Ayn Rand and the World She Made

[Selene]

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]

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]

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.

[Chris Grieb]

I hate to think of Ayn Rand being in the same company as our most famous UFO sighter Jimmy Carter.

[Selene]

I hate to think of Ayn Rand being in the same company as our most famous UFO sighter Jimmy Carter.

Let's not forget the sitting Congressman from Ohio, with the tall hot redhead wife, the inestimable Dennis Kucinich...you remember him, he had the City he was Mayor of bankrupt.

Dennis Kucinich is a very scrappy little (5'7") guy with a tough background. As a kid, his parents moved constantly, cramming 7 kids into 2 bedroom apartments or even, at times, a car parked outside the steel mill where his dad worked. He was elected as the nation's youngest mayor (of Cleveland) in 1977, and was known mostly for scrapping with established politicians, banks and just about everybody else. *

*full article http://www.realchange.org/kucinich.htm

Adam

[Reidy]

It's true. The craft landed in her much-photographed semicircular terrace and out stepped Peikoff, Binswanger, Schwartz, Valliant and Hsieh. Then, as mysteriously as it had come, it teleported off to New Zealand.

[Dragonfly]

Another interesting fact from the book: the often published story that twelve publishers had rejected The Fountainhead is simply not true. In one case the publisher didn't agree with her financial demands, in another case the contract was annulled while she failed twice to meet the deadline and in a few cases the publishers hadn't received any text of the book, only an outline, so this story of twelve rejections is definitely an exaggeration. But of course it sounds good, and is therefore endlessly repeated.

[Jerry Biggers]

It's true. The craft landed in her much-photographed semicircular terrace and out stepped Peikoff, Binswanger, Schwartz, Valliant and Hsieh. Then, as mysteriously as it had come, it teleported off to New Zealand.

This would definitely involve a warp in the "space/time continuum."

And Ayn, finding-out just who has claimed squatting rights (rites?) on her philosophy, would either burn her as-yet unpublished works, or order these aliens back onto their ship with flight destination set for a planet with a climate more suited to their disposition (i.e., Venus). http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/venus_worldbook.html

Edited November 16, 2009 by Jerry Biggers

[Xray]

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."

But from understanding Ayn Rand it does not necessarily follow that one has to believe in her philosophy.

[Robert Campbell]

Xray,

I don't know where all the points of disagreement are, but Anne Heller says she is not a believer in Ayn Rand's philosophy.

It's Ayn Rand as a believable person—or a believable cultural phenomenon—that Ms. Heller seems to be referring to in that remark.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Dragonfly,

jennifer Burns' book provides the same basic information about the publication history of The Fountainhead, just not in nearly so much detail as Anne Heller's.

It's just as clear from Dr. Burns' account that "12 publishers turned the book down" is at best an exaggeration. She just doesn't draw explicit attention to the story's role in Randian mythmaking.

Robert Campbell

[Alfonso Jones]

Another interesting fact from the book: the often published story that twelve publishers had rejected The Fountainhead is simply not true. In one case the publisher didn't agree with her financial demands, in another case the contract was annulled while she failed twice to meet the deadline and in a few cases the publishers hadn't received any text of the book, only an outline, so this story of twelve rejections is definitely an exaggeration. But of course it sounds good, and is therefore endlessly repeated.

Well, let's look at this:

1) If a publisher doesn't agree with the financial demands and then, after submission of whatever (manuscript, outline, some chapters, some of the above...) doesn't do a contract, they have rejected.

2) My experience with book publishing is that to miss a deadline is not that rare a thing. When it happens, the publisher usually wants to know HOW FAR ALONG ARE YOU and to see a current version so they can assess progress. Rand wouldn't be the only author to be late on a couple of deadlines on a major novel. Not all authors were like Erle Stanley Gardner, who was evidently a writing machine. Now, the experience with Knopf was to miss the deadline, and a year extension, by Heller's account. (Page 122 of Heller)

3) Rejecting a novel based on receiving an outline and a few chapters is still rejecting the novel. (Heller, page 140-141 mentions (not all by name) 8 publishers, including Simon & Schuster; Harcourt Brace; Dodd, Mead; and Doubleday getting this - outline plus a few chapters.)

