[Brant Gaede]

I have just read Stephan's Cox's Liberty article/review of Anne Heller's forthcoming biography of Ayn Rand.

Of this I have only three things to say at this time.

1) The author of PARC will need to write another book about how Heller's book is no good because of the evil influence of the Brandens. The only problem is Heller wasn't once married to Nathaniel Branden or his mistress so she can't be condemned because Nathaniel Branden wrote Judgment Day making her his natural collaborator in attacking Ayn Rand. And there is the problem that AR never kicked Heller out of her life apropos the grievous harm she supposedly did ending nearly two decades of personal, intellectual and business relationships.

2) ARI can't complain about the content as it denied Heller access to the archives and the Rand estate blocked her in other ways.

3) Barbara Branden's biography is going to be remembered as biased toward Ayn Rand, but still extremely valuable.

--Brant
burn PARC burn

This post has been edited by Brant Gaede: 28 August 2009 - 07:22 PM

[Reidy]

I found numerous small inaccuracies in the Heller book. One is her claim that Marlene Dietrich lived with Josef von Sternberg in the house that was later Rand's. Branden says this in one of his memoirs, as did the Saturday Evening Post in its 1961 profile. On the other hand, I've seen biographical material on Dietrich (Steven Bach's book) and plenty of architectural material on Neutra that mention the Rand connection but not the Dietrich story. Our best source, I should think, would be her daughter Maria Riva, who was a child at the time and lived with her mother. In her memoir she recalls a visit to the house soon after von Sternberg moved in but says nothing about living there. vS and Dietrich had made their last movie together a year before he commissioned the house (so probably 2 years before he moved in), and according to Bach their romantic involvement had been over for a few years longer than that.

My suspicion is that a real estate agent, observing Rand's enthusiam for movie stars, made the story up.

[Jerry Biggers]

Well, the latest of the liberal attacks/pseudo book reviews has shown up in the pages of The New Yorker (what a surprise). It contains the usual lists of distortions, slanders, slurs, and misrepresentations, along with the writer's (Thomas Mallon) unloading of his personal animosity.

He seems particularly annoyed that both Heller and Burns find anything of value in Rand's works, and he quickly informs his readers that there is nothing of value in her philosophy, her novels, or her life. At one point, he states, "Rand may be, in an aesthetic sense, the most totalitarian novelist ever to have sat down at a desk." That statement will have Sartre rolling over in his grave, and Gore Vidal smarting with envy.

Paradoxically, he follows that description with the infamous Whittaker Chambers' quote ("....from almost any page,...commanding, 'To a gas chamber -- go!'), but then states that Rand issued no revolutionary call to arms and that she "never offered any serious alternative to the social order." He views Rand as a Pied Piper calling her readers to hide from the world and read Atlas Shrugged with a flashlight under a blanket.

However, this typical smear has one thing that the others do not: it is accompanied with a stunning full-color photograph of Rand sitting at her desk in the studio of her Richard Neutra-designed house in California, circa 1947. I have never seen this photo before, or do not remember it. If it has appeared elsewhere, I have never seen it in color. This may be one of the best photos of Ayn Rand.The photograph covers a page-and-a-half. For that picture alone, that issue (November 9, 2009) of The New Yorker may be worth buying at a news stand. Cut-out the photo for framing. Then read the article for comic relief.

This post has been edited by Jerry Biggers: 04 November 2009 - 02:10 PM

[Robert Campbell]

For some reactions to Anne Heller's book from the Zealotry, see this thread from Betsy Speicher's forum:

http://forums.4aynra...showtopic=11060

Ms. Speicher's contributions are particularly eye-opening, as she gives a highly distorted account of Ms. Heller's sources.

She also manages to imply that if you listened to the copies of the Ayn Rand interview tapes in Barbara Branden's possession, as opposed to the copies in the Ayn Rand Archives, you can't be trusted.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

An excellent magazine interview with Anne Heller, in Inc.

http://www.inc.com/m...l-ayn-rand.html

Robert Campbell

[Neil Parille]

In one place Heller says that the Blumenthals left Rand in 77 and another in 78. I think she says somewhere that Peikoff has had 4 wifes and another 3.

-Neil Parille

[Robert Campbell]

Neil,

In her Afterword, Anne Heller says that Nathaniel Branden has been married 4 times and Leonard Peikoff 3 times.

I don't know whether she says something different elsewhere in the book; I have another 230 pages to go.

Robert Campbell

[Neil Parille]

Robert,

On page 266, Heller says LP was married 4 times.

-Neil Parille

[Neil Parille]

On page 399 Heller writes that the Blumethals left in 78. On page 422 she writes Dr. Blumenthal knew Rand until 77.

