Facets of Ayn Rand by Sures on the web


Michael Stuart Kelly

Recommended Posts

Facets of Ayn Rand by Sures on the web

ARI just announced the above on its site. Here is the blurb:

Facets of Ayn Rand

on the Web

60203.gif

Readers of Ayn Rand's works are often eager to know what the author was like as a person. What was the character and personality of one who could conceive such grand ideas, and present them so memorably and powerfully in novels like Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead?

To help shed light on these subjects, the Ayn Rand Institute is proud to introduce a new Web site offering the complete text of Facets of Ayn Rand, a memoir by Mary Ann and Charles Sures, two longtime friends of Ayn Rand.

Here is the link (in addition to the title of this post) for anyone who wishes to read the book at no cost on the web:

Facets of Ayn Rand: Memoirs by Mary Ann Sures and Charles Sures

According to the beginning: The Ayn Rand Oral History Program, this is the first publication of a larger project by Scott McConnell.

The Ayn Rand Oral History Program

The Ayn Rand Archives Oral History Program was established in 1996 by the Ayn Rand In­sti­tute (ARI) to gather and preserve knowledge of Ayn Rand's business, creative, and personal life. To date, Scott McConnell, oral historian, has conducted 169 interviews (about 300 hours) with Miss Rand's family, friends, and associates. The interviews reveal considerable new informa­tion about Ayn Rand's life, from her ear­ly years in Russia, to Hollywood, to her many years in New York City. Selected interview transcripts are current­ly be­ing pre­pared for publica­tion.

Facets of Ayn Rand is based on 48 hours of interviews with Mary Ann and Charles Sures, pre­pared and conducted by Mr. McConnell from September 1998 to January 1999. It is the first publish­ing project of the Oral History Program.

I personally would like to extent thanks to the people behind this project for both doing it from the more orthodox end and for putting this material on line.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I've skimmed it, and it's quite interesting. Of course, it's no doubt one-sided as well. And I could do without the snide intro by Peikoff.

By the way, why hasn't the ARI released more interviews?

Edited by Neil Parille
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil; I suspect that some of these interviews will be used in Shoshana Milgram's book on Ayn Rand which is supposed to cover up to the publication of Atlas Shrugged. I do not know if anyone else is doing anything on Ayn Rand's life in book form.

I suspect the perfect is getting in way of the good. I have doubts that anything will come out till the sole heir departs this "mortal coil".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Laure,

I didn't like this particular line:

The Sures were among the few people in Ayn Rand's life who were intellectually honest all the way down: they accepted her philosophy, they lived by it, they remained loyal to it and to her throughout her life and theirs.

Sounds like an attack on the honesty and integrity of those who knew Rand but couldn't accept her every judgment.

I haven't read the entire book, but I see little mention of Nathaniel Branden and his role in Objectivism (the NBI) or anyone else who was important on an intellectual level (except Peikoff). I found this little vingette interesting (my emphasis) --

ARI Did she ever get angry during philosophical discussions when people were slow to get her point?

MARY ANN I wouldn't call the response "anger" — it was more exasperation bordering on impatience. The best example of this I can remember was a group discussion, before Atlas was published. Some of the Collective, myself included, were having difficulty demonstrating that life is the standard of morality. So, the issue was explained again, and we were asked to write an essay on the subject and bringing it back the following Saturday night. A few of us did, and she was surprised to learn that only Leonard was able to do it correctly. The rest of us made errors or left out steps in the argument. I remember her looking puzzled by it, for the issue had been discussed in detail and we had all read that section of Galt's speech over and over. But she did get very annoyed when someone, I think Nathan, suggested that maybe that section needed more explanation.

Or what about this:

I also met Leonard Peikoff, another admirer of Ayn Rand. Since Leonard wanted to teach philosophy, Nathan suggested that it would be good experience for Leonard to give private lectures on Ayn Rand's philosophy to a few people, including me. This was Leonard's first course on Objectivism, although it wasn't yet called "Objectivism." He gave some of the lectures in Joan's apartment. It was an informal set up.

I haven't finished the book and I don't imagine the Sures were responsible for the editing, but it makes me question the ARI's candor when it comes to Rand's life.

