The Passion of James Valliant’s Criticism, Part II

[Newberry]

Mike,

The Passion of Ayn Rand (p. 271):

No one achieves power who does not seek it; had she not insisted upon being viewed as a goddess, she would not have been so viewed.

I had forgotten about the goddess part, but should anyone think Barbara is making that up, this was an issue Rand discussed in her own words. I refer them to the "goddess premise" Rand wrote about (meaning herself as the goddess), which is presented in her journal entries in PARC. (I can find the page number or numbers if you like.)

I do want to mention that Barbara's statement is qualified by her mention of the part that the uncritical adulation Rand received from her young admireres contributed to reinforcing this.

Michael

I have to laugh, as good-natured as possible. But I feel like a god several times a day and I am always puzzled by people who do not feel that. I think a lot of the reason for it is that I love the concepts about divine, exaltation, awe, worship, heroism--and since I don't have a mystical bone in my body I simply see all those concepts as man-made--which identify human feelings.

I think the people who do not feel them have been trashed early on by either religion, puritanism, or altruism.

Feeling god-like is a wonderful experience and people should try it more often.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

Do you wish to be worshipped?

Brant Gaede is already starting a cult. I signed on as chief disciple and enforcer. Maybe we can work something out here...

Michael

[Newberry]

Michael,

Do you wish to be worshipped?

Michael

Sure.

But I have such an easy view of worship--it is simply respect mixed with a healthy dose of feeling. Gosh, I worship so many people alive and from the past--I am afraid the word as the bad connotation that one subjects oneself, but that has never been my problem.

M

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

I had something bigger in mind. Do it right. Organize. Flocks. Sheeple. Imitators. Gatherings. Rituals. Soul-cleansing oaths. Instant spiritual rebirth. Wholesale intimidation. Save the damn world!

I can put all this at your feet.

Don't worry about the details. They are easy enough to set up. Hell, with you we even have idols galore already portrayed. We don't have to make up anything for a while. (Can't ya' see it? Newberry's Angels! And that's just for starters.)

Well... we do need a demon, but I'll think of something. I might even offer a contract to Valliant as a ghost writer for the icky parts.

The trick is to get people to tithe...

Michael

[Mike Hardy]

Michael,

I had something bigger in mind. Do it right. Organize. Flocks. Sheeple. Imitators. Gatherings. Rituals. Soul-cleansing oaths. Instant spiritual rebirth. Wholesale intimidation. Save the damn world!

I can put all this at your feet.

Don't worry about the details. They are easy enough to set up. Hell, with you we even have idols galore already portrayed. We don't have to make up anything for a while. (Can't ya' see it? Newberry's Angels! And that's just for starters.)

Well... we do need a demon, but I'll think of something. I might even offer a contract to Valliant as a ghost writer for the icky parts.

The trick is to get people to tithe...

Michael

Yes, we gods require you our worshippers to express your worship in _practical_ form.

In Craig Ferguson's novel _Between_the_Bridge_and_the_River_, page 304, we read:

The Holy United Church of America told people that God only wanted them to be happy in any way that they could, and if that meant committing sin, then they should go ahead and commit sin and then atone by doing good in the community, but if they didn't have time for that, they could pay for someone else to do it. The Holy United Church would be happy to make the arrangements, just sign here.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Re the "goddess premise," I looked up the references in PARC. It's clear that it wasn't AR -- apparently it was Barbara -- who first proposed the idea, and that AR objected to what she saw as the "Kantian" attitude involved.

The pages are:

205-206, for the first mention of the "Kantian stylized universe";

298-301, 313-314, 321, 333, 337-338, 359, 361, for discussion of the "Kantian" or "Kantian-Christophian" and/or "Kantian-Goddess (or God)" or just "goddess" premise;

383, for Valliant's use of this idea as part of his attempted demonstration of NB's "soul of a rapist."

The entries on 298-301 and on 333 are especially pertinent:

pg. 298: On May 14, 1968, Rand "tantalizes us with this brief, single-page entry" (the description is Valliant's):

[branden's] two views, "woman who needs him" and "goddess," are views of himself. Let's be atheists.

pg. 299: Valliant writes, "Ms. Branden now chimes in with her agreement: it was a kind of 'Goddess' issue that had affected her, too. Branden was her own 'Kantian God.' Rand writes the following in her notes from May 15":

"The Kantian-Goddess" issue, applying also to Barbara. (I told her "she must love Nathaniel.")

pg. 300: Valliant opines, "We have already seen how Branden viewed any divorce--and, by implication, any mistake in knowledge or judgment, or even any process of discovery--as being 'unstylized.' For Branden, as for Kant, context is irrelevant, and hence, Rand's previous term 'Kantian stylized universe,' to which Branden eagerly identified himself, has now been identified as the 'Kantian Goddess' issue.

