Jennifer Burns a bridge or two


9thdoctor

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Brant,

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

She'd better have read the fiction—she quotes from it!

I actually see no reason to doubt that Jennifer Burns has read the fiction.

She is not, IMHO, particularly attuned to literary values, so I've never taken her judgments of its quality seriously. (I don't agree with some of Anne Heller's either, but Heller's judgment is much more to be reckoned with.)

I think if you go back and read either book you'll see that Burns and Heller actually both did well, given the biographical tasks they set themselves. It's not their fault that other work remains undone.

For that matter, I've never been offended by Burns' "gateway drug" remark.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To make it clear, I was not referring to a personal offense, regarding Jennifer Burns' use of the phrase (or variant thereof), "Objectivism [or Ayn Rand] is a gateway drug to the radical right".However, I have never heard the term "gateway drug'" used in a complimentary way or as a recommendation. Quite the opposite. It was a catch-phrase that she tirelessly used in print or in other media. Sorry, I do not see it as innocent, and her feigning that she was surprised that Rand fans took offense, is simply disingenuous. But I would not go as far as ARI devotees who view her and Heller as enemies out to destroy Objectivism.. Nor are they supporters (although certain officials of The Atlas Society have acted as if they are).

And, incidentally, I think she is wrong about this. Usually, interest in Rand is taken up after introduction to some more conventional form of conservatism, not before. Rand is considered persona non grata among many of the conservative right, usually because of offense that they take to her atheism or, more precisely, her criticism of Christian ethics. Objectivism, whether one agrees with it or not, is a radical attack on fundamental Christian values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry,

Jennifer Burns and Anne Heller are neither Objectivists, nor supporters of Objectivism.

Nor are they out to destroy Objectivism, despite the bitter remarks at the end of the Raritan Quarterly piece.

I wasn't a conservative before I read Rand. I did become more negative about religion after reading her.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just coming up to the altar to witness...

I was a conservative before I became an Objectivist. One of my friends in YAF handed me Anthem in an algebra class. I read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged in the next year. Then, I picked up the non-fiction and subscribed to the Objectivist Newsletter. In my senior year of high school, when we traveled around looking at colleges, I always tried to find the Students of Objectivism group and thereby attended some lectures aside from the Basic Principles which I was taking. I believe that Barbara Branden's Efficient Thinking was just launched at that time.

That being as it may, I soon stopped calling myself an Objectivist or student thereof and did not take up the label until a few years ago, as a result of posting to SOLO, RoR, here, etc., where the designation is important and understood in context. In short, I am not "for" or "against' ARI or the Atlas Society or PARC or whatever else. I understand what Objectivism is - see my test scores - and its basic principles are mine, as well.

In fact, while I understand that different people have different experiences, and while I appreciate the error of psychological projection and confirmation bias, I believe that largely, people do not come to Objectivism (or any other "ism") because they are converted or convinced or persuaded, but rather,what they read (or hear or see) resonates with what they already bring with them. Yes, profound changes are real - glory hallelujah! - we can only hope for lightening on the road to Damascus - however, the door to motivation opens from inside, otherwise everyone on Earth would believe exactly the same thing already, as these insighful messages from gurus are all very profound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jennifer Burns and Anne Heller are neither Objectivists, nor supporters of Objectivism.

Nor are they out to destroy Objectivism...

Robert,

From the perspective inside the subculture, it's hard to imagine someone would find Ayn Rand valuable and not be moved by some deep emotions one way or another. A strong divide as default was the reality in years gone past.

But more recently, I have noticed a shift, sort of like an Overton Window kind of shift, in the general perception of Rand. I'm referring to those who speak out in public, not those who buy her books and remain silent. (That tells another story--a good one--but it is beyond my point right now.)

Put at one end of the scale things like:

Objectivists eat babies

Objectivists hate all weak people

Objectivists are greedy,

etc.,

and put at the other end things like :

Capitalism is morally good

Reason

Objective reality

etc.,

and say good things about them. The sequence could go through the middle where, say, belief in God could become the midpoint, or maybe empathy or whatever. Then look at how a block of four (the Overton Window) has shifted in the common accepted (and acceptable) view in public discourse over time.