Edited by Neil Parille
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I Googled Sures and found this:

http://www.objectivistconferences.com/ocon2006/faculty.htm

MARY ANN SURES

MA, Art History, 1966, Hunter College, New York

Mrs. Sures has taught art history (N.Y.U. and Hunter College) and Objectivist esthetics (including Esthetics of the Visual Arts, a 10-lecture course written in consultation with Ayn Rand). She co-authored, with her (late) husband Charles, Facets of Ayn Rand, memoirs of their longtime friendship with Ayn Rand and her husband Frank O'Connor.

Does anyone here know anything about Sures' course, Esthetics of the Visual Arts? Is it available anywhere today in taped or written form? I'd love to hear the details of a lecture series on visual art written in consultation with Rand. There's currently not much of substance or depth to be found on the topic in the official Objectivist sources that are available.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Laure,

I didn't like this particular line:

The Sures were among the few people in Ayn Rand's life who were intellectually honest all the way down: they accepted her philosophy, they lived by it, they remained loyal to it and to her throughout her life and theirs.

Does the past tense mean that Mary Ann is no longer alive? Charles, I'm aware, died a number of years ago, but I hadn't heard of Mary Ann's death.

Or what about this:
I also met Leonard Peikoff, another admirer of Ayn Rand. Since Leonard wanted to teach philosophy, Nathan suggested that it would be good experience for Leonard to give private lectures on Ayn Rand's philosophy to a few people, including me. This was Leonard's first course on Objectivism, although it wasn't yet called "Objectivism." He gave some of the lectures in Joan's apartment. It was an informal set up.

I haven't taken a look at the book yet. The segment quoted of her account of meeting Leonard agrees with what she said in an Interview from August 1987. The Interview -- which was conducted by Susan Ludel -- starts in Volume 2, No. 2 of the Newsletter of The Ayn Rand Institute. I'll quote the beginning in a separate post.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Institute Interview: Mary Ann Sures

by Susan Ludel

Volume 2, No. 2

August, 1987

Newsletter

The Ayn Rand Institute

Q: How did you discover Ayn Rand's work?

A: In 1952, I came to New York City from my home in Detroit in order to work on my Masters degree in art history at New York University's Institute of Fine Arts. I became friendly with another student, who I later learned already knew Ayn Rand. [The student referred to was Joan Blumenthal.] During one of our conversations, I mentioned that I had often been accused of indulging myself by studying art history when I should have been doing something to help other people. Even though, deep down, I felt that I would be perfectly content to spend the rest of my life looking at paintings, at the time, I was troubled about this aspect of altruism. When my friend heard this, she suggested that I read The Fountainhead. This was in 1953. To say that it changed my life is an understatement.

Q: How did you meet Ayn Rand?

A: First, in 1954, I was introduced to Leonard Peikoff. He had recently moved to New York and, like me, wanted to teach. And since he wanted to teach philosophy, the very thing that I very much wanted to understand, we hit it off right away. And we began to visit each other often.

There were two particular attitudes of Leonard's that I admired very much. He was intensely committed to understanding ideas and philosophy. This was a life or death issue to him. So was being a moral person. And he's still the same. Even though we were young adults when we met, I always think of Leonard as my childhood friend. We spent wonderful years learning and growing up together philosophically.

He was my first real philosophy teacher--which is what led to my meeting Ayn Rand. In 1954, as part of his own training, Leonard gave three or four lectures on her philosophy to a few people, me included. It was actually his first course on Objectivism, although it wasn't yet called that, not until after the publication of Atlas Shrugged. The "final" of the course was an oral examination to be held at Ayn's apartment. It was to be informal, with Leonard asking questions that we would volunteer to answer. I was the only one who had not yet met Ayn Rand.

Q: Weren't you nervous, not to say somewhat terrified, at the idea of being tested on Miss Rand's ideas in front of her?

A: Actually, I was too ignorant to be frightened; six months later, I probably would have been. Beforehand, I had a strange sense of confidence. My overriding feeling was one of excitement about the chance to meet her.

I remember it very clearly. I went there by myself, and was the first to arrive. Frank O'Connor admitted me, hung up my coat, and then excused himself. I went to stand at the windows in the living room; from there you could see the skyscrapers downtown. A few minutes later I heard footsteps; then a voice behind me said hello. I turned around, and there was a short woman, with dramatically-angled hair, very stylishly dressed in a navy blue skirt and matching polka-dot blouse with a big bow. Her eyes were stunning.

