Nathaniel Branden: "The Vision of Ayn Rand"

[kiaer.ts]

With all the news this year about Ayn Rand — the record-smashing sales of her decades-old novels, her name on placards at the Tea Party protests, the publication of her collected speeches and interviews, and not just one but <i>two</i> mainstream biographies — perhaps the most exciting is the publication of <i>this</i> book, subtitled <i>The Basic Principles of Objectivism</i>, and containing the lecture series Rand authorized Nathaniel Branden to disseminate to teach her philosophy.

While the two recent Rand biographies describe her from an outside viewpoint — her place on the American right and among libertarians worldwide, the popularity of her fiction, and the extreme reactions, positive and negative, she provokes in readers — neither memoir actually delves into the details and the essence of her philosophical system. Yes, you may know that she stood for reality, reason, enlightened self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. But if you don't know what she meant by the "fallacy of the stolen concept," or if you can't explain the meta-ethical "indestructible robot" thought-experiment on which she grounds her argument for the secular objectivity of ethical truths then you do not understand her philosophy. Christopher Hitchens holds that you cannot refute an argument which you have not stated in its own strongest form. Nathaniel Branden says, "One does not know a philosophy if ones knows merely its conclusions, but not the reasoning that led to them." Whether you want to attack or defend or merely learn Ayn Rand's philosophy, this book will provide you with all the essential points upon which to base your judgments and enough concrete examples to make sure your understanding is well grounded.

Yet, for all its value, the book does have its complications. As printed, the work is a faithful transcription of the actual taped lecture series distributed with Rand's express approval as it was in the late 1960's. Unmodified, its contemporary cultural references are dated. That it is a spoken rather than a strictly scripted lecture is evident from the occasional run-on sentence and awkward or inappropriate word choice. The trade off, though, is that we know we have an accurate historical document. This is not a bowdlerized text such as we have in so many of Ayn Rand's posthumously published works, like her <i>Journals</i>, in which "nearly every page," says biographer Jennifer Burns, shows "an unacknowledged change" by the editor.

There are criticisms to be made. As with most early Objectivst works, the book suffers from its overuse of Rand's novels as source material. As one might expect from a raw transcript of spoken lectures it lacks citations and scholarly references. It suffers from a stilted overuse of Objectivist jargon such as "mystics" and "looters." And much of the work overlaps with subsequently published material. There has been a troubling history among supposedly "facts-first" Objectivists of rewriting history and rewriting the essays of former associates of Rand who were at some point expelled from her orbit or that of her heir, Leonard Peikoff. Publication of this work shows just how derivative and secondhand is Peikoff's own manual, which was written to supersede it in the catalog once, after the end of their affair, Branden was "permanently repudiated" by Rand. But interest in this work will not at all be limited to historians. There are more than enough tidbits like Nathaniel Branden's discussion of perceptual form in connection with the validity of sense-perception (expanded at length in David Kelley's <i>Evidence of the Senses</i>) and Barbara Branden's lucid examples of just what does and does not amount to actual thought in her lecture on efficient thinking to make this book of interest to all readers, no matter what their familiarity with philosophy in general or Objectivism in particular.

As for the format of the book, it consists of a brief dramatic introduction by Barbara Branden which quotes both Rand and the Rand-scholar Chris Matthew Sciabarra as to the canonicity of the work. Roger Bissell, who spearheaded the project and Roger Campbell and Patrecia and Jerry Biggers who helped Bissell transcribe the taped lectures are thanked in a brief acknowledgment. Then the main text of the work fills 527 pages in 20 chapters. This is followed by a revised reprint of Nathaniel Branden's 1984 apologia, <i>The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand</i>. The book ends with indices of terms and names comprising 31 pages. The table of contents mirrors the chapter heads (the chapters have no breaks for subsections) as follows:

<small>

1. The Role of Philosophy. What is philosophy?—The historical role of reason—The bankruptcy of today’s culture—Objectivism—Objectivism vs. subjectivism.

2. What is Reason? The process of abstraction and concept-formation—The subconscious—Reason and emotions.

3. Logic and Mysticism. Identity and causality—The validity of the senses—Reason vs. mysticism.

4. The Concept of God. Is the concept meaningful? —Are the arguments for the existence of God logically defensible? —The destructiveness of the concept of God.

5. Free Will. The meaning and nature of volition—The fallacy of psychological determinism—Free will as the choice to think or not to think.

6. Efficient Thinking. The nature of clear thinking—Pseudo-thinking—The nature of definitions—Common thinking errors. Guest lecture by Barbara Branden

7. Self-Esteem. Why self-esteem is man’s deepest psychological need—The consequences of the failure to achieve self-esteem.