-Neil Parille

[Chris Grieb]

Neil Parille, on 08 November 2009 - 08:35 AM, said:

Robert,

On page 266, Heller says LP was married 4 times.

-Neil Parille

What are Peikoff wive's names. I know the first was Susan Ludel. I know one has the first name of Cynthia.

[Neil Parille]

Susan Ludel, Cynthia Pastor and Amy Peikoff. Don't know what Amy's maiden name is.

-Neil Parille

[Jerry Biggers]

Robert Campbell, on 07 November 2009 - 03:46 PM, said:

For some reactions to Anne Heller's book from the Zealotry, see this thread from Betsy Speicher's forum:

http://forums.4aynra...showtopic=11060

Ms. Speicher's contributions are particularly eye-opening, as she gives a highly distorted account of Ms. Heller's sources.

She also manages to imply that if you listened to the copies of the Ayn Rand interview tapes in Barbara Branden's possession, as opposed to the copies in the Ayn Rand Archives, you can't be trusted.

Robert Campbell

Very sad. I particularly like the admonition of one of her flock that when it comes to Ayn Rand and Objectivism, he only reads books or articles that have been approved by ARI.

Well, that's perfect for dogma, but not so good to broaden one's knowledge or to even expound to others your point of view. I wonder if these ARIans are aware that that practice was used and recommended by a nemesis of Objectivism, Auguste Comte! He didn't want to contaminate the purity of his positivist ideology by reading critical or opposing views, so he practiced what he called, "cerebral hygiene."

The Burns and Heller biographies can only exacerbate a crisis of belief for these people. Anyone who writes anything that does not affirm that "Ayn Rand led a perfect and exemplary life that was fully consistent with her philosophy in all respects," is going to be viewed as a threat to their cerebral hygiene, and will be stridently condemned.

But I think that any college student who believes that this cerebral hygiene works, should apply the following experiment using methodology recommended and used by Ayn Rand, herself (in her review of a book she proclaimed that she never read, Rawls' A Theory of Justice): the next time that they are assigned a book to read and critique, they preface their written or oral remarks with, "I never read the book, but I read reviews about it." Then see what grade that they get.

[Robert Campbell]

Jerry,

Yes, "cerebral hygiene" was one of many nasty elements in the Comtean system.

And not a practice that anyone else would be advised to emulate.

Robert Campbell

[Chris Grieb]

Neil Parille, on 08 November 2009 - 12:30 PM, said:

Susan Ludel, Cynthia Pastor and Amy Peikoff. Don't know what Amy's maiden name is.

-Neil Parille

Neil; Thanks for the info.

Perhaps Amy was created to be LP's perfect wife by someone with with the initials VF.

[Barbara Branden]

I have just read Anne Heller's Ayn Rand And The World She Made from cover to cover and I am overwhelmingly impressed with it. What follows is not a review, but a few comments, with more to follow in subsequent posts as I pull my thoughts together.

Heller is not an Objectivist, nor an advocate for Rand's ideas. but neither is she an opponent; she did not discover Rand as an adolescent as most of us did, but when she, Heller, was in her forties -- through Francisco's money speech which impressed her with its rigorous logic, complexity, and the beauty of the writing. (I well understand her reaction; when I read the speech, I said to Rand: "It's the best thing ever written!')

What is personally fascinating to me is to see a discerning, highly intelligent and fair-minded woman who has the integrity to approach Rand in a manner I have rarely seen before. She does not approach her as a goddess whose failures and faults are to b swept under the nearest rug because of her great virtues and accomplishments, nor as a villain whose admirable qualities are to be ignored or explained away because of her flaws and failures. Lo and Behold! – she approaches her objectively -- as a human being, subject to the problems, pains, joys, temptations, self-deceits, moments of grandeur, failures and triumphs that are built into the human condition.

I suppose it is necessary to say that I do not agree with everything Heller concludes -- but it seems almost foolish to say it, because I do not know of a book of which this is not true.

I have heard the preposterous claim, which was also leveled at my bio of Rand, that Heller gives psychological explanations of many of Rand’s actions and reactions and should not do so. I can imagine few things more boring than a biography consisting only of the bare facts of its subject's life. Of course the reader wants to know the reasons and causes of the subject's actions and purposes. And I congratulate Heller for meticulously presenting the facts that lead to her conclusions.

There is a wonderful line that ends Heller's Preface that sums up the endless fascination of Ayn Rand: "She has to be understood to be believed." Ayn Rand And The World She Made takes a giant step in the direction of enabling the reader to understand and believe the extraordinarily complex character and life of Ayn Rand.