Q: Was she as you had imagined she would be?

A: No. I had expected that she would be like Dominique--stern, reserved, somewhat haughty. But this woman was smiling, grinning at me, really. She projected graciousness, gentleness--and tremendous good will.

Q: What about her most impressed you?

A: Two particular qualities. I marvelled at them after that first evening, and for as long as I knew her. First, her attitude about ideas. If she thought that you really wanted to understand something, she would go to any lengths to explain it. That first night, for example, she sat on the couch, a long chrome and glass cocktail table in front of her. And during the "exam," using the table to illustrate, she explained, in great detail, the difference between attributes and entities. It was an issue I was having some difficulty understanding fully. I gather that each time I grasped a point I would grin, because she kept asking me why I was grinning. And each time I would say "because I finally understand this," she would grin back.

This was so characteristic of her--this combination of almost childlike delight and intensity when she was dealing with ideas and with people who she thought took them seriously.

To me, the other most important quality about Ayn Rand was that she brought out the very best in people. No one else I have ever met cared as much about understanding, fully understanding, not only what something meant to you, but also, why it did. Because of her focus on both your values and on your capacity to understand, when you were with her, you tried to raise yourself to her level. And you were, in fact a better person for having been with her.

Q: How did you do on the "exam"?

A: I assume I passed, because not long after I was invited to join the "collective" [....]

.

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

I don't object to what Mrs. Sures says, it's just that it is presented in such a way that it ignores Nathaniel Branden's contributions to Objectivism. (I believe she is alive, certainly by the time of the book and 2006.)

Edited by Neil Parille
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

One of the very first disagreements I came to about traditional Objectivist aesthetics involved an article by Mary Ann Sures in The Objectivist entitled "Metaphysics in Marble." I had only read an excerpt from this article somewhere years ago (I can't remember where) and I disagreed with it then as much as I disagree today. Here is an online excerpt from The Objectivism Reference Center:

Sures Excerpt: On Auguste Rodin

The part that bothered me the most was the following:

One of Rodin's most famous and popular works, The Thinker, sums up his view of man's wretched state. The figure is seated, hunched over in a position that combines strain and limpness. The muscles in his arms, legs and toes are knotted and cramped. The size and development of his body indicate that it was once powerful and energetic, but is now exhausted. His external, physical state reveals his inner strain: the strain of engaging in mental activity.

As Rand declared that all the articles that appeared in The Objectivist are to be considered as endorsed parts of her philosophy, we have to conclude that this negative view of Rodin was Rand's view also.

We have discussed this before on OL (and there are many considerations such as Rodin used helpers to produce his works), but I am still taken almost to the point of stupefaction as to how someone can look at The Thinker and see a death premise or ugly view of human nature there.

Reading Sures's opinion actually was good for me. Way back when, I had a tendency to accept Rand's tastes in art as not to be questioned, but to be learned and adopted. This was the start of me breaking free of that mental straight-jacket and using my own mind to (1) judge what I liked in art according to what my inner voice told me, (2) learn Rand's views along with other systems of aesthetics, and (3) develop my own criteria for good and bad in art in all aspects.

So while Sures's lecture course on aesthetics might be interesting from an historical point of view, I have no doubt that there would be much in it that I would reject as just plain wrong or grossly oversimplified. Knowing you from what you have written, I can safely say that you would react with the same evaluation (at the minimum :) ).

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know Mrs Sures is still alive.

I don't think Mrs Sures ever gave her NBI course after NBI closed. The last course was given live in Washington DC in the spring of 1968. The course at ARI conference was a shortened verision.

She was supposed to be working on a book which has never come out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

One of the very first disagreements I came to about traditional Objectivist aesthetics involved an article by Mary Ann Sures in The Objectivist entitled "Metaphysics in Marble." I had only read an excerpt from this article somewhere years ago (I can't remember where) and I disagreed with it then as much as I disagree today. Here is an online excerpt from The Objectivism Reference Center:

Sures Excerpt: On Auguste Rodin

The part that bothered me the most was the following:

One of Rodin's most famous and popular works, The Thinker, sums up his view of man's wretched state. The figure is seated, hunched over in a position that combines strain and limpness. The muscles in his arms, legs and toes are knotted and cramped. The size and development of his body indicate that it was once powerful and energetic, but is now exhausted. His external, physical state reveals his inner strain: the strain of engaging in mental activity.