So what's the count? Something like 9 rejections of the novel in partial manuscript form, with some or many chapters provided as part of the submission, plus one in outline form, one after deadline misses, and one due to disagreement on the finances? Would it be preferable for Rand to outline the precise history of each REJECTION OF THE NOVEL instead of just giving a count? She could hardly do that while standing on one foot. What she did - - hardly a "tall tale." Perhaps you could call it her spin on the saga of the novel's search for a publisher...

I think Rand got the essence of it correct. Could she have expanded on it by giving the precise details of each rejection - certainly. Would you want to be chatting with someone who went into that sort of obsessive detail, and for what possible reason? I don't see where she was really misleading people in saying "12 rejections." Heller doesn't seem to reject the count. She seems to be documenting just that some of the publishers had REASONS for the rejection (dealines missed or disagreement about financials) rather than the rejection being based only and explicitly on the philosophical content of the book. I'm not certain Rand ever maintained that all the rejections were about the philosophy of the book, either.

Bill P

[Dragonfly]

1) If a publisher doesn't agree with the financial demands and then, after submission of whatever (manuscript, outline, some chapters, some of the above...) doesn't do a contract, they have rejected.

That's a legalistic argument. When I read that a book is rejected by 12 publishers, I assume that none of these publishers wanted to publish the book, regardless of financial terms, and I think that would be the reaction of most readers. Suppose an unknown writer offers a manuscript to 20 different publishers and asks a million dollars in advance. When that writer then claims that his book was rejected by 20 publishers, he may be right in a legal sense, but if he doesn't mention that the publishers didn't agree with his financial demands he is in fact dishonest. It's an example of lying by omission. It suggests that those publishers didn't see the qualities of the book, when it was in fact the financial demands made any publication impossible.

2) My experience with book publishing is that to miss a deadline is not that rare a thing. When it happens, the publisher usually wants to know HOW FAR ALONG ARE YOU and to see a current version so they can assess progress. Rand wouldn't be the only author to be late on a couple of deadlines on a major novel. Not all authors were like Erle Stanley Gardner, who was evidently a writing machine. Now, the experience with Knopf was to miss the deadline, and a year extension, by Heller's account. (Page 122 of Heller)

Indeed, she had already missed a deadline, got a year extension, missed that deadline again and she couldn't say with certainty when she would finish (it turned out that she needed 2 more years to finish the book). By mutual assent, then her contract with the publisher was canceled. To claim then afterwards that the publisher rejected her book is in my book a bald-faced lie.

3) Rejecting a novel based on receiving an outline and a few chapters is still rejecting the novel. (Heller, page 140-141 mentions (not all by name) 8 publishers, including Simon & Schuster; Harcourt Brace; Dodd, Mead; and Doubleday getting this - outline plus a few chapters.)

Again a legalistic argument. According to Heller she sent some incomplete outlines and not the text. It's hardly surprising that publishers are not willing to enter a contract with an (at the time) unknown writer on such meager evidence. To call that "rejecting the book" (what book? there was merely an incomplete outline and no text at all!) is a chutzpah.

I think Rand got the essence of it correct. Could she have expanded on it by giving the precise details of each rejection - certainly. Would you want to be chatting with someone who went into that sort of obsessive detail, and for what possible reason? I don't see where she was really misleading people in saying "12 rejections." Heller doesn't seem to reject the count.

It's clear she does. For example she writes:

She included Knopf in her count, although it hadn't rejected the book so much as refused to extend her deadline for a second time.

It seems clear to me that according to Heller Rand should not have included Knopf in her count.

