Help
I just received an email from LFB announcing that Goddess of the Market by Jennifer Burns will be released in mid-October. There is a long review on the site (presumably by Jim Peron) and I was graciously granted permission to post it here:
Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right (review and order page)
It is an odd review as the reviewer has many restriction about this book, including a beef about the title. But he also says the book is fascinating. This review presents some really good information for those who eagerly await Ms. Burns's book. Below are some excerpts. If you want to read the full review (and it is well worth reading), go to the link above.
One very important point is that LFB is now taking orders for a huge discount. The original price is $27.95, but LFB is offering it for $18.00. You can order it at the link above.
LFB said:
Ayn Rand has become fashionable again. The current crisis has inspired a second look at Rand’s prophetic novel, Atlas Shrugged. And there is renewed interest in Rand herself. But any study of Rand is sure to create controversy. And Jennifer Burns’ new study of Rand’s politics is sure to do the same.
. . .
Burns certainly does not appear to be an Objectivist or libertarian herself. If she is, then she did a good job of hiding it.
. . .
For the most part, Burns has assembled a book that will interest anyone who was influenced by Ayn Rand.
. . .
Anyone who actually cares about the impact of Ayn Rand on the political scene will, however, love this book, even if they have quibbles with the author in various areas. What each reader gets out of the book will depend on their interests. But I can state some of the areas that I found most interesting.
Early in the book Burns discusses the influence of Friedrich Nietzsche on Rand. Clearly the first edition of Rand’s semi-biographical novel, We the Living, had strong Nietzschean elements to it, elements that Rand purged when the book was reissued two decades later. Burns explores the extent of Nietzsche’s influence and she documents it. One of the virtues of Burns book is that she had access to the full collection of the Ayn Rand Archives.
Under the influence of Rand’s heir, Leonard Peikoff, the archives were off-limits to many scholars for years. Peikoff has a history of wanting to protect Rand’s reputation, even if that means giving facts short-shift. That Burns had full access to Rand’s papers is a good sign for future Rand-related scholarship—though Burns does warn that scholars who were involved in “Objectivist controversies” may still find themselves barred from seeing the papers.
Because of her access, Burns was able to document the influence of Nietzsche on Rand. One of the great modern myths, regarding Rand, is that she emerged from Russia with a fully formed philosophical system, at least in all the essentials. Burns is able to document that Rand was in the process of forming her ideas over a period of decades. And while I found her discussion of Nietzsche’s influence on Rand fascinating, I thought she should have given equal emphasis to the whys and hows of Rand shifting away from Nietzsche.
. . .
Burns places the evolution in Rand’s views to her dealings with a wide-range of Americans as part of her campaigning for Wendell Willkie. But it is clear that this shift was well in place by the time the campaign took place. It may be that her experiences with “middle America” cemented those changes, but I doubt that the campaigning was the prime reason for them.
Burn’s also clarifies the obsession that conservative William F. Buckley had with Rand. And that was mainly over the matter of religion. Buckley, being religious, decided he had to make war on the non-believer, Ayn Rand. Buckley laid the foundations for the Religious Right in America, the most noxious element that conservatism has faced in a very long time. He may have helped revive the Right, with his magazine National Review, but he also turned the Right into what it has became today. One could argue that the last President Bush was Buckleystein’s monster; a president so awful that even Buckley was unhappy with his own creation.
Buckley decided that a fusion of politics and religion was necessary and saw Rand, quite correctly, as a major obstacle to his goal. Yet, today, it is precisely that fusion of church and state that has alienated so many Americans from the Right, especially after the last eight years.
. . .
Another area of interest was the detailed discussion of Ayn Rand’s relationship with Isabel Paterson. Paterson had been something of a mentor to Rand, but the two had a bitter parting of the ways. It is often assumed that Rand was probably responsible. But the facts don’t support that thesis, not in this reviewer’s opinion. While there were certain philosophical differences that couldn’t be glossed over, the relationship only broke after Rand’s success.
After reading Burns, I concluded that the break was primarily the fault of Paterson. Paterson, who had considered herself to be Ayn’s teacher, saw the duo in a competition with their works. She also was convinced that Ayn’s optimistic take on the success of The Fountainhead, before it was even published, was naïve at best. But when Rand’s book, and Paterson’s work, The God of the Machine, were published, it was Rand who raced ahead in sales. Rand had said she would only consider the book a success when it sold 100,000 copies. Paterson thought that wildly optimistic. The Fountainhead is still selling that many copies each year, 60+ years after its publication.
Paterson became increasingly unpleasant as Rand succeeded. My personal impression, from the descriptions offered by Burns, is that Paterson was not happy that the student had surpassed the teacher.
. . .