As Rand declared that all the articles that appeared in The Objectivist are to be considered as endorsed parts of her philosophy, we have to conclude that this negative view of Rodin was Rand's view also.

We have discussed this before on OL (and there are many considerations such as Rodin used helpers to produce his works), but I am still taken almost to the point of stupefaction as to how someone can look at The Thinker and see a death premise or ugly view of human nature there.

Reading Sures's opinion actually was good for me. Way back when, I had a tendency to accept Rand's tastes in art as not to be questioned, but to be learned and adopted. This was the start of me breaking free of that mental straight-jacket and using my own mind to (1) judge what I liked in art according to what my inner voice told me, (2) learn Rand's views along with other systems of aesthetics, and (3) develop my own criteria for good and bad in art in all aspects.

So while Sures's lecture course on aesthetics might be interesting from an historical point of view, I have no doubt that there would be much in it that I would reject as just plain wrong or grossly oversimplified. Knowing you from what you have written, I can safely say that you would react with the same evaluation (at the minimum :) ).

Michael

I'm sure that I'd find much to disagree with in the lectures, but I'd like to hear (or read) them anyway because it would be "interesting from an historical point of view," as you say, but also because having a more precise understanding of the "official" Objectivist view of visual art might be helpful in separating some of what we take to be Rand's personal tastes from her philosophy, or, conversely, it could be helpful in determining that some of what appear to be her personal opinions (and those of her followers) are actually examples of what she believed to be her theory in action.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know Mrs Sures is still alive.

I don't think Mrs Sures ever gave her NBI course after NBI closed. The last course was given live in Washington DC in the spring of 1968. The course at ARI conference was a shortened verision.

She was supposed to be working on a book which has never come out.

The oral/aural tradition of Objectivism is a fascinating thing, especially when it comes to presentations of ideas that Rand was known to have approved, but which are not publicly accessible in their original, Rand-approved state. It keeps apsects of Objectivism cloistered, esoteric, and susceptible to fading into oblivion very rapidly, but, more interestingly, it runs the risk of Rand's heirs and other official defenders of the faith someday being discovered to have contradicted the philosophy -- I could see future researchers discovering a lot of Rand-sanctioned material, forgotten about or thought to have been lost forever, which contradicts the Word according to the official heirs of Rand's official heir.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that this was interesting in regard to the talent discussion we had here on OL:

http://www.facetsofaynrand.com/book/chap6.html

MARY ANN

It all began in the mid-fifties. During a Collective discussion about art and talent, Joan said that artistic talent was not innate, that anyone could learn to draw, given an interest and the incentive to learn. To illustrate her point, she offered to give lessons. A few of us joined the class, including Frank. Of every one there, he was the only one who showed any promise or serious interest in art.

ARI

What were the signs of that?

MARY ANN

From the very beginning, Frank’s drawing showed a developed sense of style. He had an individual way of doing things — whether he was drawing an egg or a human face. You could always tell if something was drawn by Frank. His work was bold; it had a quality of self-assurance, in spite of the flaws of a beginner. When the class ended, for Frank it was the beginning of a career.

It sounds as if Joan demonstrated the opposite of her position.

This also caught my eye:

MARY ANN

[Rand] saw that [Frank] was having trouble with perspective. She knew that it was an important discipline for an artist, and encouraged him to increase his knowledge, to add to what he learned at the League by studying on his own. She knew that not having a firm grounding in perspective would hold him back. That no matter how creative his ideas for a painting might be, he needed technical knowledge to give expression to those ideas. She asked me to locate a good book on perspective. She thought that an older book, one written earlier in the century, would have better explanations and examples than the more recently written works. I did find one or two older books. I know that Ayn and Frank went over them to­gether. She took his career seriously.

I wonder why Rand assumed that an older book on perspective would be better. Like everything else, geometry and perspective advance as time goes on. The books from which I originally learned about perspective were published in the 50s, 60s and 70s, and they were better than those written earlier.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, vive Rodin. If you have not yet visited his museum in Paris, I hope you can get there. Thinker is among the shrubs in front. Be sure to walk among the bronzes in the trees in the back too.