"Thus, the 'Kantian Goddess' issue must somehow mean a view that places one's values--especially romantic values--outside of the context of individual needs and circumstances. [....]"

pg. 333-334: In Rand's very long journal discussion on July 4, 1968 -- this is the journal discussion following the day when NB gave her the paper saying that age was a barrier -- she sums up the sequence of NB's explanations of the problem in her and his relationship, including the "goddess premise" hypothesis:

.

[i've added several paragraph breaks; the ellipsis and bracketed insertions, as well as the bracketed spelling out of Rand's "BB" abreviation for Barbara, are Valliant's.]

But here was the only consistent line running through that unspeakable, shifting chaos: his search for some rationalization of his present feeling for me. First, he said that he loved me, but that "the triangle" was the obstacle to his love, for some reason which he could not identify; he said that it was [now] an issue of "exclusiveness" and that "exclusiveness" had some special importance for him, he did not know why. Then, he accepted my hypothesis that I was some sort of ideal to him, which was too much for him in reality (but [barbara Branden] told him that this did not sound like him, and he agreed that this was not true). Then, he declared that he loved me, but not romantically--and when I asked him to define it, he withdrew it.

Then, he accepted [barbara Branden's] hypothesis about "the goddess" premise--and (after a week of rest and going to the movies with me) told me that he still found it a problem to get rid of "the goddess" premise. When I exploded, he dropped "the goddess" hypothesis. Then, he said that after all of his soul-searching, he became convinced that he really loved me, in the full sense of the word. (I asked him how he could be certain of it, in his present state--but he said that he was.)

Then, he said that in the past, at the time of the "car ride" or shortly thereafter (about a year later), he discovered that his love for me was "a threat to his self-esteem," but that he did not know it consciously at the time. He also said that my "moralizing" anger, in our past and present quarrels, had a traumatizing effect on his love for me. Then, recently, he said that the trouble with our relationship was that he regarded me, in some undefined way, as a "moral authority." I made notes on what this could mean, which he was to study and think over, but he never did.

Then he discovered "autism." (This was, I believe, on the weekend of June 15, when he was in Atlantic City.) There followed two weeks during which he did not pursue the discussion of "autism" any further. On Saturday, June 29,... there came his worry about [an acquaintance involved in the theatrical production of The Fountainhead], which was the straw that broke my back; it convinced me that neither his own problem, nor I, nor his torture of me had any importance to him or any reality.

On Monday, July 1, in a telephone conversation, I learned that he had spent the previous day, Sunday, in the country--not thinking about his problem, as I had thought he intended to, but "swimming, sailing and shooting" with a student of his. That was that. I told him that this could not go on. He said that he would reach some rational decision or clarification by Wednesday, June [actually, July] 3, he gave me his "paper" about "physical alienation."

Does this long progression sound like a struggle to think--or a struggle to find a rationalization? The answer is obvious.

I'd say she is on target with "the answer" there; and that she sure did take awhile to get to that answer. In any event, judging from the diary entries, the "goddess" premise wasn't her suggestion -- or to her liking.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

Thank you for the research.

I think we have to be clear on what goddess means so as to not fall into the trap of positing one thing while using a meaning from another context. I can certainly see Rand objecting to Kantian Goddess under any and all circumstances (ironically speaking, in a Kantian manner, i.e., in all contexts ).

Then there is the oversimplified psychological syndrome (like most of the other so-called psychological syndromes—psychological premises—Rand wrote about), the goddess premise, meaning some sort of self-inflicted intimidation from a feeling of worship.

Then there is another meaning that would never bear the word goddess spoken aloud, but it is just as much a meaning as the other two: being treated and adulated like a goddess (without all the formal ceremony of animal sacrifices and so forth ). This is the meaning I got from the Passion quote.

Although Rand objected to the first two: Kantian Goddess and letting Nathaniel proclaim that he was intimidated by her from some kind of goddess worship, the very fact this was discussed at all means that she was aware of it. I find it inconceivable that she was unaware of the possible result of being seen as a goddess—of the adulation she received from her young Collective—and would not make the connection. She was no dummy. She had to have known that she was the one being adulated.

Do you find it conceivable that she merely tolerated adulation in order to go along with Nathaniel because she was in love with him? What about all the adulation she received afterwards? Just look at ARI's production. It doesn't get much more adulatory than that without formally founding a church. There is airbrusing, attacks against well-meaning people, crusades to defend her honor, demonizing the enemy, excommunications, and a whole bunch of similar activities. Was that the product of something only after Rand died, or was it in existence while she was alive?

