Ayn Rand and the World She Made

[Philip Coates]

> it is curious that Republicans (and Reagan, especially) have won so many state and national elections, since the lib intellectuals despise and scorn Republicans and conservatives. So, if they completely dominated the political culture, we would have had practically zero elected Republicans. [Jerry]

The red states tend to be the ones where the liberal press and media and academics have less sway. Also, the Republicans are pussy-whipped, cowed, timid products of that same intellectual dominance. They "me to" whatever the intellectuals and their college professors have repeated to them for enough years, only dragging their feet a few steps behind, like ultimately obedient but superficially rebellious children. And they constantly give ground...well, yes, we have to accept social security...then medicare..then prescription drugs. And now, they won't oppose Obamacare, they just want to insert some amendments. And postpone the day when the public option will be added.

Anyone who boldly challenges cowardly Republicanism - like Limbaugh or Beck or Cheney or Palin - is immediately smeared and has their character assassinated [[ in the same way that some posters on olists imitate and operate in their ridiculously tiny little spheres - the savage, belittling, value-attacking culture rubs off - on those who never fully understood Objectivism or who think it's as easy as falling off a log or or who have never fully integrated the high and elevated standard of behavior, of emotional and psychological integration, of productiveness, and of writing and speaking that being a "man of reason" requires.]]

> The liberal intellectual domination in the book publishing field is so overwhelming, that "The Death of Conservatism," by Sam Tannenhaus (editor of The New York Times Book Review), a longish article in The New Republic, has been quickly and pretentiously transformed into a hardback book (of around 50 or so pages!). I found it very prominently displayed in the local mass market book store chain, Borders.

I seem to recall whole shelves of glossy books by and about a smiling and photogenic Obama in the months leading up to the election. Not one title, but two or three. Big, heroic photographs, excellent production values, very slick. No comparable space for anything called "John McCain, War Hero".

> I have found that many chain book store managers are frustrated left wing intellectuals. Given their beliefs I'm surprised that you can even find Rand or any other right wing thinker. [Chris]

They can't get away with refusing to carry an enormously popular author. Too blatant. Too obvious.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Philip Coates

[9thdoctor]

Witness the latest mugging: http://www.slate.com/id/2233966/

The figure Ayn Rand most resembles in American life is L. Ron Hubbard, another crazed, pitiable charlatan who used trashy potboilers to whip up a cult. Unfortunately, Rand's cult isn't confined to Tom Cruise and a rash of Hollywood dimwits. No, its ideas and its impulses have, by drilling into the basest human instincts, captured one of America's major political parties.

I still stand by my (premature) comment that it doesn’t get worse than the GQ article.

[Brant Gaede]

Witness the latest mugging: http://www.slate.com/id/2233966/

The figure Ayn Rand most resembles in American life is L. Ron Hubbard, another crazed, pitiable charlatan who used trashy potboilers to whip up a cult. Unfortunately, Rand's cult isn't confined to Tom Cruise and a rash of Hollywood dimwits. No, its ideas and its impulses have, by drilling into the basest human instincts, captured one of America's major political parties.

I still stand by my (premature) comment that it doesn't get worse than the GQ article.

"Worse" is ignoring. The GQ review only reflects Rand's terrific power and influence in its scared shitless panic from someone obviously intimately fimaliar with her and Objectivism that way albeit superficially overall.

There is lirttle bad publicity unless your name is Fatty Arbuckle.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

L. Ron Hubbard pulled off one of the biggest cons of the last century by starting a religion.

And when Scientologists fell out of favor with Mr. Hubbard and his preteen myrmidons they could end up doing day after day of punishment drills, or imprisoned.

I think what Mr. Hari is worried about is potential influence on electoral politics.

Lafayette Ronald Hubbard never had much of that.

Robert Campbell

[Jerry Biggers]

L. Ron Hubbard pulled off one of the biggest cons of the last century by starting a religion.

And when Scientologists fell out of his favor with Mr. Hubbard and his preteen myrmidons they could end up doing endless punishment drills, or imprisoned.

I think what Mr. Hari is worried about is potential influence on electoral politics.

Lafayette Ronald Hubbard never had much of that.