I, who lived through far more contentious times regarding Rand, find the feeling odd when I encounter someone who is not moved to high passion by an O-Landish issue. And after mulling it over, I believe the tone of both Jennifer's and Anne's books reflected some of this shift.

The video below is a good example, one I just came across, of what I am talking about--showing a further drift of the O-Window.

From what I can tell so far, the young man, Caleb Booker, is a practicing mystic of some sorts. And he finds the same benefit with Rand as he does with, say, Napoleon Hill or maybe something like the Law of Attraction. He says his life improved from reading her--from a typical self-help perspective. No politics. No polemics. No put-downs. No social mission. In fact, he accepts that she is a fanatic about her views and he seems to find that charming. That part does not affect him. It's not that he dismisses it. On a resonance level, it's not even on the radar with him.

In times past, I don't believe it would have been possible to encounter a public review of The Fountainhead like his below. But I think his kind of appreciation is going to become more and more normal as time goes on and the Overton drift continues.

I don't mean that mystics are going to embrace Rand. I'm thinking more about the casual attitude of a new reader treating Rand as simply another author--a great one maybe, but no better or worse than the other greats the person has read.

I don't put Jennifer or Anne this far to the middle of the O-Window in attitude. They are closer to the "Objectivism is true and good" side than Booker is (although, as they themselves say, they are not completely there).

The thing is, I kinda like what he did (obviously, I disagree with some of it). He's using his own mind from his own perspective and he's looking for the good. I have no doubt some of his views will change over time, but that's the nature of being true to your own first-hand conclusions. I like this guy's mind and his self-confidence in using it.

Also, I'm enjoying the cultural shift about Rand, despite the horrible politics of the present moment. In fact, this shift makes me think that a takeover of the government by a strong-arm dictatorship oligarchy is a near impossibility. The power-mongers (on both sides) can try, but ultimately, I think any progress they make is going to get undone.

There are just too many normal people--curious intelligent people--who are not going to accept it in the same manner an uneducated population would.

If I am correct (and of course I am :smile: ), isn't it ironic how people accepting less of Rand's message than she intended, but, instead, accepting her ideas as normal in the culture, is far better--far safer for freedom--than if they believed her views hook, line, and sinker?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jennifer Burns and Anne Heller are neither Objectivists, nor supporters of Objectivism.

Nor are they out to destroy Objectivism...

Robert,

From the perspective inside the subculture, it's hard to imagine someone would find Ayn Rand valuable and not be moved by some deep emotions one way or another. A strong divide as default was the reality in years gone past.

But more recently, I have noticed a shift, sort of like an Overton Window kind of shift, in the general perception of Rand. I'm referring to those who speak out in public, not those who buy her books and remain silent. (That tells another story--a good one--but it is beyond my point right now.)

Put at one end of the scale things like:

Objectivists eat babies

Objectivists hate all weak people

Objectivists are greedy,

etc.,

and put at the other end things like :

Capitalism is morally good

Reason

Objective reality

etc.,

and say good things about them. The sequence could go through the middle where, say, belief in God could become the midpoint, or maybe empathy or whatever. Then look at how a block of four (the Overton Window) has shifted in the common accepted (and acceptable) view in public discourse over time.

I, who lived through far more contentious times regarding Rand, find the feeling odd when I encounter someone who is not moved to high passion by an O-Landish issue. And after mulling it over, I believe the tone of both Jennifer's and Anne's books reflected some of this shift.

The video below is a good example, one I just came across, of what I am talking about--showing a further drift of the O-Window.

From what I can tell so far, the young man, Caleb Booker, is a practicing mystic of some sorts. And he finds the same benefit with Rand as he does with, say, Napoleon Hill or maybe something like the Law of Attraction. He says his life improved from reading her--from a typical self-help perspective. No politics. No polemics. No put-downs. No social mission. In fact, he accepts that she is a fanatic about her views and he seems to find that charming. That part does not affect him. It's not that he dismisses it. On a resonance level, it's not even on the radar with him.

In times past, I don't believe it would have been possible to encounter a public review of The Fountainhead like his below. But I think his kind of appreciation is going to become more and more normal as time goes on and the Overton drift continues.