Sculpture, My Favorites So Far

Winged Victory (c. 190 BC)

http://www.thedailychannel.com/seen/samolarge.htm

Apollo Belvedere (Roman copy of 5th century BC Greek original)

http://sights.seindal.dk/photo/8951,s1045f.html

Moses (Michelangelo, c. 1515)

http://jssgallery.org/Other_Artists/Michel.../Moses.html#Pic

Flying Mercury (Giambologna, Bronze, c. 1564) [scroll down at this site]

http://www.culturekiosque.com/art/exhibiti/giambologna.html

David (Bernini, 1623–24)

http://www.nicodemus.biz/images/misc/bernini_david2.jpg

Apollo and Daphne (Bernini, 1622–25)

http://www.galleriaborghese.it/borghese/en/edafne.htm

The Ecstasy of Saint Teresa (Bernini, 1647–52)

http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/...nini-Teresa.jpg

Psyché ranimée par le baiser de l’Amour (Canova, 1793)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wallyg/148258...57602250625298/

Je Suis Belle (Rodin, 1882)

http://www.insecula.com/oeuvre/photo_ME0000050626.html

The Kiss (Rodin, 1886) [i haven’t seen this one in person; it was out when we visited the museum.]

http://www.lewes.net/rodin/rodin.html

Edited by Stephen Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More Airbrushing

I try to be fair, but here is the kind of crap I detest in adulatory works.

In general, I greatly enjoyed the remembrances of the Sures, but things like the following kept jumping out at me. Below is a section from the first chapter called Finishing Atlas Shrugged. Notice that Ms. Sures emphasized that she had to go downstairs to call Peikoff to come over so he could be there when Rand finished the book. Also, prompted by the questioner, she made a point of claiming that no photograph was taken of the moment when Rand finished writing Atlas. (I wonder why the question was even asked, hmmmmm???...)

ARI: Were you there when Miss Rand finished writ­ing Atlas Shrugged?

MARY ANN: Yes, that is one of my most vivid memories.

ARI: What happened?

MARY ANN: Atlas Shrugged was finished on the afternoon of Wednesday, March 20, 1957. That, incidentally, is the date she wrote on the last page of the manuscript. The on­ly peo­ple there, besides Ayn, were Frank, Joan, Leon­ard, and me.

At the time, Ayn was work­ing against a deadline, a date when she was scheduled to turn in the final typed manuscript of the novel to Random House. My job was to get the typ­ing and proofread­ing finished by that deadline. I had agreed with Ayn not to let the work pile up; I was to keep up with her. On March 20, there were typewritten pages to be proofread. I had typed them earlier in the week, and I asked Joan to proofread with me. Ayn knew we were com­ing over.

We arrived at the apartment after lunch, about 1:00 p.m. We knew Ayn was writ­ing the last chapter but we didn't know how close to the end she was. Frank answered the door, and said some­thing like "I think this is go­ing to be it, kids." Then, he went back to his easel in the bedroom.

As I said earlier, whenever I went over to do some work and she was writ­ing, I would tap on the study door, enter, take my work, and leave. But, after hear­ing Frank, I decided that we should not disturb her. We sat in the liv­ing room, whisper­ing. More than an hour passed. Finally, I thought that one of us should quiet­ly enter the study and quick­ly take the manuscript pages we needed — I knew exact­ly where they were on the bottom shelf of the bookcase. But, which one of us?

ARI: Which one was it?

MARY ANN: Joan. How we decided that Joan should be the one is amus­ing. We concluded that since she was petite, she would be less noticeable! I told her to tap light­ly and enter. She walked back to the study, and here is what I heard: a few taps on the study door, followed by Ayn's voice speak­ing in a stern manner: "If you come in here, I'll kill you." That's an exact quote.

Joan returned, and we retreated to the farthest corner of the liv­ing room and sat whisper­ing and wonder­ing. I decided to call

Leon­ard and tell him what was happen­ing. I had to go down to the lobby to use the pay phone, because the on­ly telephone in the apartment was in Ayn's study. Leon­ard lived a few blocks away, and he came right over. He joined us in the corner of the liv­ing room, and we three whispered and waited. I'm not sure how much time passed; it seemed like hours, but it wasn't. And then we heard the loveliest sound in the world — Ayn's chair scrap­ing against the wooden floor. We heard her footsteps walk­ing out of the study, we heard Frank say, "Congratula­tions, darl­ing." Then we heard her walk­ing into the liv­ing room. She entered, dressed in a skirt and short-sleeved blouse, her hair was somewhat disheveled, her face was a little shiny. She was

walk­ing toward us, hold­ing up a manuscript page with her thumb and index finger. We approached her and read the words "The End" at the bottom of the page. She looked young, she was smil­ing broadly, her eyes were bright. Frank followed her in, and he was beam­ing.

