of it. But she had too much confidence that people would have a positive reaction to it (just like Dagny had too much confidence). I think she became more cynical after the Branden breakup.

I honestly don't know how she could have been any calmer. The only time she showed a tinge of anger is when she said "I didn't come here to be judged."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't feel by calling someone by their first name that I am indicating I knew them personally. Maybe that's a strong convention that I'm unaware of. I haven't been given any good reason to not call someone I didn't know by their first name, but I suppose I will use the last name to avoid people getting the wrong impression. I just didn't want to type the full name and chose Ayn over Rand. Maybe that's because I think it's a pretty name. (Finnish is so pretty. Aina. Ayn.) However, I do tend to like reasons for not doing things.

I'm confused. I think there was a misunderstanding. Please indicate where I took offense for Rand, and I'll retract it. I never felt offense, and how could I? Please indicate where I took anything personally. I don't see it. I ask meaning it sincerely. I must have miscommunicated.

I'm a curious investigator. I see this goes way back, and now I really see the can of worms I'm unleashing on myself. :smile: If I seem passionate about it, I take it as a compliment. It wouldn't change my estimation of the philosophy. I don't feel threatened in the slightest either way. I just realize that I have no idea if what is in Passion of Ayn Rand is accurate or not so I want to see if there's any evidence for the contrary.

I don't mean to step on any toes. I'm just interested.

I think it's a severe remark by Betsy Speicher. I guess respect for Rand and over-presumptuousness were at the top her mind.

However, if you think of her as "Ayn" who's going to stop you? In writing it may give the wrong impression, that's all. To me it's complimentary of the closely intimate - and affectionate - effect Rand had on all her young and not so young readers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walt Disney was anti-Semitic. I still enjoy Disney World.

Don't let Ayn Rand's personal drama overshadow the value you have found in philosophy. She was human.

On another note, MEM may be picking up on the same thing I did. You seem very passionate and emotional about this topic. There's nothing wrong with that, but your referring to "Ayn" by her first name indicates that maybe your personal connection with her on this topic is bordering on unhealthy. You talk of her as if you knew her personally, and you seem to be taking personal offense on her behalf. You did not know her, and there's no rational reason for you to be taking this personally. Perhaps I'm reading more into it than is there, however.

I read that bewildered. What a misunderstanding.

I'd like to know if it's true. That's all. I googled and found out there's this huge rift, and now I want to know the other accounts.

I don't feel by calling someone by their first name that I am indicating I knew them personally. Maybe that's a strong convention that I'm unaware of. I haven't been given any good reason to not call someone I didn't know by their first name, but I suppose I will use the last name to avoid people getting the wrong impression. I just didn't want to type the full name and chose Ayn over Rand. Maybe that's because I think it's a pretty name. (Finnish is so pretty. Aina. Ayn.) However, I do tend to like reasons for not doing things.

I'm confused. I think there was a misunderstanding. Please indicate where I took offense for Rand, and I'll retract it. I never felt offense, and how could I? Please indicate where I took anything personally. I don't see it. I ask meaning it sincerely. I must have miscommunicated.

I'm a curious investigator. I see this goes way back, and now I really see the can of worms I'm unleashing on myself. :smile: If I seem passionate about it, I take it as a compliment. It wouldn't change my estimation of the philosophy. I don't feel threatened in the slightest either way. I just realize that I have no idea if what is in Passion of Ayn Rand is accurate or not so I want to see if there's any evidence for the contrary.

I don't mean to step on any toes. I'm just interested.

Call her "Ayn" if you want to. No big deal. If she were alive and you were to meet her, naturally you'd address her as "Miss Rand." In more formal writing than, say, here, "Rand" is the way to go. I use "Ayn" occasionally (I just did it!), "Ayn Rand" most often but now "Rand" more and more.