Robert Campbell

Worrying about what is said about Rand in Slate, is like worrying about similar muggings in The New Republic, The New York Times Book Review, New York, GQ, etc. - these rags are written for the already-converted leftists who by and large made their choices in college and have ossified since. Nothing will convince them - they are mainly just reassuring their old prejudices, talking to themselves..

Last week, I was more concerned about these attacks, until I realized that nothing has changed. Rand has had almost universally bad press since at least 1957. And yet, her books (and books about her) continue to sell, despite the professional critics.(Yeah, I already "knew" that, but I was temporarily "in denial.")

I think what is really bothering these critics, is that despite their onslaught, nobody seem to be listening to them (except the already converted liberal zealots). That's what is bugging them: "Why don't people listen to us?"

By the way, most of these arguments are "conveniently" collected in Jeff Walker's The Ayn Rand Cult. A great "crib sheet" for the Rand hater. The attempted comparison of Rand to Hubbard, is also presented there. None of this stuff is new.

As I mentioned in another thread in OL, those who want to compare and contrast L. Ron with Rand, read The Bare-Faced Messiah. An excellent book on Hubbard. Then compare to any of the bios on Rand. Sorry, libs: no similarity in philosophy or character between these two.

Edited November 3, 2009 by Jerry Biggers

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Last week, I was more concerned about these attacks, until I realized that nothing has changed. Rand has had almost universally bad press since at least 1957. And yet, her books (and books about her) continue to sell, despite the professional critics.(Yeah, I already "knew" that, but I was temporarily "in denial.")

I think what is really bothering these critics, is that despite their onslaught, nobody seem to be listening to them (except the already converted liberal zealots). That's what is bugging them: "Why don't people listen to us?"

Jerry,

This is exactly my point here, although my view is broader and includes those who think such criticism is keeping Rand's ideas from spreading.

This criticism actually does exist and it is often produced by mainstream people, so that fact cannot be denied. But this stuff only preaches to the choir (as does the "defense" by the critics of the critics). The real effect (the growth of people interested in Rand's ideas) goes merrily on its merry way without even a glitch from this criticism and defense game.

More and more people are buying and reading Rand's works every day that passes. Nothing the critics or defenders say or do make one whit of difference to that growth. That's reality. All the rest impact-wise is nothing but people flattering themselves and making clique wars.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

"Worse" is ignoring. The GQ review only reflects Rand's terrific power and influence in its scared shitless panic from someone obviously intimately fimaliar with her and Objectivism that way albeit superficially overall.

In the first sentence did you mean “irrelevant”? I don’t understand “ignoring”, hope you didn't mean ignorant! Anyway, I wasn’t trying to spark debate about which shit-sandwich tasted worse. Last thing I want to do is reread these articles, and I’d have to in order to defend my (admittedly less than rigorous) assertion.

[Selene]

Phil:

Out of curiosity, why would you cede the semantic to them as to "intellectuals"?

"tend to be the professional intellectuals."

I was always attracted to the New Intellectual jargon because it equalized the semantic.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

"Worse" is ignoring. The GQ review only reflects Rand's terrific power and influence in its scared shitless panic from someone obviously intimately fimaliar with her and Objectivism that way albeit superficially overall.

In the first sentence did you mean "irrelevant"? I don't understand "ignoring", hope you didn't mean ignorant! Anyway, I wasn't trying to spark debate about which shit-sandwich tasted worse. Last thing I want to do is reread these articles, and I'd have to in order to defend my (admittedly less than rigorous) assertion.

I meant as in no review at all.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Heller's book just came. I went to the pics. Some new to me. I can tell her desk was all wrong for her for writing. It's too high and the top should be tilted a little toward her. I can understand her having physical tension problems from writing.

The photo in front of the NY stock exchange was probably taken in 63 or 64, not 67. It's the same photo on early copies of TVOS published in 1964, I think. Also, I can ID the cars in the foreground as a 58 Olds, a 63 or 64 Dodge Dart and an early 60s Pontiac in all its bloated glory.

--Brant

[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.

Edited November 4, 2009 by Jerry Biggers

[Robert Campbell]

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

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?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/magazine/20091101/the-real-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]

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]

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

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?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]

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