I don't mean that mystics are going to embrace Rand. I'm thinking more about the casual attitude of a new reader treating Rand as simply another author--a great one maybe, but no better or worse than the other greats the person has read.

I don't put Jennifer or Anne this far to the middle of the O-Window in attitude. They are closer to the "Objectivism is true and good" side than Booker is (although, as they themselves say, they are not completely there).

The thing is, I kinda like what he did (obviously, I disagree with some of it). He's using his own mind from his own perspective and he's looking for the good. I have no doubt some of his views will change over time, but that's the nature of being true to your own first-hand conclusions. I like this guy's mind and his self-confidence in using it.

Also, I'm enjoying the cultural shift about Rand, despite the horrible politics of the present moment. In fact, this shift makes me think that a takeover of the government by a strong-arm dictatorship oligarchy is a near impossibility. The power-mongers (on both sides) can try, but ultimately, I think any progress they make is going to get undone.

There are just too many normal people--curious intelligent people--who are not going to accept it in the same manner an uneducated population would.

If I am correct (and of course I am :smile: ), isn't it ironic how people accepting less of Rand's message than she intended, but, instead, accepting her ideas as normal in the culture, is far better--far safer for freedom--than if they believed her views hook, line, and sinker?

Michael

Michael, I may have missed something, but I don't recall anything that either Burns or Heller said that would indicate that they saw Objectivism as "good and true," or anything close to that. I may have missed that, do you have a quote?

I have seen Anne Heller at several Atlas Society events and I do not recall any comment from her (publicly, at least) on her personal estimate on the correctness of Objectivism. At an Atlas Society summer seminar several years ago, I asked her in the Q&A, to explain what she meant when she told an interviewer (I think it was the Book Editor for The New York Times) who asked her if as a biographer, would you like to have had a chance to meet and interview Rand? She replied, "No."(this was after relating some of the more unpleasant aspects of her personality).

I found that a preposturous answer from someone writing a biography, that they would miss a chance to interview someone that they had spent years collecting information on. You can draw your own conclusions, but I believe she said that to emphasize what a disagreeable and repulsive woman Rand was. In other words, she was "playing to the audience," which in that case was likely NYT-certified Liberals.. Her answer to me as I recall, was "No. I would need to keep my objectivity". She later told some attendees that, "Can you believe someone had the nerve to ask me that?" Realizing who the person was who was standing next to her, she said "Oh! It was you.

Note also, the reviews that have been written about both books. The Liberal Left views them as exposes, showing the stupidity, worthlessness, and mendacity of the subject. One reviewer (I think it was in The New Yorker, or another flagship Liberal outlet), stated that he thought that the net result of both books was that it would totally destroy her reputation and end any effort to expand the influence of her ideas. Whereas, those allied with the ARI condemned both books as misleading and worthless; while the"non-orthodox" Objectivists have tended to view the books as, overall, positive. In other words the books are so written that people pick and choose what they want to see as significant. This, I believe was a calculated marketing decisio. Not a criticism, just an observation that selling their books to the largest population was their goal..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry,

I am reasonably sure that Anne Heller does not believe in Objectivism. While she was still working on the book, I never got the sense that she did. The way she refers, in World She Made, to the development of Objectivism as a philosophical system is a very strong indication.

But it is odd that Anne Heller would have turned down the opportunity to interview Ayn Rand, had it presented itself.

I've written about Sun Ra, a, shall we say, strong personality who was in failing health when I began my work and had left the planet before I finished the first edition of The Earthly Recordings.

Interviewing Sunny is a job I would have approached with some trepidation. He was the kind of interviewee who gives lengthy answers to questions of his own choosing, usually unrelated to those the interviewer asked. (Phil Schaap is often considered an annoyance by other jazz writers, but I gotta give him credit, in a now-famous radio interview, for grappling and jousting until Sunny came out with responses to concrete historical facts.) But there's no way I would have turned down the opportunity.

I actually don't think that the marketing decisions were made while Anne Heller and Jennifer Burns were writing. They were more like post-publication adjustments to reviews, interviews, request for op eds.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

isn't it ironic how people accepting less of Rand's message than she intended, but, instead, accepting her ideas as normal in the culture, is far better--far safer for freedom--than if they believed her views hook, line, and sinker?