--Brant

I once called Nathaniel Branden "Nathan" to his face. It made me uncomfortable so it's been "Nathaniel" ever since. "Nathan" is for people who knew him when that was his name, generally speaking, with Jack Wheeler as the one exception I know of--I'm sure there are a few others; not me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walt Disney was anti-Semitic. I still enjoy Disney World.

Don't let Ayn Rand's personal drama overshadow the value you have found in philosophy. She was human.

On another note, MEM may be picking up on the same thing I did. You seem very passionate and emotional about this topic. There's nothing wrong with that, but your referring to "Ayn" by her first name indicates that maybe your personal connection with her on this topic is bordering on unhealthy. You talk of her as if you knew her personally, and you seem to be taking personal offense on her behalf. You did not know her, and there's no rational reason for you to be taking this personally. Perhaps I'm reading more into it than is there, however.

I read that bewildered. What a misunderstanding.

I'd like to know if it's true. That's all. I googled and found out there's this huge rift, and now I want to know the other accounts.

I don't feel by calling someone by their first name that I am indicating I knew them personally. Maybe that's a strong convention that I'm unaware of. I haven't been given any good reason to not call someone I didn't know by their first name, but I suppose I will use the last name to avoid people getting the wrong impression. I just didn't want to type the full name and chose Ayn over Rand. Maybe that's because I think it's a pretty name. (Finnish is so pretty. Aina. Ayn.) However, I do tend to like reasons for not doing things.

I'm confused. I think there was a misunderstanding. Please indicate where I took offense for Rand, and I'll retract it. I never felt offense, and how could I? Please indicate where I took anything personally. I don't see it. I ask meaning it sincerely. I must have miscommunicated.

I'm a curious investigator. I see this goes way back, and now I really see the can of worms I'm unleashing on myself. :smile: If I seem passionate about it, I take it as a compliment. It wouldn't change my estimation of the philosophy. I don't feel threatened in the slightest either way. I just realize that I have no idea if what is in Passion of Ayn Rand is accurate or not so I want to see if there's any evidence for the contrary.

I don't mean to step on any toes. I'm just interested.

There's an undertone in your original post (and now in your response to me, as well) that I'm interpreting as sensitivity. I did point out that I may be reading something into it that isn't there. That's one of the hazards of forums like this. If you say otherwise, so be it, I believe you. No toes are involved, stepped on or otherwise.

You're a college student, no? In your academic writing, do you refer to sources by their first names? Some people would equate this forum to that kind of writing. Personally, I don't care if you call her Ayn or Rand or Ayn Rand or honey boo boo as long as I know who you're talking about. I was simply speculating on what MEM might have been thinking. Also, being born and raised in the American south, I'm accustomed by training to not refer to people by their first names until being invited to do so, unless he or she is obviously my peer. It's a cultural thing. {Shrug.}

The rift you refer to is definitely a hot topic among Objectivist circles, even after all this time. A lot of people feel very strongly about it, and a lot of people are quite sensitive about it. It's okay if you are, too. You will be in good company. You absolutely should expect heated debate from some corners. Someone already pointed out that the Brandens were friends of this board, its owner, and some of the members. You will want to be cognizant of that as you proceed with this line of investigation and discussion.

Again, my personal feeling is that Rand was human and therefore fallible. As were/are her supporters. As were/are her detractors. That doesn't detract from the value I have found in Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More testimony to Rand's irascibility comes from John Hospers, with whom she was friendly ca. 1960: http://johnhospers.com/Articles/Conversations2.html (do a text search on "Aesthetics" and read his account of her behavior at an academic conference).

As Nerian mentions, there's another side of the story, which we get from Peikoff, Valliant and others. One reason I'm inclined to be skeptical of them is that the people who say that she could be unreasonably angry are evenhanded and enormously respectful of Rand - NB, BB, Hospers and others. The Peikoff/Valliant circle, by contrast, are capable only of badmouthing anybody who crosses them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walt Disney was anti-Semitic. I still enjoy Disney World.