I should also briefly mention that I also found the section dealing with the reception of Atlas Shrugged fascinating to read. Many of us have long heard of the vicious and unfair reviews that Rand had to endure. Burns lays many of them out for inspection. Most have heard of the vile review that William F. Buckley solicited from Whittaker Chambers, a review that Chambers was reluctant to produce, but did so upon Buckley’s repeated urging. But few have read in detail how pervasive similar reviews were. Rand’s thesis was grossly distorted in review after review. One consequence, in my opinion, was that Ayn became far less tolerant of what she perceived as hostile questions. When one is the victim of intentional distortions it is often tempting to assume that all distortions of one’s views are maliciously motivated, even when that is not the case.
One other area that I found of significant interest is Burns discussion of the various problems surrounding Rand documents made public by the Ayn Rand Institute, Leonard Piekoff’s organization. There has been a great deal of controversy over indications that ARI doctored documents. Some of this doctoring was admitted by ARI, which asserted that they merely made clarifications consistent with what Rand had intended to say. Burns, who has seen the originals, says this is not the case.
She does say that the letters of Rand, that have been released, “have not been altered; they are merely incomplete.” But the same is not true for other works of Rand, including her Journals. Burns writes, “On nearly every page of the published journals an unacknowledged change has been made from Rand’s original writing. In the book’s foreword the editor, David Harriman, defends his practice of eliminating Rand’s words and inserting his own as necessary for greater clarity. In many case, however, his editing serves to significantly alter Rand’s meaning.” She says that sentences are “rewritten to sound stronger and more definite” and that the editing “obscures important shifts and changes in Rand’s thought.” She finds “more alarming” the case that “sentences and proper names present in Rand’s original …have vanished entirely, without any ellipses or brackets to indicate a change.”
The result of this unacknowledged editing is that “they add up to a different Rand. In her original notebooks she is more tentative, historically bounded, and contradictory. The edited diaries have transformed her private space, the hidden realm in which she did her thinking, reaching, and groping, replacing it with a slick manufactured world in which all of her ideas are definite, well formulated, and clear.” She concludes that Rand’s Journals, as released by ARI, “are thus best understood as an interpretation of Rand rather than her own writing. Scholars must use these materials with extreme caution.”
The bad news is that “similar problems plague Ayn Rand Answers (2005), The Art of Fiction (2000), The Art of Non-Fiction (2001), and Objectively Speaking (2009).” Burns says all these works were “derived from archival material but have been significantly rewritten.” Rand scholars have long suspected such manipulation of documents; Burns confirms it with evidence she herself saw.
. . .
Jennifer Burns has produced a fascinating work. It is the first serious study of Rand’s ideas that had full access to Rand’s own papers. As such it is valuable.
. . .
Burns certainly does not appear to be an Objectivist or libertarian herself. If she is, then she did a good job of hiding it.
. . .
For the most part, Burns has assembled a book that will interest anyone who was influenced by Ayn Rand.
. . .
Anyone who actually cares about the impact of Ayn Rand on the political scene will, however, love this book, even if they have quibbles with the author in various areas. What each reader gets out of the book will depend on their interests. But I can state some of the areas that I found most interesting.
Early in the book Burns discusses the influence of Friedrich Nietzsche on Rand. Clearly the first edition of Rand’s semi-biographical novel, We the Living, had strong Nietzschean elements to it, elements that Rand purged when the book was reissued two decades later. Burns explores the extent of Nietzsche’s influence and she documents it. One of the virtues of Burns book is that she had access to the full collection of the Ayn Rand Archives.
Under the influence of Rand’s heir, Leonard Peikoff, the archives were off-limits to many scholars for years. Peikoff has a history of wanting to protect Rand’s reputation, even if that means giving facts short-shift. That Burns had full access to Rand’s papers is a good sign for future Rand-related scholarship—though Burns does warn that scholars who were involved in “Objectivist controversies” may still find themselves barred from seeing the papers.
Because of her access, Burns was able to document the influence of Nietzsche on Rand. One of the great modern myths, regarding Rand, is that she emerged from Russia with a fully formed philosophical system, at least in all the essentials. Burns is able to document that Rand was in the process of forming her ideas over a period of decades. And while I found her discussion of Nietzsche’s influence on Rand fascinating, I thought she should have given equal emphasis to the whys and hows of Rand shifting away from Nietzsche.
. . .
Burns places the evolution in Rand’s views to her dealings with a wide-range of Americans as part of her campaigning for Wendell Willkie. But it is clear that this shift was well in place by the time the campaign took place. It may be that her experiences with “middle America” cemented those changes, but I doubt that the campaigning was the prime reason for them.
Burn’s also clarifies the obsession that conservative William F. Buckley had with Rand. And that was mainly over the matter of religion. Buckley, being religious, decided he had to make war on the non-believer, Ayn Rand. Buckley laid the foundations for the Religious Right in America, the most noxious element that conservatism has faced in a very long time. He may have helped revive the Right, with his magazine National Review, but he also turned the Right into what it has became today. One could argue that the last President Bush was Buckleystein’s monster; a president so awful that even Buckley was unhappy with his own creation.