Michael

Exactly.

Both Burns and Heller accept Rand's ideas as normal in The Culture—instead of defining it over and against Rand's ideas, as was done at NBI and is still largely done at ARI.

It doesn't even matter, in the end, whether either author personally likes this present-day normality.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, I may have missed something, but I don't recall anything that either Burns or Heller said that would indicate that they saw Objectivism as "good and true," or anything close to that. I may have missed that, do you have a quote?

Jerry,

I probably could have been clearer on my standard, which is comparative in this context, not definitional. That is what the Overton Window is all about, so I presumed others would implicitly understand. My bad. Abstractions need concretes to make them real.

Let me give you some concretes to bring my abstraction into focus. If you look at Burns and Heller and compare them against Ayn Rand, ARI, TAS, etc., they do not think Objectivism is good and true like the adherents do. But if you compare them against, say, Keith Olbermann or Whittaker Chambers, the girls find a lot more truth and value in Objectivism than those gentlemen do.

The young man in the video, Booker, has done serious work with astrology and tarot cards. Does that sound like Heller and Burns? :smile:

So I think you will find the girls are far closer to Rand's worldview on the standing on one foot standard (objective reality, reason, self-interest and capitalism) than his.

Once again, it's a comparative thing, not a definitional one. My point is to highlight how far Rand's ideas (or more specifically, the ideas Rand adhered to regardless of whether people get them from her) have penetrated the culture on a subconscious level. It's much deeper than when she was alive. This is displayed in the attitude outsiders have when they discuss Rand and Objectivism.

I only know of one major work from earlier times that showed the current level of distance from the feuding and preaching--Chris Sciabarra's Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical. (There were some other works, but nothing as prominent as Chris's.) That book was way before it's time on the Overton Window scale. And Chris was crucified for it.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been mixing it up with Jim Valliant on the comment thread to his review of Raimondo's book Enemy of the State.

Jim referenced The Journals of Ayn Rand and I pointed out that they have been so heavily edited by Harriman that you don't if what Rand said on, say free will, is accurate.

Jim responded:

Well, I know from having gone and looked, just as anyone can. We have already seen your judgment in operation, Mr. Parille

Maybe we should email Mr. Britting asking for appointments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Valiant's chutzpah hasn't failed him, that's for sure.

As I've noted here:

http://www.amazon.com/review/RO9O4G9J0XFJF/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=1573928097&cdForum=Fx6GWBZ9FXUTGD&cdMsgID=Mx9S2OH3QPNAJT&cdMsgNo=25&cdPage=3&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1I4OPDOWLN37P&store=books#Mx9S2OH3QPNAJT

A bunch of participants here could email Jeff Britting, asking for appointments at the Archives so they can research the issues of their choice.

We could then report back as to the answers we have received, if any.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil,

I just read your review of 100 Voices.

Good job.

Here's an interesting fact for you.

I just finished Ayn Rand Nation by Gary Weiss. (I'm going to put up my thoughts on it pretty soon.)

Weiss devoted a whole chapter to Iris Bell and claimed she was livid about the 100 Voices book, that she complained about it a lot. Bell was one of the persons interviewed in 100 Voices and, according to Weiss, she outright stated that her thoughts and intentions were distorted.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

I did a review of Ayn Rand Nation for the next issue of JARS. I didn't mention the Bell thing, although perhaps I should have.

I enjoyed the book. It came across as a reliable update of Walker's book The Ayn Rand Cult. I didn't agree with all of Weiss's judgments. I thought that, although Weiss claims he kind of likes Rand and her followers, below the surface he had a lot of contempt.

Thanks for the compliment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did receive a somewhat positive response from the Archives. They will be in touch with me.

This is quite surprising since they did not even acknowledge my request some months ago for merely a list of people the Oral History Project interviewed.