Heller's conclusion is also quite clear in its sarcasm:

Her disciples would accept and repeat the story of the Fountainhead's twelve rejections hundreds of times over the years, both as a symbol of the hardships she had endured at the hands of timid or imperceptive editors and as an implicit compliment to her independent-minded readers.

In other words, that story of twelve rejections is highly misleading, to put it mildly.

[Alfonso Jones]

Dragonfly -

Have you had much involvement in the publication business? The norm is NOT that you take a completed work, every last word done, and shop it around. You shop it around as an outline with some chapters. I have reviewed over 10 book proposals per year for the last 20 years . . . . and very few of them (probably less than 5 total, though I have not kept track of the precise count) have had more than 30% of the book written when I reviewed the proposal.

Perhaps shopping around with a completed work happens more with a first-time novelist or book author (which Rand emphatically was NOT at the time).

Bill P

[Dragonfly]

Have you had much involvement in the publication business? The norm is NOT that you take a completed work, every last word done, and shop it around. You shop it around as an outline with some chapters.

The point is that in this case there were no chapters, only an outline (and an incomplete one at that).

Perhaps shopping around with a completed work happens more with a first-time novelist or book author (which Rand emphatically was NOT at the time).

She was not a first-time novelist, but she was not well-known at the time. We the Living was hardly a success at the time and it's very probable that those publishers didn't know Rand at all (except the one that had published We the Living, that had gone out of print at the time, but that was the one who offered to publish The Fountainhead but didn't accept her financial demands). But as I said earlier, she sent to those publishers only an incomplete outline and no chapter at all. Of course after the publication of The Fountainhead she did become famous, and therefore she had no problems at all in finding a publisher for Atlas Shrugged.

[Alfonso Jones]

Have you had much involvement in the publication business? The norm is NOT that you take a completed work, every last word done, and shop it around. You shop it around as an outline with some chapters.

The point is that in this case there were no chapters, only an outline (and an incomplete one at that).

Perhaps shopping around with a completed work happens more with a first-time novelist or book author (which Rand emphatically was NOT at the time).

She was not a first-time novelist, but she was not well-known at the time. We the Living was hardly a success at the time and it's very probable that those publishers didn't know Rand at all (except the one that had published We the Living, that had gone out of print at the time, but that was the one who offered to publish The Fountainhead but didn't accept her financial demands). But as I said earlier, she sent to those publishers only an incomplete outline and no chapter at all. Of course after the publication of The Fountainhead she did become famous, and therefore she had no problems at all in finding a publisher for Atlas Shrugged.

My point exactly --- that she was not a first-time novelist. There was not as great a need to provide chapters (or even a full manuscript!) as there would be if she had not published before. There is a context for the discussion, which seems to be getting dropped.

I don't have my copies of the two books with me here at work, but I'll try to take a look tonight. I wonder what Heller and Burns indicate they actually know about how much was shopped around. Do they have sources cited who mention?

Bill P

[Robert Campbell]

Bill P,

Of the two authors, Anne Heller gets much further into the details of Rand's negotiations with publishers over The Fountainhead. She cites a ton of sources, though I haven't paid special attention, on this issue, to whom she cited on what.

As a young person naïve to the publishing business, I took the account in "Who Is Ayn Rand?" to mean that Rand sent a partly completed manuscript of the novel to 12 publishers, and all of them flatly rejected it. Of course, a reader who knows something about publishing would have considered some other possibilities, such as submission of an outline, failure to come to terms over an advance, etc. (My experiences with academic publishing have included reviewing outlines plus sample chapters, etc.) Let's just say that the way the story was told, these more sophisticated interpretations were not being invited.

I didn't realize till I read Jennifer Burns' book (which came out before Heller's) that Ayn Rand actually did have a deal with Knopf and it fell through, partly on account of her not holding up her end of it. I sure wouldn't put Knopf on the list of 12 publishers who turned the book down.