I will go with common sense. I learned that things do not suddenly spring up out of nothing. Things have causes.

btw - I am getting allergic to all the scare quotes (including Rand's). Reading Valliant has started to cure me of that. I prefer to say what I mean clearly without some kind of vague typological insinuation loading the terms.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

Thank you for the research.

I think we have to be clear on what goddess means so as to not fall into the trap of positing one thing while using a meaning from another context.

Indeed. In your post #148, you gave a misleading impression of what Rand was discussing when you referred readers

[...] to the "goddess premise" Rand wrote about (meaning herself as the goddess), which is presented in her journal entries in PARC.

I think the quotes from the entries make clear what she was talking about.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

If you were misled, sorry. My intention was to state that Rand was aware of this discussion about her being a goddess. (In fact, that's exactly what I wrote.)

From the history of everything that developed, in my own analysis, she liked the adulation of her young admirers. She was aware of it and liked it.

Make of that what you will. You are free to believe she did not like the attention or was indifferent to it. I think that is wrong, though.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

If you were misled, sorry. My intention was to state that Rand was aware of this discussion about her being a goddess. (In fact, that's exactly what I wrote.)

From the history of everything that developed, in my own analysis, she liked the adulation of her young admirers. She was aware of it and liked it.

Make of that what you will. You are free to believe she did not like the attention or was indifferent to it. I think that is wrong, though.

Michael

She was aware of WHAT discussion? Frankly, I don't know what you think you're referring to.

In regard to her "lik[ing] the adulation of her young admirers," however, I think that that's a misleading description of what she liked. She liked to be thought RIGHT; it was very important to her to be thought right. But "adulation" -- the image which that connotes to me -- no, she didn't like IMO. On several occasions I saw people approaching her with what I'd describe as "adulation," and in each case she gave the person short shrift, as if she found the approach distasteful.

Ellen

___

[Barbara Branden]

Ellen, you wrote: "In regard to her [Rand] 'lik[ing] the adulation of her young admirers,' however, I think that that's a misleading description of what she liked. She liked to be thought RIGHT; it was very important to her to be thought right."

What except adulation -- whether the adulation was apparent or not -- would cause someone to believe that a person was right about everything and in every respect?

Barbara

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

She was aware of WHAT discussion? Frankly, I don't know what you think you're referring to.

Ellen,

Are we on the same planet? She wrote about it in PARC, I mentioned it and you just talked about what she wrote about.

WHAT discussion are you involved in right now?

Dayaamm!

Michael

EDIT: You sound like you are confusing adulation with sucking up.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael,

Such a tangle as you can make of an issue. In your last couple posts you appear to have managed to confuse the discussion which was transpiring on this list with what AR was discussing in her diary entries. This is another of the times when I can only feel wonderment at the routes whereby you travel from A to B -- certainly not along a straight line.

My initial point was a simple one, that what AR was talking about in the diary entries you referenced isn't what Barbara was talking about in the passage you quoted from Passion. Same word, different meaning.

My secondary point, resulting from your equating the meanings, is that I don't agree about AR's seeking adulation, by either meaning. I think that Barbara's universalized statement isn't accurate, either as pertaining to AR or as applying generally. Although I do agree that no one achieves the sort of power NB achieved in the O'ist world without seeking power, I do not agree that no one achieves the sort of "goddess" (or "god") status which AR achieved without seeking it. I'm aware of a number of counterexamples. A famous counterexample is that of Einstein, who grew to hate what he described as "the circus" which greeted him when he appeared in public.

What I believe AR sought from her admirers -- and from her readers at large, especially from the intellectually respected segment of those readers -- is "confirmation" not "adulation." She wanted to be recognized as having propounded the correct philosophy, not as being any sort of "goddess" figure. The "'goddess' premise" which she spoke of in her diary entries wasn't pleasing to her; it angered her. That she was seen as a "goddess" -- in the sense Barbara described -- that she's still seen that way by many -- I think is true; that this is what she sought, I do not think is true.

Ellen

___

Edited February 20, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

My initial point was a simple one, that what AR was talking about in the diary entries you referenced isn't what Barbara was talking about in the passage you quoted from Passion. Same word, different meaning.

Ellen,

If you read my posts correctly (and you seem to be stumbling badly with this), you will see that what you said is exactly what I said.

However, unlike you, I find there are usually connections between different concepts when the same word is used for them. I don't buy into the polar either/or condition of completely different meanings as opposed to "equating the meanings" like you are now arguing. (btw - Those are not scare quotes. I am quoting your words and using quotation marks to denote them.) For instance, I don't think X (pick your term) could should mean pig and thunder and to study. I think it would be absurd for one word to denote such vastly different meanings. But in that case, I certainly would agree with your "equating the meanings" criticism if someone managed to concoct a rhetorical hodgepodge and confused them. In that case, "same word, different meaning" makes all the sense in the world.