Buckley decided that a fusion of politics and religion was necessary and saw Rand, quite correctly, as a major obstacle to his goal. Yet, today, it is precisely that fusion of church and state that has alienated so many Americans from the Right, especially after the last eight years.
. . .
Another area of interest was the detailed discussion of Ayn Rand’s relationship with Isabel Paterson. Paterson had been something of a mentor to Rand, but the two had a bitter parting of the ways. It is often assumed that Rand was probably responsible. But the facts don’t support that thesis, not in this reviewer’s opinion. While there were certain philosophical differences that couldn’t be glossed over, the relationship only broke after Rand’s success.
After reading Burns, I concluded that the break was primarily the fault of Paterson. Paterson, who had considered herself to be Ayn’s teacher, saw the duo in a competition with their works. She also was convinced that Ayn’s optimistic take on the success of The Fountainhead, before it was even published, was naïve at best. But when Rand’s book, and Paterson’s work, The God of the Machine, were published, it was Rand who raced ahead in sales. Rand had said she would only consider the book a success when it sold 100,000 copies. Paterson thought that wildly optimistic. The Fountainhead is still selling that many copies each year, 60+ years after its publication.
Paterson became increasingly unpleasant as Rand succeeded. My personal impression, from the descriptions offered by Burns, is that Paterson was not happy that the student had surpassed the teacher.
. . .
I should also briefly mention that I also found the section dealing with the reception of Atlas Shrugged fascinating to read. Many of us have long heard of the vicious and unfair reviews that Rand had to endure. Burns lays many of them out for inspection. Most have heard of the vile review that William F. Buckley solicited from Whittaker Chambers, a review that Chambers was reluctant to produce, but did so upon Buckley’s repeated urging. But few have read in detail how pervasive similar reviews were. Rand’s thesis was grossly distorted in review after review. One consequence, in my opinion, was that Ayn became far less tolerant of what she perceived as hostile questions. When one is the victim of intentional distortions it is often tempting to assume that all distortions of one’s views are maliciously motivated, even when that is not the case.
One other area that I found of significant interest is Burns discussion of the various problems surrounding Rand documents made public by the Ayn Rand Institute, Leonard Piekoff’s organization. There has been a great deal of controversy over indications that ARI doctored documents. Some of this doctoring was admitted by ARI, which asserted that they merely made clarifications consistent with what Rand had intended to say. Burns, who has seen the originals, says this is not the case.
She does say that the letters of Rand, that have been released, “have not been altered; they are merely incomplete.” But the same is not true for other works of Rand, including her Journals. Burns writes, “On nearly every page of the published journals an unacknowledged change has been made from Rand’s original writing. In the book’s foreword the editor, David Harriman, defends his practice of eliminating Rand’s words and inserting his own as necessary for greater clarity. In many case, however, his editing serves to significantly alter Rand’s meaning.” She says that sentences are “rewritten to sound stronger and more definite” and that the editing “obscures important shifts and changes in Rand’s thought.” She finds “more alarming” the case that “sentences and proper names present in Rand’s original …have vanished entirely, without any ellipses or brackets to indicate a change.”
The result of this unacknowledged editing is that “they add up to a different Rand. In her original notebooks she is more tentative, historically bounded, and contradictory. The edited diaries have transformed her private space, the hidden realm in which she did her thinking, reaching, and groping, replacing it with a slick manufactured world in which all of her ideas are definite, well formulated, and clear.” She concludes that Rand’s Journals, as released by ARI, “are thus best understood as an interpretation of Rand rather than her own writing. Scholars must use these materials with extreme caution.”
The bad news is that “similar problems plague Ayn Rand Answers (2005), The Art of Fiction (2000), The Art of Non-Fiction (2001), and Objectively Speaking (2009).” Burns says all these works were “derived from archival material but have been significantly rewritten.” Rand scholars have long suspected such manipulation of documents; Burns confirms it with evidence she herself saw.
. . .
Jennifer Burns has produced a fascinating work. It is the first serious study of Rand’s ideas that had full access to Rand’s own papers. As such it is valuable.
As I have written in my airbrushing thread, ARI has been hell-bent on rewriting history by trying to delete the Brandens from it. Presumably, the idea was to present a false image of Rand during a few decades to ensure that Rand's ideas would endure. After that time, the truth could come out. I believe I even read something from Binswanger to this effect.
What has happened is that Rand's works have stood on their own, far surpassing anyone's efforts to attack or protect them. The truth about the affair with Nathaniel came out. Both Barbara and Nathaniel have sold gazillions of books (much more than ARI scholars).
The point is that Ayn Rand did not need anyone to lie about her to the public. All the lying did was tarnish the Objectivist subcommunity with a deepening image of cult and bonehead. I would go so far as to say that Rand's works continued to sell despite the lying, not because of it.
If anyone deserves the credit for Rand's current best-selling status decades after she died, I think that honor goes to President Barack Obama. He should even get a commission on sales.
I hope Ms. Burns's work, Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right, will become a huge success. I know I will be promoting it at times.
Michael
