Barbara Branden's 50th anniversary tribute to "Atlas"


Bidinotto

Recommended Posts

Ellen, you make a very interesting and valid point: that many people may not have written Rand to compliment her on Atlas for fear that any caveat or disagreement would be considered objectionable. But you can't imagine how many people did write her -- as no doubt many write to other authors -- recounting exactly what they liked and disliked about the book, with utter disregard for how the author might react to their letters. I give you credit for not writing, for being aware that your criticisms would not be welcome.

But not welcoming criticisms is surely not peculiar to Rand. Imagine that you've written a novel, and I write you to say how much I admire your literary talent, although I think your characterizations are unrealistic and many of your ideas false. Would you be thrilled? And even if I were correct to some extent, the book is out, it can't be changed, so why make the poor writer miserable? Besides, no one is going to transform the writer and inculcate in her a different world view, or a different view of human nature, in a letter, So why not simply say what you liked, and leave it at that?

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Barbara:

So why not simply say what you liked, and leave it at that?

I liked your last post very much. Keeping mute about any negatives. ;)

I relate to the context of writing to the author/artist--there ain't much point in criticizing 'em.

It's sometimes difficult to distinguish that element while making a formal criticism, as in an art review.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen, you make a very interesting and valid point: that many people may not have written Rand to compliment her on Atlas for fear that any caveat or disagreement would be considered objectionable. But you can't imagine how many people did write her -- as no doubt many write to other authors -- recounting exactly what they liked and disliked about the book, with utter disregard for how the author might react to their letters.

Barbara, I think I can imagine. I'd expect that she must have received...what? thousands of letters? And that a dismaying proportion of those went into tedious, tactless detail about the features of the book the letter-writer didn't like.

I give you credit for not writing, for being aware that your criticisms would not be welcome.

It wasn't so much an awareness that my criticisms wouldn't be welcome, since, had I written to her, I wouldn't have expressed my criticisms. The problem was more difficult: It was the feeling that the form of praise which I could offer would be seen by her as so inadequate as to appear empty, meaningless, not of value in her terms. It would have been praise which paid her the wrong coin, not the coin with which she wanted to be paid. Thus instead of being pleasing to her, it would have made her feel "invisible," unappreciated rather than appreciated. I mean, on the assumption she even read a letter from a college kid. I was hardly one of the big intellectuals from whom she was hoping to hear.

But not welcoming criticisms is surely not peculiar to Rand. Imagine that you've written a novel, and I write you to say how much I admire your literary talent, although I think your characterizations are unrealistic and many of your ideas false. Would you be thrilled? And even if I were correct to some extent, the book is out, it can't be changed, so why make the poor writer miserable? Besides, no one is going to transform the writer and inculcate in her a different world view, or a different view of human nature, in a letter, So why not simply say what you liked, and leave it at that?

I agree that "not welcoming criticisms" isn't peculiar to Rand. And I'm aware of what it can feel like to receive a compliment followed by a whole lot of negatives. I've sometimes, for instance, received a compliment in response to a piece I've written and then the responder has picked out, say, a particular sentence with which he or she disagreed and gone on and on about that, in effect using the ostensive compliment as a springboard for expressing his or her opinions. And of course, having worked in publishing for many years, I'm well familiar with the sensitivities of authors. (Being "psychotherapist" to authors is one of the functions of an editor, as I expect you know. ;-)) But in the case of Rand I at least felt -- and the friend whom I mentioned felt, and I imagine there must have been others who felt -- that to simply say what we liked and leave it at that would have been perceived by her as worse than our not saying anything at all, because we couldn't have provided the specific praise which it seemed pretty obvious was the kind of praise she wanted. There are passages in the book itself where she speaks of people being complimented in terms that are meaningless to them. My expectation is that more than a few of the complimentary letters she did receive only added to her depression.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 3 months later...

The issue of Rand's saying "best intellectual heir" on the Mike Wallace show came up again -- as an incidental subject on another thread: Here.

I sent a PM to Barbara inquiring if Ayn ever referred to other Inner Circle members besides Nathaniel as "intellectual heirs." Barbara had already answered that question earlier (post #133), I see by reviewing this thread, but for the record, here's a copy of Barbara's reply yesterday on the other thread:

Ellen: "I'll send Barbara a PM and ask if Ayn referred to any of the others by the term 'intellectual heir.'"

Ellen, Rand never referred to anyone but Nathaniel as her intellectual heir. She never used the term to refer to the Collective or any of its members, and she told them that it was Nathaniel to whom she had given that title. She knew that within the Collective, there were various degrees of mastery of Objectivism; she believed that it was only Nathaniel who had mastered it completely and, as she said, was her "soulmate." Therefore, as she often explained, it was he alone whom she authorized to speak for her and in her name; it was he alone who would carry on her ideas after she was gone. And one evening, in the question period following one of Nathaniel's lectures, she told the class that he had a blank check to speak in her name, and that they could consider anything he said as coming from her. That, to her -- as well as being her soulmate -- was part of the meaning of "intellectual heir."

You are probably right in suggesting that when she spoke of Nathaniel, to Mike Wallace, as her "best intellectual heir," she had been about to say something like "my best student" and changed in mid-sentence.

After her break with Nathaniel, she told me, more than once, that she now regretted having announced that he could speak for her. She said she should not have given such a blank check to anyone, and would never do so again. One reason among others why she would never have designated Peikoff as her intellectual heir, was that she was very conscious of the spottiness of his understanding of her ideas. And I cannot imagine her ever seeing him as her soulmate; at best, and well into his forties, he was her promising young protege.

Barbara

___

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