Whenever a word like goddess is used, there are strong connections between the different meanings (at least in my world and according to how I learned English—maybe in your world this is differnt). I gave three different but related meanings above. From your writing, I can only conclude that you missed them. They are in Post 157. I could repeat them, but clicking on the link is not too much to ask.

I agree with you that Rand did not like what goddess meant as used in PARC, but I also contend that what Rand didn't like was not the concept itself when adulation was involved. She obviously disliked anything smacking of mysticism over reason, being overly flattered (or being sucked up to), or watching the term provide an excuse for Nathaniel to become even more distant and detecting that something was really rotten in the State of Denmark.

Unlike you, however, (going from your words) I maintain that it was impossible for Rand to engage in multiple discussions about her being a goddess and be unaware that this was how the Collective, and later generations of intimates, saw her. I am using goddess here in the "greatest human being that ever lived" sense (to quote NB), or maybe Prometheus bringing fire to mankind sense, a Greek goddess kind of sense, and most certainly in the moral authority sense.

In your world, apparently Rand could have a full complement of acolytes around her, and nobody else, and be a dingbat who was totally unaware of it. In my world, I think she was smarter than that.

I see no evidence whatsoever that Rand encouraged people who disagreed with her to hang around. She is not reported to having sought them out. In her post break work, I read many times and saw her say in her recorded interviews that she was not there to debate and had no interest in engaging those who disagreed with her. (Her treatment of the rude girl during the Phil Donahue interview was what happened when she encountered in public someone who thought she was wrong or of less value than other authors with other ideas and said so.)

Rand had her own criteria for adulation, but that does not make it any less adulation. I think she had a sincerity radar. If the person really did think she was the greatest human that ever lived (or a goddess in that kind of sense), he/she became part of the circle. If she detected false flattery, she distanced herself. If she detected strong disagreement, the person became an intellectual enemy.

Interestingly enough, if a person (say, like Alan Greenspan) was a high-end achiever and did not contest her work, but publicly professed admiration for her, she seemed to tolerate a sort of agnosticism on many points. Let's say she did not press the issue. Pressing the issue and demanding total agreement was saved for her intimates—the ones who were supposed to worship her and show it by agreeing with her (actually agreeing, not just saying they did, and feeling gratitude to her for the insight).

Speaking of wonderment, I often feel this at your inability to understand a simple statement, as witnessed by presenting the exact same thing I wrote and using it to contest what I wrote. This is not the first time you have done this. If you want to contest what I wrote, you have to present something different in order to make sense.

Frankly, I attribute this to you reading meanings into my words that are not there and trying to be combative for the sake of being combative. At these times, I do not sense you trying to understand with good will what I wrote at all, but merely trying to win some contest in your own head. (Yaaaay!!! )

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Neil made a very interesting post on Daniel Barnes's blog (see here). He first cited Mary Ann Sures being interviewed (from Facets of Ayn Rand):

ARI

Let's turn to Ayn Rand the celebrity and her attitude toward fans.

MARY ANN

She was a celebrity, but she didn't act like one.

ARI

How do you mean?

MARY ANN

She didn't want or need an adoring, protective entourage around her, going with her everywhere she went, fawning over her, flattering her. She frowned on that practice. She had seen a lot of that in Hollywood and considered it phony.

Then he cited Bennett Cerf in At Random (pp. 250-51):

Ayn Rand was a remarkable woman, but in my opinion she was not helped by her sycophants. She's like a movie queen with her retinue, or a prize-fight champion who's followed by a bunch of hangers-on, or a big crooner and his worshipers. They all come to need this adulation. These people tell her she's a genius and agree with everything she says and she grows more opinionated as she goes along.

Seeing that the publication of a book the size of Atlas Shrugged entailed months and months of preparations and meetings and dinners and socializing and whatnot (not to mention other projects Rand presented), I would say that Cerf had a pretty good time frame and ample enough contact with Rand and her followers to form solid grounds for his judgment. He knew her professionally from outside the fold as few ever did from Atlas Shrugged on.

I marvel at the insistence of so many people in trying to deny obvious facets of Rand as reported by so many sources, even reputable ones like Bennett Cerf, co-founder of one of the world's greatest publishing houses. Some claim Rand did not feel jealousy, others claim she was totally immune to adulation and power going to her head, others claim she never lied, and the list of denials goes on and on.

Ayn Rand was a human being. She was not from Mars or the heavens nor was she carved out of stone. I certainly don't think she was an emotional cripple. I believe she had the full complement of human emotions and did what most everybody else does: she did the best she could to deal with them. She was an exceptional artist and thinker and deserved every bit of her fame and recognition. But she had virtues and shorcomings just like anyone else. She could be tempted by the trappings of adulation and power, just like anyone else. She was a typical artist like so many I have seen up close when it came to having an entourage and holding court.