ARI: Was she angry about the interrup­tion?

MARY ANN: She didn't even men­tion it. After hugs and congratula­tions, we apologized for disturb­ing her. She dismissed it with a wave of her hand. She said it was all right, that we had no way of know­ing what page she was on. She was so happy in those moments, I don't think anyth­ing could have un­der­cut her joy at hav­ing finished Atlas. She wanted to have the Collective(1) over that night to celebrate. Then we left. It was still daylight.

ARI: How did you celebrate?

MARY ANN: We had champagne. The "If you come in here, I'll kill you" story was told, to every­one's amusement. Ayn said that she didn't know who was tapp­ing on the study door. We had coffee and pastries. I remember pick­ing up some at the bakery on Third Avenue that the O'Connors used, Versailles Patisserie.

ARI: Were there any pictures taken, just after she finished writ­ing the last page?

MARY ANN: Right after she finished? No. No one had a camera. If we'd had a camera, we would have snapped her as she walked into the liv­ing room hold­ing up the last page!

ARI: Do you remember typ­ing the last page?

MARY ANN: I typed on­ly part of it. As I was typ­ing the last chapter, Ayn said I could type everyth­ing but the last lines. She wanted to type those herself. When that time came, she sat down at the typewriter and said that even though she was a fast typist, she made a lot of mistakes. She added that she better not make any this time. So she typed, very slowly, from "He raised his hand…." to "The End." After she finished, she said, "Now it really does say 'The End'."

(1) "The Collective" was Ayn Rand's tongue-in-cheek name for a small group that met on Saturday nights to discuss her works and phi­los­o­phy.

It almost seems like the following statement is being yelled out from between the lines: "Nathaniel and Barbara Branden were not there!"

For some reason that didn't stop Rand from dedicating Atlas Shrugged to Nathaniel. Nor did it stop Barbara from taking the snapshot of Rand she used in The Passion of Ayn Rand and later sold at an auction. I wrote a report on that auction in Dec. 2006 here on OL: Barbara Branden, Robert Hessen and the 1998 Rand Auction. The following quotes are from that report.

Memories and Memorabilia

. . .

I gaze at the photograph I took of an elated Ayn as she stood with her hand on the just completed manuscript of Atlas. I remember that evening with an overwhelming immediacy; I feel again Ayn's excitement and mine and that of our friends who had gathered in her apartment. We believed that we were present at a turning point in man's intellectual history—and, much later, as Ayn's fame and influence came to circle the globe, I knew that we had indeed been witness to history…

. . .

5869 — Photograph of Ayn Rand. The handwriting states: "Completion of Atlas Shrugged." [barbara Branden collection] From the catalogue:

5869PhotographyAtlasShrugged.jpg

Barbara snapped this photo of Ayn in March of 1957 just after she wrote on the last page of her manuscript, "'The road is clear,' said Galt. 'We are going back to the world.' / He raised his hand over the desolate earth he traced in space the sign of the dollar." Barbara Branden writes of Ayn in her biography, "Later she could remember nothing of that evening, except that she stood up from her desk, walked out of her study in a state of dazed numbness and exaltation, and handed Frank the last page of her manuscript to let him see the words: 'The End.'" This photo appeared in Branden's biography of Rand.

For the record, the caption for the photograph in Passion reads as follows: "Ayn with manuscript of Atlas Shrugged, only moments after completing it. 1957."

Granted, Ayn Rand lived at 36 East Thirty-Sixth Street and the Brandens had a small one room apartment on East Thirty-Fifth Street within walking distance at this time, so even if they were not there, they were almost certainly nearby. If Barbara snapped the photograph "only moments after completing" Atlas, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that she was called over to celebrate right on the spot. And I find it inconceivable that anyone on earth, even the most died-in-the-wool orthodox Objectivist and Branden hater, would think that Rand would not want to share this moment with the man she dedicated the book to—the man she was in love with. (All in addition to Frank, of course, who shared her love and the dedication, but he was already there.)