-Neil Parille

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Neil and I alerted Chris Sciabarra to Iris Bell's complaints about her interview in 100 Voices. Chris knows her and tried to follow up, but her health was getting worse at the time and he didn't get a response. I think we can rely, though, on what she told Gary Weiss.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, I also got an email from Jeff Britting yesterday evening. I have forwarded my two requests from 2010, neither of which was acknowledged at the time, and we shall see what happens.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have received an acknowledgment from Jeff Britting.

A new archivist named Jenniffer Woodson is taking over, while Mr. Britting moves to the position of curator.

I shall report further responses when they arrive.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing, as of yet, from Ms. Woodson.

Leonard Peikoff in His Own Words (DVD, 2004) includes this statement, immediately after the segment in which he recalls Ayn Rand's final illness and death:

I had known for some time that I was Ayn Rand’s heir and she was going to leave everything to me. She called me her intellectual heir and her legal heir, and I was going to carry on the movement. (1:01:01-1:01:15)

Peikoff follows up with:

She had several other people prior to me, but in various ways they went bad, they betrayed her, she broke with them, and I was loyal, to the very end—and I had two attributes, that I think was what prompted her choice.

On the one hand, I knew her philosophy thoroughly by that point, and she was the only other one who did. She had many admirers who understood her philosophy in general, but I was the only one who had a complete technical, uh, knowledge of her work—and was dedicated to it, I had dedicated my whole life to her philosophy.

Aehh, the other thing was, she knew I was completely honest: I would never compromise, and would keep it going as well as it could be.

There were other friends that she thought were completely honest also, so it wasn’t only the character issue. But I was the only one who combined honesty and integrity with the complete technical knowledge of her philosophy. And that was the combination on the basis of which she left it. (1:01:15-1:02:20)

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was the only one

I had dedicated my whole life

I was completely honest

I would never compromise

I was the only one who combined honesty and integrity with the complete technical knowledge of her philosophy

[T]hey went bad, they betrayed her, she broke with them

I was loyal, to the very end

I was going to carry on the movement.

She called me her intellectual heir

he was going to leave everything to me

I was Ayn Rand’s heir

Kind of reads like poetry. The poetry of self-awareness. The poetry of a man who would be king of the clan. A plaintive undertone, a confident middle range, and a grand if not grandiose self-concept in the top notes.

Of such poetry are reputations made: Genius, slavish devotee, potentate, Grand Poobah, head and brains and nervous system of The Movement. Infallible and contextually certain, a giant ...

I find myself strangely moved by the doctor's own words. Harrimanizing them only adds to the emotional wallop.

I see a state funeral, pomp, turgid music, tearful farewells, the End of an Era, fighter jets screaming across the skies -- and the bells, ringing, ringing, ringing.

The pope is Dead, and there will be no more.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing, as of yet, from Ms. Woodson.

Leonard Peikoff in His Own Words (DVD, 2004) includes this statement, immediately after the segment in which he recalls Ayn Rand's final illness and death:

I had known for some time that I was Ayn Rands heir and she was going to leave everything to me. She called me her intellectual heir and her legal heir, and I was going to carry on the movement. (1:01:01-1:01:15)

Peikoff follows up with:

She had several other people prior to me, but in various ways they went bad, they betrayed her, she broke with them, and I was loyal, to the very endand I had two attributes, that I think was what prompted her choice.

On the one hand, I knew her philosophy thoroughly by that point, and she was the only other one who did. She had many admirers who understood her philosophy in general, but I was the only one who had a complete technical, uh, knowledge of her workand was dedicated to it, I had dedicated my whole life to her philosophy.

Aehh, the other thing was, she knew I was completely honest: I would never compromise, and would keep it going as well as it could be.

There were other friends that she thought were completely honest also, so it wasnt only the character issue. But I was the only one who combined honesty and integrity with the complete technical knowledge of her philosophy. And that was the combination on the basis of which she left it. (1:01:15-1:02:20)

Robert Campbell

It's not that he lacked integrity and courage at the time of the 1968 "Break"--he wasn't a true individual respecting Rand and her ideas: it's that he had a chance to become one in 1986 when Barbara Branden's biography came out. He didn't have to embrace it. He was free to criticize it. Instead he doubled down to keep his crown.

--Brant

"complete technical mastery of her philosophy": "technical" and "philosophy" go together like oil and water

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