I simply can't see her in any other light.

What's more, I look at her achievements and feel really good that a human being can do that. It was a huge relief when I discovered she was not a goddess, but contended with her own lapses. I have been accused of denigrating Rand by thinking this and saying it, but I look at it in a much different light. I stand in awe of the human capacity to nurture virtues and overcome recurring shortcomings of character enough to achieve greatness through creating magnificent works. In Rand's case, it is one of the features that proves her greatness. Human beings create true greatness, not gods and goddesses.

(As to her shortcomings, everything bad, including the weather, was all the Brandens's fault anyway. Cerf should have known that before he launched his dishonest, vicious, evading, subjective, death-premise, envious, second-handed attack and smear job against Rand. He was a liar. After all, given Rand's perfection, what else is one to think of him? )

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Neil made a very interesting post on Daniel Barnes's blog (see here).

A better link -- to an easier-to-read screen -- is HERE.

I posted the following four comments in reply and further elaboration:

Neil quotes Bennet Cerf from his memoir At Random (pp. 250-51):

"Ayn Rand was a remarkable woman, but in my opinion she was not helped by her sycophants. She’s like a movie queen with her retinue, or a prize-fight champion who’s followed by a bunch of hangers-on, or a big crooner and his worshipers. They all come to need this adulation. These people tell her she’s a genius and agree with everything she says and she grows more opinionated as she goes along."

With all due ex-editor's respect for wily old fox Bennet Cerf's opinions, in my opinion his description is wrong. Her circle was not like a movie queen's with her retinue, etc. Nor would I say that AR "[grew] more opinionted" as she went along. She started out thoroughly convinced of her own rectitude.

I do think that toward the end, Joan and Allan's sticking to their guns in regard to the visual arts and music was bothering Ayn and raising some doubts, which is why Ayn became so insistent in trying to convince them.

And:

A further comment about Bennet Cerf's description of the "Collective" members as "sycophants."

Aside from Nathaniel and possibly Barbara (and of course Frank, but I wouldn't technically call him part of the "Collective"), I doubt that Bennet Cerf ever met the other members of the "Collective" except at the surprise party -- which was an awkward event, not one which likely showed the group in their best light.

Here are the people (in addition to Nathaniel and Barbara) who comprised the "Collective" as of the time Atlas was published (1957):

Alan Greenspan, financial whiz, who later became arguably the most powerful man in America as Head of the Fed;

Allan Blumenthal, medical degree, psychiatrist, helped pay for his medical training by performing as a concert pianist;

Joan Blumenthal, talented painter (you won't get much idea of her ability by looking at the works of hers sold in reproduction by NBI; those are semi-objectikitschy, but her general work is quality);

Elayne Kalberman, hospital nurse, who became the circulation manager of and generally ran the business aspects of the newsletter/magazine; a professionally competent woman;

Harry Kalberman, successful stock broker;

Leonard Peikoff, "intellectual heir" in the making;

Mary Ann Rukavina, later Sures, art-history student, at the time.

I consider the description "sycophant" ludicrous for most of these people and not fair even for the only two to whom I can see it as somewhat plausibly applying, Leonard and Mary Ann. But I think "disciple" is the correct description for Leonard -- and "student" for Mary Ann. Those are the two who remained devoted to Ayn; their devotion, I believe, is fully sincere, hard though it might be for some to imagine fully sincere devotion to Ayn Rand, They weren't sucking up to Ayn; they weren't plying her with false flattery. They were and remain honestly convinced that Ayn was a great genius, among the greatest of all time, and that Objectivism is true philosophy.

Also, another word in Cerf's description: "retinue." This makes it sound as if the "Collective" accompanied Ayn like a train of courtiers. Not so. The group met at her apartment -- for a number of years, once a week -- and talked philosophy (and, I assume, other subjects, too). It wasn't like a show-business entourage.

And:

Neil:

That's an interesting point. Maybe Cerf was talking about Rand's "virtual" retinue of fans and followers.

I don't think so, Neil. I think he meant the "Collective" from the details of what he said; he's talking about the sort of group which tends to surround show-business celebrities, not a fan club. And recall, Cerf and Rand parted company when JFK was killed; that was before the peak days of NBI, so I don't think he even meant her New York following.

I do wonder if in her earlier days Rand was so certain about her psychological speculations and things like that which were out of her area of expertise. It's one thing to be convinced of your own rectitude, and other to be convinced that you are so right about everything.