Robert C

[9thdoctor]

I just finished the audiobook of the Heller Bio. Here’s some random thoughts and first impressions:

An audiobook naturally lacks an index, is harder to quote and reference, and there are no illustrations. On the plus side it is quicker to consume. Audible.com is a good deal if you go with a membership plan, the Heller book was cheaper this way than buying a hard copy.

The reader is Bernadette Dunne, who’s very good, not too shrill as some female readers are (e.g. Janeane Garafolo the reader of Boomsday by Christopher Buckley, which I haven’t been able to finish ). Her attempts at voice impressions aren’t convincing, but there are only a few instances of that. She pronounces Reisman as “Rice-man”, paean as “pee-on”, and Francon as “Fran-cone”, but these are mere quibbles.

Heller seems intent on deflating the propagandistic elements of AR’s life story: debunking the tale of 12 publisher rejections of The Fountainhead, that “no one helped” her, etc. She generally doesn’t give AR the benefit of the doubt on details of her life story, as Barbara Branden does. She even calls into question the tale of her first meeting with DeMille, turning to (then 8 year old) Fern Brown’s opinion that AR “stalked” DeMille. She harps on AR’s hygiene and housekeeping, to the point of holding her up to scorn. Even her cat Frisco is demoted from an adorable humanizing element in her life, whose paw AR held as he was dying, to merely a source of stench and upholstery damage. Until this Bio, I’ve never associated AR with smells, Heller succeeds in activating that sense.

She doesn’t use an omniscient nararator voice to describe AR’s mental and emotional inner workings, as Barbara Branden often does in PAR. Her approach is much more journalistic, this is not a “non-fiction novel”. She tries to integrate the philosophy into the story, though not nearly as well as BB does. Heller often takes opportunities to snipe at AR for hypocrisy, for example suggesting that her lying to a border officer in Lithuania contradicts her later instruction never to fake reality, though she lets AR off the hook in this case. I didn’t think the example helped to communicate philosophical principles, and ultimately came across as a mere cheap shot.

I don’t recall hearing before that AR had had an abortion, Heller’s evidence seems to be a loan from Frank’s family to pay for it. AR’s heated view on this subject long made me wonder if it had a biographical root.

AR’s use of prescription amphetamines has been disclosed before, what further evidence does Heller have besides Isabel Paterson’s letters to suggest she abused them? Messy handwriting in The Fountainhead draft, not very convincing. Every review harps on this subject, it seems out of proportion. An impression I have of Paterson is that she was out to score points, to maintain her mentor status, and here was an easy issue to push, like smoking could have been.

Heller writes that John Hospers stayed the night with AR before going to meet a publisher with his first book. His first book was published in the ‘40’s; Introduction to Philosophical Analysis was (I believe) his first, published long before he met AR.

The evaluations of TheBrandens TM and Leonard Peikoff I infer from Heller are somewhere between those in Passion of Ayn Rand and Judgement Day. I felt that the Nathaniel Branden of the 1960’s wasn’t vilified as harshly as in JD, but this is ultimately a function of emphasis, he has less stage time here. Barbara Branden is trapped by forces she can’t control, as in PAR, and the promiscuous vixen implied in JD is absent. In JD, NB heaps scorn on Peikoff, PAR is comparatively gentle, primarily raising the key question of Peikoff’s integrity in the ‘68 split and aftermath. Heller targets him, devoting space to his failed career in academia, and depicting him as a cultist who denied her access to Rand’s papers. Note: I haven’t read PAR or JD in over 10 years, though I pulled out PAR recently to look up the Nietzchse material for a post on this thread, then skimmed it a bit. So that’s fair warning that my impressions of both books are dated. No, I haven’t read PARC.

Altogether I give the Heller Bio thumbs up. It was engaging, and it provided plenty of new disclosures to chew on . However, if you need to maintain illusions of an unblemished heroine, it’s not for you.