[Brant Gaede]

I'm so happy you're back, Barbara, and posting at your usual 3:36 in the morning while the more sane of us are sound asleep.

I agree with what you write about Heller's Rand bio. It is difficult for me, however, to read a lot of it because of all the details about Ayn's difficulties--and the difficulties of others around her--not all of them of her making. Was there ever anyone whose virtues were also so much her curses magnified by sheer will, also one of the virtues-curses?

The jacket photo is the best I've ever seen of her. No one looking at it could ever feel or imagine feeling a shred of pity for such a woman whose personal power of character, personality and intellect seems to project itself right into the room you're in. She bent the world. Never mind that the world eventually snapped back at her.

When all is said and done, I prefer your bio. for the quality of the prose above all which suffuses a grace upon her life she could not have granted herself.

--Brant

[Selene]

Barbara Branden, on 09 November 2009 - 05:36 AM, said:

I have just read Anne Heller's Ayn Rand And The World She Made from cover to cover and I am overwhelmingly impressed with it. What follows is not a review, but a few comments, with more to follow in subsequent posts as I pull my thoughts together.

Heller is not an Objectivist, nor an advocate for Rand's ideas. but neither is she an opponent; she did not discover Rand as an adolescent as most of us did, but when she, Heller, was in her forties -- through Francisco's money speech which impressed her with its rigorous logic, complexity, and the beauty of the writing. (I well understand her reaction; when I read the speech, I said to Rand: "It's the best thing ever written!')

What is personally fascinating to me is to see a discerning, highly intelligent and fair-minded woman who has the integrity to approach Rand in a manner I have rarely seen before. She does not approach her as a goddess whose failures and faults are to b swept under the nearest rug because of her great virtues and accomplishments, nor as a villain whose admirable qualities are to be ignored or explained away because of her flaws and failures. Lo and Behold! – she approaches her objectively -- as a human being, subject to the problems, pains, joys, temptations, self-deceits, moments of grandeur, failures and triumphs that are built into the human condition.

I suppose it is necessary to say that I do not agree with everything Heller concludes -- but it seems almost foolish to say it, because I do not know of a book of which this is not true.

I have heard the preposterous claim, which was also leveled at my bio of Rand, that Heller gives psychological explanations of many of Rand's actions and reactions and should not do so. I can imagine few things more boring than a biography consisting only of the bare facts of its subject's life. Of course the reader wants to know the reasons and causes of the subject's actions and purposes. And I congratulate Heller for meticulously presenting the facts that lead to her conclusions.

There is a wonderful line that ends Heller's Preface that sums up the endless fascination of Ayn Rand: "She has to be understood to be believed." Ayn Rand And The World She Made takes a giant step in the direction of enabling the reader to understand and believe the extraordinarily complex character and life of Ayn Rand.

Barbara:

Welcome back. Glad you are feeling better.

I have not read the Heller book yet, nor yours, which I am going to read at the same time. I am, frankly, still astounded by this schism in objectivism still remaining. I find it childish and completely non-rational to "believe" that Ayn Rand was perfect in every way possible.

This is ridiculous fantasy that jumps across the border into psychotic.

I am amused that alleged exponents of a rational philosophy could even advance such a claim.

Ayn Rand was merely brilliant and she knew it and she was openly proud of being brilliant. Those of us who can see her as a brilliant human being, who was real can truly appreciate her.

Great post Barbara.

Adam

[Chris Grieb]

Barbara Branden, on 09 November 2009 - 05:36 AM, said:

I have just read Anne Heller's Ayn Rand And The World She Made from cover to cover and I am overwhelmingly impressed with it. What follows is not a review, but a few comments, with more to follow in subsequent posts as I pull my thoughts together.

Heller is not an Objectivist, nor an advocate for Rand's ideas. but neither is she an opponent; she did not discover Rand as an adolescent as most of us did, but when she, Heller, was in her forties -- through Francisco's money speech which impressed her with its rigorous logic, complexity, and the beauty of the writing. (I well understand her reaction; when I read the speech, I said to Rand: "It's the best thing ever written!')

What is personally fascinating to me is to see a discerning, highly intelligent and fair-minded woman who has the integrity to approach Rand in a manner I have rarely seen before. She does not approach her as a goddess whose failures and faults are to b swept under the nearest rug because of her great virtues and accomplishments, nor as a villain whose admirable qualities are to be ignored or explained away because of her flaws and failures. Lo and Behold! – she approaches her objectively -- as a human being, subject to the problems, pains, joys, temptations, self-deceits, moments of grandeur, failures and triumphs that are built into the human condition.

I suppose it is necessary to say that I do not agree with everything Heller concludes -- but it seems almost foolish to say it, because I do not know of a book of which this is not true.