I think that she was like that from very young, that her thorough certainty of her own correctness is key to the sort of power she developed. Remember the tale of the school mate, a girl whom at first Ayn thought looked interesting and then gave up on in immediate sick disgust upon the girl's answer ("my mother") to Ayn's asking her what was most important to her. She came to a verdict, of which she was sure, about that girl and didn't think to question even years later when she was recounting the story to Barbara. Ayn was by then 55, but still didn't think to ask herself, maybe there might have been more to the situation than it occurred to her to consider as a child...??

And:

Speaking of how Ayn Rand affected people...

The other day I came across a quote from Marc Jaffe in Passion when I was trying to find the date when Ayn first spoke at the Ford Hall Forum. (Barbara doesn't give the exact year of the first appearance, only an indication that it was circa 1962 or 63.) Marc Jaffe was no one's fool, and not easily impressed, but he was quite taken by Ayn. This is on pp. 316-17:

"Marc Jaffe, now editorial director of Villard Books, commissioned Ayn to write an introduction to Victor Hugo's Ninety-three for Bantam Classics. He later spoke glowingly of his meetings with her, in terms relevant to the success of her lecture appearances. With a cheerful grin, he said, 'I've been telling my colleagues that I was the man who was in love with Ayn Rand...at least for ten minutes. What I most remember about our meetings was the almost magical impact she had on me. She was not a beautiful woman, but she had an inexpressible charm, that wonderful deep and resonant voice, the words poured out of her in a way that excited both my mind and my emotions. When we talked about her notions of the romantic novel, I was fascinated and educated; what she said was very important and convincing. I felt that she had such an extraordinary mind and presence. I had read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and I liked them both very much; apart from their wealth of ideas and characters, both have a compelling force that came in good part from the incredible energy of her personality.'"

He doesn't mention her eyes, but a lot of people have mentioned them in speaking of her rather mesmerizing effect in person.

Here's a youtube glimpse from the Mike Wallace 1959 interview, showing a quarter view which gives some indication of the size of her eyes. They were dark and luminous, like pools that went on and on in depth -- magnetic when she looked at you directly.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/4167

.

Ellen

___

Edited February 21, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

With all due respect, I don't think Bennett Cerf is wrong. You doubt he met others except at a surprise party, but, of course, you are not sure.

Cerf's description fits descriptions given by others at the time. Murray Rothabard comes to mind, for instance, going so far as to call the people around Rand a cult. There are other descriptions.

To go with your opinoion that Cerf was wrong, all of these people at the time must have fabricated their impressions out of thin air or had an enormous hatred for Rand, thus entered into some kind of conspiracy to smear her—all in the same manner.

I find either possibility implausible. I find it more likely that there was some substance to what they reported. It might have been exaggerated and a spin put on it, but there was substance.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael,

I'm not denying that there was a cult atmosphere around Ayn Rand. I have spoken of that atmosphere on several occasions, you know. I am disagreeing with the specifics of what Bennet Cerf wrote -- and in general with your own show-biz-type image of Rand. I think you've formed your image based on show-biz people you knew in Brazil. It's not an accurate image to Rand's specific form of power.

I'm afraid there's no way you'll substitute your image of her for my own memories of her, and of the reports I heard from people close to her.

You didn't address the point of WHO the people were who comprised Rand's "Collective." I expect Barbara will be enchanted (not) at your accepting the description of her along with the others as a "sycophant." ;-)

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

Barbara's own descriptions in Passion own up to the Collective's adulatory behavior typical of sycophancy (and that includes her and Nathaniel). If you like, I can supply quotes. There are plenty of them. So, no, I don't think she would be offended by my impressions of history back then. Also, there is a contributing factor: it is a law of the universe that college kids do dumb things.

btw - My own impression is not just based on show-biz. That's an interesting way of trying to say it isn't serious. My impression is also based on the classical artists I have known (Maestro Eleazar de Carvalho, for instance). And it is based on what I read from others who were around Rand back then and also knew her (from outside the circle). For instance... Bennett Cerf!

But I also take into account what those in the circle said. Facets of Ayn Rand, for instance, is severly flawed by bias if you want to use it for an objective picture of Rand, but it does give several impressions of her that are very valuable to a total picture. It is an enjoyable read. I have read many of the interviews and articles written by those who knew her over the years. I have Duncan Scott's DVD's and have watched them. Your own comments about Rand as you perceived her have helped inform my view.

My REAL impression of Ayn Rand comes from judging her just like I judge any person on earth. I hold that she came into life with all her equipment intact, she grew up and developed into a normal healthy adult, and then she went on to do some magnificent work. Along the way her life became Shakespearian in level of complications. From the accounts I have read, she was just as prone to succumb to some of the all too human temptations at weak moments as the next person. In fact, on this level, I agree with Barbara: the conflicts were epic.