Granted, also, that neither of the Brandens mentioned that "Joan, Leon­ard, and me" were present at that moment (although Barbara mentioned that Rand showed the page to Frank), there is still a world of difference between leaving out Joan, Leon­ard and Mary and leaving out what Rand did with Barbara and Nathaniel. Within the context of both Brandens's books, this information could have been included, but it was not essential or important. They both discussed Joan, Leon­ard and Mary amply in several places. Within the context of Sures's account, it would not have been all that essential either if so much emphasis had not been stirred up by pointing a finger and saying: "Only us. Only us. Nobody else. And no photographs. No photographs. Us, us, us. And don't forget about Leonard!" (In other words, "Not them, them, them.")

Why leave out that kind of information and insinuate that the Brandens were not critically important to Rand in both her mind and heart at that moment, and that they were called over immediately from wherever they were? (I am not too sure about Nathaniel coming over immediately since no one mentioned him in these written accounts, but it was obviously the case with Barbara.) This crap comes off as terribly petty and it is nothing more than an insinuated distortion of history by omission.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, read the excerpt a little more carefully. Notice the sentence, "She wanted to have the Collective(1) over that night to celebrate. Then we left. It was still daylight."

My reading is that she completed the writing sometime during the day, and at that point, Mary Ann, Frank, Joan, and Leonard were there. She had in her hand the final hand-written page. Mary Ann typed up all but the last few lines, Rand typed the last few lines. LATER ON that evening, she had The Collective over to celebrate. Barbara brought a camera and said, "how about posing with the competed manuscript?" Thus, the photo.

I think the "only moments after completing it" in the caption is a dramatic exaggeration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laure,

This is possible, but it sounds all wrong given the airbrushing behavior of the ARI crowd. And it sounds wrong that Rand would want to wait until evening to share this with Nathaniel and Barbara at that point in her life and merely let them share it as a members of the Collective. At that time they were on the same level as Frank in importance to her. Rand had a lifelong habit of making exceptions for, and special gestures to, those she loved. I find it impossible to believe she changed for this occassion.

I think the way this was written was done so on purpose, precisely to lead people to believe that the Brandens were not all that important to Rand back then, but the others who were present were more so. And, of course, to call into question Barbara's accuracy or honesty for those who read Passion. In fact, I think it perfectly captures the spirit stated by Charles Sures at the outset:

But, in addi­tion to that, we have read things about her that give a distorted picture of what she was like. We want to correct the record. It should be said here that we are not referr­ing to Leon­ard Peikoff’s essay, “My Thirty Years with Ayn Rand: An Intellectual Memoir.”

He couldn't be referring to Passion could he? Nah... Who would ever think that? :)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that Charles Sures is admitting to reading Passion. I wonder how he got a copy.

It is interesting to note that Dr. Locke had a letter in the Washington Post's Book World in which it is unclear if he had read the Branden book. The letter was about a rave review of the "Passion" in that publication.

Edited by Chris Grieb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laure,

Mary Ann Sures made these comments long after air brushing had become a standard practice among the orthodox.

And this passage practically shouts, "We were there! And they weren't!"

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It almost seems like the following statement is being yelled out from between the lines: "Nathaniel and Barbara Branden were not there!"

Granted. Nonetheless, facts are facts, guys. If Barbara and Nathaniel weren't there at the very moment, they weren't.

Mary Ann says (quoted in that same post by MSK here):

Atlas Shrugged was finished on the afternoon of Wednesday, March 20, 1957. That, incidentally, is the date she wrote on the last page of the manuscript.

Barbara says only of the date/time:

pg. 290, Passion

On an evening in March 1957 [...].

Nathaniel says the manuscript was completed on a Saturday:

pg. 225, Judgment Day;

pg. 195, My Years with Ayn Rand

On a Saturday evening in March 1957, while the Collective sat in the living room waiting for her to emerge from her study, Ayn was writing the final pages of the novel.

According to a statement in the catalogue from the BB/Hesson auction (here):

The complete autograph manuscript of Atlas Shrugged is now in the Library of Congress.

Does the "complete autograph manuscript" say "March 20, 1957"? If so, then unless Ayn herself wrote the wrong date on the manuscript, Nathaniel at minimum has the detail of its being a "Saturday" wrong; March 20, 1957 was a Wednesday, according to that font of all authority (;-)), Google: See.

Ellen

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
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