Don't let Ayn Rand's personal drama overshadow the value you have found in philosophy. She was human.

On another note, MEM may be picking up on the same thing I did. You seem very passionate and emotional about this topic. There's nothing wrong with that, but your referring to "Ayn" by her first name indicates that maybe your personal connection with her on this topic is bordering on unhealthy. You talk of her as if you knew her personally, and you seem to be taking personal offense on her behalf. You did not know her, and there's no rational reason for you to be taking this personally. Perhaps I'm reading more into it than is there, however.

I don't see what you think you do, Deanna. In any case, there isn't anybody alive who has any lock on "Ayn." I can see how someone young can jump on it but then leave it a few years later. There is also the brute fact of the present coming into adulthood and maturity generation's lack of formality. I've corrected a few people, some in person (some on the phone), who on meeting and dealing with me the first time addressed me as "Brant." Female bank tellers were the worst. It hasn't happened for a while, but I suspect it's because I look so old that it's stopped. I've been formally described now as "elderly." That bugged me more than when over 20 years ago I was offered the "senior discount" at Burger King.

--Brant

I didn't know Walt was anti-Semetic, but I don't think he built Disney World--he built Disneyland; my brother's late father-in-law, E. Cardon Walker, built Disney World

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walt Disney was anti-Semitic. I still enjoy Disney World.

Don't let Ayn Rand's personal drama overshadow the value you have found in philosophy. She was human.

On another note, MEM may be picking up on the same thing I did. You seem very passionate and emotional about this topic. There's nothing wrong with that, but your referring to "Ayn" by her first name indicates that maybe your personal connection with her on this topic is bordering on unhealthy. You talk of her as if you knew her personally, and you seem to be taking personal offense on her behalf. You did not know her, and there's no rational reason for you to be taking this personally. Perhaps I'm reading more into it than is there, however.

I don't see what you think you do, Deanna. In any case, there isn't anybody alive who has any lock on "Ayn." I can see how someone young can jump on it but then leave it a few years later. There is also the brute fact of the present coming into adulthood and maturity generation's lack of formality. I've corrected a few people, some in person (some on the phone), who on meeting and dealing with me the first time addressed me as "Brant." Female bank tellers were the worst. It hasn't happened for a while, but I suspect it's because I look so old that it's stopped. I've been formally described now as "elderly." That bugged me more than when over 20 years ago I was offered the "senior discount" at Burger King.

--Brant

I didn't know Walt was anti-Semetic, but I don't think he built Disney World--he built Disneyland; my brother's late father-in-law, E. Cardon Walker, built Disney World

Yep, I have granted twice, and now for a third time that I may have read more into the post than was there. There won't be a fourth. :smile:

I noticed a trend in service industries for a while. Familiarity was being pushed as good customer service. I stopped going to Outback for a while because they encouraged the wait staff to sit down at the table with you while taking your order. I hated that. Being called by first name seems to go along with that. In the south, that trend went out of vogue quickly as far as I can tell. I still have a difficult time in southeast Louisiana because the custom is for children to refer to their familiar elders (like neighbors, for instance) by first name preceeded by Miss or Mr. So you'd be Mr. Brant. In TN where I was raised we were more traditional. You'd be Mr. Gaede to my son. If I met you in person, you'd be Mr. Gaede to me, as well. Here, in this faceless forum, I've often referred to you as Brant because everyone here feels like a peer to me, although they probably aren't "in real life."

Whether Walt Disney himself built Disney World is beside the point. His name and his legacy are all over it, and it's a great place, personal politics notwithstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could also be the culture of Australian informality which I first knew working with some 40 years ago. (I was used to a stiffly Brit reserve). Whatever diffs in age or corporate ranking, being immediately first-named has a classless familarity which at first may be discomfiting but was also refreshing. It's much more common everywhere now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always address the opposition's attorney as "councellor," reminding them that that is their primary duty.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walt Disney was anti-Semitic. I still enjoy Disney World.