I don't give her a special pass or special condemnation. And I do admire her.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

This is a question that has occurred to me. Do any of the NBI students remember any crictism of Branden by Rand prior to the split. It seems to me that all the crictism starts after the split. Am I wrong?

[Ellen Stuttle]

While I'm on the subject of Bennett Cerf's remarks about Ayn Rand (note the correct spelling of his first name)...

Anyone who's an admirer of Rand and takes his description of her "sycophants" at face value might be rendered hesitant by reading his full remarks. At the risk of overextending fair use, here's a goodly chunk of his AR reminiscence. (A detail in what I said earlier is wrong; it was before not after the Kennedy assassination that Rand left Random House.)

From At Random by Bennett Cerf

Copyright © 1977 by Random House, Inc.

Reprinted [in Libertarian Review,

December 1977] by permission of

Random House, Inc.

The first of these [whom Hiram Haydn brought to Random House and who stayed with Random House after he left] was Ayn Rand, whose The Fountainhead had been published by Bobbs-Merrill while Hiram was there. I had never met Ayn Rand, but I had heard of her philosophy, which I found absolutely horrifying. The Fountainhead is an absorbing story, nonetheless. She was very dubious about coming to Random House, she told Hiram, because her sycophants had told her that we were way over on the left and that she didn't belong with us. But this rather intrigued her--being published by a liberal house rather than one where she would ordinarily be expected to go. Furthermore, she had heard about me--one of the extra dividends you get from being known. [....] I found myself liking her, though I had not expected to.

She had piercing eyes that seem to look right through you and a wonderful way of pinning you to the wall. You can't make any loose statements to Ayn Rand; she hops on you and says, "Let us examine your prmises." I am likely to shoot off my mouth occasionally and make statements that I don't quite mean or can't quite prove, and Ayn, again and again, would nail me. We liked each other; that's the answer. She asked me an infinite number of questions. Later on, after she came to Random House, she showed me a chart she had kept. She had visited about fifteen publishers, and when she got home she rated them on all the things they had said. I didn't realize, of course, that I was being examined this way, but I came out very high because I had been absolutely honest with her. I had said, "I find your political philosophy abhorrent." Nobody else had dared tell her this. I said, "If we publish you, Miss Rand, nobody is going to try to censor you. You write anything you please, in fiction at least, and we'll publish it, whether or not we approve."

[....]

Ayn's a very simple and modest woman. We were on our way to lunch in Radio City once, and as we passed one of those junk shops with all kinds of statues and knick-knacks, she saw a little blue bracelet in the window, and like a twelve-year-old girl, Ayn said, "Isn't that a beautiful bracelet!" So I went in and bought it for her. It cost exactly one dollar, but she was as happy as a child.

She's so brilliant at expouding her theories! [He describes the Johnny Carson show appearance.] People react violently to her iconoclastic statements. She's entirely against any religion. She thinks that strong, utterly selfish people should prevail, and that, in reality, two percent of the population is supporting the other ninety-eight percent. She says, "That's all wrong. The two percent should really be the gods instead of being reviled by the people they are supporting. Charity and all of this public welfare is the bunk." Atlas Shrugged is a story about capitalists who finally go on strike. They leave the industries to labor and say, "All right, you run them." The natural result, according to Ayn, is that everything goes promptly to hell. There's a lot in what she says.

Ayn believed that the critics were out to get her, and they really did tear her books apart. She wanted me to have reviewers fired or go to the Times and complain about them. I said, "I can't. If they gave your book to another critic, you'd get the same kind of review, Ayn. Whether you like it or not, most people don't agree with your ideas and it's your ideas they're attacking."

Anyway, she began doing a series of articles for a magazine she and one of her disciples publish--The Objectivist. Ayn collected them to be done in book form, and I said we were happy to have a new book by her, but when somebody at Random House read the manuscript--which I cerainly wasn't going to do--and found that one of the essays likened John F. Kennedy to Hitler, saying that their speeches and objectives were basically the same, I read the piece and absolutely hit the roof. I called her and said we were not going to publish any book that claimed Hitler and Jack Kennedy were alike. Ayn charged in and reminded me that I had said when she came to us that we would publish anything she wrote. I reminded her that I had said fiction. I said, "You can say anything you want in a novel, but this is something I didn't foresee. All we ask is that you leave this one essay out."

Ayn was enraged. But as I said, arguing with her was like running your head against a stone wall. [....]