I have heard the preposterous claim, which was also leveled at my bio of Rand, that Heller gives psychological explanations of many of Rand’s actions and reactions and should not do so. I can imagine few things more boring than a biography consisting only of the bare facts of its subject's life. Of course the reader wants to know the reasons and causes of the subject's actions and purposes. And I congratulate Heller for meticulously presenting the facts that lead to her conclusions.

There is a wonderful line that ends Heller's Preface that sums up the endless fascination of Ayn Rand: "She has to be understood to be believed." Ayn Rand And The World She Made takes a giant step in the direction of enabling the reader to understand and believe the extraordinarily complex character and life of Ayn Rand.

Let me join in the delight that you are back. I have been waiting for your review of the Anne Heller book.

[Dragonfly]

I just finished reading "Ayn Rand and the World She Made". It's better than I thought. One thing is for sure: it's contrary to what Vaillant claims and it confirms the image of Rand that was created in Barbara's book PAR. If there is any difference, Heller's book is more critical of Rand than PAR. It does contain some inaccuracies however. So Heller writes for example that Dr. Stadler was the designer of "protonuclear device Project X". This is incorrect, project X was designed by Floyd Ferris, Stadler had no idea what Project X was. Further I don't know what exactly a "protonuclear device is", but it had nothing to do with nuclear physics, it was based on sound waves (project Xylophone). Another error is that Robert Efron is called a physicist, he was in fact a neurologist.

There are some interesting details in the book that were new to me, like the fact that Rand once saw a UFO in her backyard! "Do you see those junipers?" said Rand to Ruth Beebe Hill, "A UFO came by there last night" "It was hovering just above the junipers and then flying in slow motion. It was round and its outer edges were lighted and it made no sound." That's great news for UFO fans, even Ayn Rand saw a genuine UFO! I wonder whether this was perhaps a dexedrine-induced hallucination. There is some evidence that she sometimes took a lot of those pills. But Rand was sure that here senses couldn't deceive her (compare with the story of the IV-pole reflection in the hospital, that became a high tree in her perception).

Other details reflect the untidiness of the O'Connors, such as the mess they left behind when they moved from California to New York (for example "in the kitchen, empty cottage cheese cartons, the remains of Frank's favorite lunch, were heaped from countertops halfway to the ceiling"). Another example was the terrible stench in their apartment from their cat Francisco that was not neutered. According to Rand "unlike humans, cats cannot choose to go against nature or mold it to their whishes, and she would not interfere with them or force them". In other words, Rand turned out to be a staunch defender of animal rights! On another occasion Nathaniel asked Barbara "to speak to Rand about bathing more regularly".

Further she was not free of some superstitions, I remember that she did have a lucky charm and now I read that she threw some salt over her shoulder when she spilled some salt over the table.

I think that some orthodox followers will have nightmares when they read the book.

[Robert Campbell]

Dragonfly,

I'm still reading (now at p. 272) but what I've seen so far supports your assessment of Anne Heller's book.

Another small error: Ms. Heller credits Nathaniel Branden as one of the founders of cognitive psychology when the movement he actually contributed to is cognitive therapy (sometimes called cognitive behavioral therapy, but the "behavioral" doesn't sound right in his case).

There are lots of reasons different people see UFOs, so I wouldn't necessarily link Ayn Rand's reported sighting to her medications. (As a Sun Ra researcher, I've talked to present and former band members for whom UFO sightings are quite ordinary events. And Sunny didn't tolerate the use of any drugs besides nicotine and small amounts of alcohol.) But that UFO story is going to flip some people out, over in the general vicinity of Irvine, California.

Robert Campbell

[Dragonfly]

Robert Campbell, on 15 November 2009 - 12:45 PM, said:

There are lots of reasons different people see UFOs, so I wouldn't necessarily link Ayn Rand's reported sighting to her medications.

Perhaps not necessarily (it must remain speculation after all), but I think it is in her case the most likely explanation. We know that she did take that medication and probably sometimes in heavy doses, and that hallucinations are a well-known side-effect of that drug. Late at night, trying to stay awake with the help of some pills? The UFO moved slowly and was soundless. It doesn't have to be a completely "new" hallucination, but could be a distorted view of some natural phenomenon (like a distant plane). Just as she was later convinced that the reflection of an IV-pole in a window was a large tree. It doesn't seem likely to me that Rand belonged to the type of people who see UFO's everywhere and are allegedly regularly abducted by them. On the other hand, it struck me that Rand apparently didn't look for some explanation (like "I saw something strange I couldn't recognize, perhaps it was this or that...") but told the experience matter-of-factly as if it was a "genuine" UFO, i.e. some extraterrestrial craft.