Don't let Ayn Rand's personal drama overshadow the value you have found in philosophy. She was human.

On another note, MEM may be picking up on the same thing I did. You seem very passionate and emotional about this topic. There's nothing wrong with that, but your referring to "Ayn" by her first name indicates that maybe your personal connection with her on this topic is bordering on unhealthy. You talk of her as if you knew her personally, and you seem to be taking personal offense on her behalf. You did not know her, and there's no rational reason for you to be taking this personally. Perhaps I'm reading more into it than is there, however.

I read that bewildered. What a misunderstanding.

I'd like to know if it's true. That's all. I googled and found out there's this huge rift, and now I want to know the other accounts.

I don't feel by calling someone by their first name that I am indicating I knew them personally. Maybe that's a strong convention that I'm unaware of. I haven't been given any good reason to not call someone I didn't know by their first name, but I suppose I will use the last name to avoid people getting the wrong impression. I just didn't want to type the full name and chose Ayn over Rand. Maybe that's because I think it's a pretty name. (Finnish is so pretty. Aina. Ayn.) However, I do tend to like reasons for not doing things.

I'm confused. I think there was a misunderstanding. Please indicate where I took offense for Rand, and I'll retract it. I never felt offense, and how could I? Please indicate where I took anything personally. I don't see it. I ask meaning it sincerely. I must have miscommunicated.

I'm a curious investigator. I see this goes way back, and now I really see the can of worms I'm unleashing on myself. :smile: If I seem passionate about it, I take it as a compliment. It wouldn't change my estimation of the philosophy. I don't feel threatened in the slightest either way. I just realize that I have no idea if what is in Passion of Ayn Rand is accurate or not so I want to see if there's any evidence for the contrary.

I don't mean to step on any toes. I'm just interested.

Call her "Ayn" if you want to. No big deal. If she were alive and you were to meet her, naturally you'd address her as "Miss Rand." In more formal writing than, say, here, "Rand" is the way to go. I use "Ayn" occasionally (I just did it!), "Ayn Rand" most often but now "Rand" more and more.

--Brant

I once called Nathaniel Branden "Nathan" to his face. It made me uncomfortable so it's been "Nathaniel" ever since. "Nathan" is for people who knew him when that was his name, generally speaking, with Jack Wheeler as the one exception I know of--I'm sure there are a few others; not me

Maybe I'm an uncultured, backwards Australian, but I think I would have called her Ayn, since that's her name. 'G'day Ayn, please sign my bicep.' I think she might have gone for it. :tongue: Maybe I'm a bit rough around the edges. How awkward, I may have been offending people my whole life. :tongue:

Now that I know it's going to stand out and rub people the wrong way, I'm going to probably just use 'Rand'. Caving to peer pressure :D

It could also be the culture of Australian informality which I first knew working with some 40 years ago. (I was used to a stiffly Brit reserve). Whatever diffs in age or corporate ranking, being immediately first-named has a classless familarity which at first may be discomfiting but was also refreshing. It's much more common everywhere now.

Ha. You picked up on that. I suggested I was an uncultured Australian before I even read this. Even in some schools, we are told to call teachers by their first name.

And yeah, I won't go slamming Barbara Branden or Nathaniel Branden. Anyway, I have really been enjoying Nathaniel's book.... (I wrote that and thought, oh man I did it again)... Nathaniel Branden's book 'Psychology of Self Esteem'.

Thank you all for giving your views and directing me to reading material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

There are two other, more recent biographies of Ayn Rand. One is by Jennifer Burns, and one is by Anne C. Heller. In your university library, you may have The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies or your may have access to it through JSTOR. In the V13N1 issue (July 2013), there is a double review of these two biographies by Robert Campbell that is really helpful for deciding which, if either, you might like to read.

Ah, my library has both :) Thanks for the recommendations. 'Goddess of the Market'. I like the sound of that.

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