At any rate, during our final meeting about the book of essays, she wouldn't stop haranguing. I kept telling her, "Ayn, I've got to go home." (It was about six o'clock and Phyllis and I were giving a dinner party that night.) As we left the building Ayn was still repeating that I had promised her I wouldn't ever change her copy. I finally got into a taxicab, and she was still standing there on the sidewalk, talking. Finally she gave her ultimatum, "You're going to print every word I've written--or I won't let you publish the book." I said, "That's that. Get yourself another publisher." I was adamant about it. Imagine putting our imprint on such a book! Well, some other publisher took it. I must say, I don't think anybody ever read those essays. I never heard one word of criticism, and I never even saw a review of the book. When Kennedy was assassinated that fall, I wrote Ayn to ask if she didn't agree now that she was wrong. She didn't agree at all. She said the assassination had nothing to do with what she had to say. It didn't change her opinion one iota.

.

___

Edited February 22, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Anyone who's an admirer of Rand and takes his description of her "sycophants" at face value might be rendered hesitant by reading his full remarks.

Ellen,

This can't be what it sounds like (something like one of the accusatory themes from PARC and alleged reasons it needed to be written to save Rand's honor), so I need to ask. What do you mean by that? It doesn't make any sense to me. I don't know of anyone on OL, or who reads OL (except for a few PARC supporters) who takes any description of Rand at face value, regardless of the source. On the contrary, I see a great deal of intelligence and independent thinking floating around.

But rather than speculate, I prefer to await clarification (if you don't mind).

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Anyone who's an admirer of Rand and takes his description of her "sycophants" at face value might be rendered hesitant by reading his full remarks.

[....] I need to ask. What do you mean by that? It doesn't make any sense to me. I don't know of anyone on OL, or who reads OL (except for a few PARC supporters) who takes any description of Rand at face value, regardless of the source. [....]

But rather than speculate, I prefer to await clarification (if you don't mind).

Michael,

Who do you think you're fooling?

You signed on to Bennett Cerf's description, which you quoted here:

Ayn Rand was a remarkable woman, but in my opinion she was not helped by her sycophants. She’s like a movie queen with her retinue, or a prize-fight champion who’s followed by a bunch of hangers-on, or a big crooner and his worshipers. They all come to need this adulation. These people tell her she’s a genius and agree with everything she says and she grows more opinionated as she goes along.

Upon my disagreeing both with the image of Rand and the description of the "Collective" as "sycophants," you re-endorsed the agreement -- though conflating it with remarks by Rothbard and others, from which it differs. See. And upon my further expectation that Barbara might not be pleased by your ready acceptance of the description of her -- she, after all, was one of the referenced people -- as a "sycophant," you stuck by the description. See.

I think that if you buy Cerf's paragraph about AR vis-a-vis her close associates (the "Collective") of the time, you aren't paying attention. The image he presents is out-of-whack, even in the light of the rest of what he says.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

Who do I think I am fooling? Why, no one. It never crossed my mind to fool anyone.

Once again, are we on the same planet? Who are you talking to and what are you talking about?

I think I detect the all-or-nothing mentality in your arguments all of a sudden. To wit, if someone agrees that Bennett Cerf's account was accurate, this means that Rand did not have other facets. She was only an all-or-nothing caricature limited to that paragrah. Thus she needs defending.

This is the primary error in PARC and it is weird seeing it come from you. You used to be good at reasoning and context. What happened?

For the record, I don't think Bennett Cerf was lying in his memoirs and I don't see how he could be mistaken about something like seeing Rand constantly surrounded by sycophants (his word). You say he was wrong, but I just can't see how he could be wrong without lying about his experiences with Rand. So I repeat. I don't think he was wrong. I think he was a great and serious man.

In fact, if I had to choose blind between the impressions of Bennett Cerf, who knew Rand professionally over years and published Atlas Shrugged, and those of you, who knew her only at a distance, I would go with his impressions. Hands down. No contest. But I don't have to choose blind so I go with both (to differing degrees). And I add the impressions of a whole lot of other people. And I throw in my own experience to boot. Barbara's account looms large in my evaluation, as it should. After all, she knew the woman intimately for close to two decades, shared a husband with her and wrote her biography. But after all that, I do my own thinking and come to my own conclusions.

(This ain't rocket science. However, with this competitive rhetorical weirdness out of left field you dish out at times—some call it BS—I feel it necessary to be master of the obvious and explain what a child should know.)

Notice that Cerf did not limit his impressions of Rand to one paragraph, especially since you quoted the other parts. I find it totally odd that you think a reader like me should be limited to that one paragraph for my own impressions.

Sometimes I just don't get you.

Michael

[Neil Parille]

Michael,

A couple points:

1. Ellen's point about Cerf's recollection that Rand had a movie star like retinue seems good. I'm not aware of anyone describing Rand that way. (Although, there are very few publicly available descriptions of Rand by non-Objectivists, best I can tell.)

2. I imagine that to an outsider, Rand's interaction with the Collective or other supporters probably looked like an exercise in mutual flattery and sycophancy.