[Alfonso Jones]

Bill P,

Of the two authors, Anne Heller gets much further into the details of Rand's negotiations with publishers over The Fountainhead. She cites a ton of sources, though I haven't paid special attention, on this issue, to whom she cited on what.

As a young person naïve to the publishing business, I took the account in "Who Is Ayn Rand?" to mean that Rand sent a partly completed manuscript of the novel to 12 publishers, and all of them flatly rejected. Of course, a reader who knows something about publishing would have considered some other possibilities, such as submission of an outline, failure to come to terms over an advance, etc. (My experiences with academic publishing have included reviewing outlines plus sample chapters, etc.) Let's just say that the way the story was told, these more sophisticated interpretations were not being invited.

I didn't realize till I read Jennifer Burns' book (which came out before Heller's) that Ayn Rand actually did have a deal with Knopf and it fell through, partly on account of her not holding up her end of it. I sure wouldn't put Knopf on the list of 12 publishers who turned the book down.

Robert C

Agreed - and looking at the account in Heller right now.

It looks to me, though, that the exaggeration by Rand (and there is clearly some exaggeration) is that of including Knopf. All the other turndowns were real. To turn down an outline of a book (a proposal) is to turn it down. To turn down an outline plus a few chapters is to turn down the book. To not recognize this is to betray an ignorance of the publication process. So Rand's exaggeration consisted, basically, of including one company (Knopf) which accepted the book, but then rejected it when Rand failed twice on the deadline.

I have yet to see what I would consider a convincing list of the publishers to which the book was submitted (Yes, I've read both of the current bios, the Passion of Ayn Rand, both the NB memoirs, the Britting micro-biography, etc...). Anyone see such a comprehensive list? With any documentation? Rejection letters? Names of 12 publishers given by Rand? Something more than what I find in Heller?

Bill P

[Xray]

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.

I suppose "seeing" those UFOs consoled Rand given the 'dark future' of the sun being exhausted one day.

Reminds me of the dialogue between Dagny and Hank in AS:

D: "I keep thinking about what they told us in school about the sun losing energy, growing colder each year. I remember wondering then what it would be like in the last days of the world. It would be ... like this. Growing colder and things stopping."

H: "I never believed that story. By the time the sun was exhausted men would find a substitute".

D: "You did? I thought that too".

Edited November 20, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

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.

I suppose "seeing" those UFOs consoled Rand given the 'dark future' of the sun being exhausted one day.

Reminds me of the dialogue between Dagny and Hank in AS:

D: "I keep thinking about what they told us in school about the sun losing energy, growing colder each year. I remember wondering then what it would be like in the last days of the world. It would be ... like this. Growing colder and things stopping."

H: "I never believed that story. By the time the sun was exhausted men would find a substitute".

D: "You did? I thought that too".

Ms. Xray:

Humor is way above your pay grade.

So here you repeat the same conversation between Dagny and Francisco that you incorrectly argued about ad infinitim on a prior thread. It would appear to me that you are attempting to entrap some newcomer to your spiderweb of Ayn is the Antichrist pap. Since it looks like your audience is going to be like the Agatha Christie story, And Then There Were None****

Adam

**** And Then There Were None is a detective fiction novel by Agatha Christie, first published in the United Kingdom by the Collins Crime Club on 6 November 1939^[1] under the title Ten Little Niggers^[2][3] and in the United States by Dodd, Mead and Company in January 1940 under the title And Then There Were None.^[4]

[^^^^talk about pre-pc]!!!!

[Robert Campbell]

Bill P,

The place to find a more detailed rundown of the publishers that Rand submitted The Fountainhead to is Bob Mayhew's edited volume.

Robert C

[Robert Campbell]

Adam,

Years ago, I read that Agatha Christie novel in a British paperback.

Whoa!

I was only familiar with the American version of that children's song, "Ten Little Indians," which was already becoming politically incorrect.

Robert Campbell