8. The Psychology of Dependence. The independent mind vs. the “socialized mind”—Social Metaphysics—The revolt against the responsibility of a volitional consciousness.

9. The Objectivist Ethics. Foundation of the Objectivist ethics—Man’s life as the standard of value—Rationality as the foremost virtue—Happiness as the moral goal of life.

10. Reason and Virtue. Independence, honesty, integrity, productiveness—Their relation to survival and mental health.

11. Justice vs. Mercy. The nature of justice—The importance of passing moral judgments—The virtue of pride.

12. The Evil of Self-Sacrifice. The ethics of altruism—Altruism as anti-man and anti-life.

13. Government and the Individual. The principles of a proper political system—Individual rights—Freedom vs. compulsion.

14. The Economics of a Free Society. Basic principles of exchange—Division of labor--The mechanism of a free market—Profits and wealth—”The pyramid of ability.”

15. Common Fallacies About Capitalism. Monopolies—depressions—labor unions—inherited wealth.

16. The Psychology of Sex. A person’s sexual choices as the expression of his deepest values—Sex and self-esteem.

17. Romanticism, Naturalism and the Novels of Ayn Rand, Part I. Naturalism and fatalism—Romanticism and free will—The literary method of Ayn Rand.

18. Romanticism, Naturalism and the Novels of Ayn Rand, Part II.

19. The Nature of Evil. Why evil is impotent—What makes the “victory” of evil possible—”The sanction of the victim.”

20. The Benevolent Sense of Life. Why many human beings repress and drive underground, not the worst within them, but the best—A benevolent vs. malevolent sense of life.

</small>

As it stands, this work is one that will have an immediate place in the Objectivist canon. Yet I can't help but express my hope that it undergoes a second edition while Nathaniel Branden is still with us. The layout itself is uninspired. Other than paragraph breaks, the chapters have no substructure. The relatively large print and uninspired typesetting remind you of a pamphlet and make the reading seem more tedious than the fascinating subject matter would suggest. The epilogue, a reprint of what, except for his memoir, is the longest statement of Branden's history with and later opinion of Rand, is oddly out of place. Those who already suspect Branden's motives will not be convinced. Even those who are sympathetic or have no opinion on his break with Rand will find odd such comments as this:

<small>

There are certain difficulties inherent in discussing Rand's philosophy. One is the necessary task of separating her basic ideas from her style of presentation. She could be abrasive; she could make sweeping generalizations that needed explanations that she did not provide; she made very little effort to understand other intellectual contexts and to build bridges from those contexts to hers.

</small>

Haven't we just read 527 pages in that very same style by the master's most apt pupil, Branden himself?

In a second edition, one could hope for a remedy to the layout issues. One could hope to find, rather than a co-opted epilogue, a scholarly prologue that comments on the nature of the text, that remarks how it inspired subsequent Objectivist works that copied or expanded upon it, that describes how the lectures changed over the decade they were offered, and, perhaps, that provides some hints of the corrections that Branden's current epilogue suggests are needed. The text could certainly be carefully referenced and annotated, if not by Branden, then by some scholar he trusts, to provide just those bridges to contexts outside Rand's own that would make this work an undeniable part of the academic mainstream.

Until then this book remains a fascinating and invaluable work, one that ranks no lower in interest and value than Rand's own non-fiction. It is of value not just because it presents the Objectivist stand on so many issues, but because it shows the method of thought that results in those stands. For good or bad it documents Branden's central place in the history of Objectivism. It will appeal equally on their own levels to scholars, critics, Rand aficionados and those simply interested in learning about Objectivism. Rand readers will only wish for more.

[jaybird3rd]

Thanks very much for posting this review. I pre-ordered the book as soon as I learned about it several months ago and finally received it on Thursday the 17th, and as a relative newcomer to the world of Objectivism, I am so glad to have these important lectures in printed form. My criticisms of this first edition are relatively minor, and many of them agree with yours: issues of design and layout, a few typos that survived the editing process, the boldfaced underscores of definitions that were dropped from the index (as was mentioned in another thread), and so forth. But these are truly minor issues, and the book is perfectly enjoyable--and will serve as a valuable point of reference for future works--just as it is. Roger Bissell and his colleagues did an outstanding job of preparing the material for publication, and of persuading Dr. Branden (who seemed to be against the idea just a few years ago) to undertake the project, and I salute them all for their efforts.

One additional issue with the book that I've noticed (and forgive me if this has been pointed out elsewhere) is that there are several inaccuracies in the index. For example, in the index of names, Leonard Peikoff's heading points to page 112, but his name appears only on page 104. Benito Mussolini's heading points to page 334, but his name appears only on page 330. In the index of terms, the heading for "A is A" points first to page 36, but page 36 is blank (between chapters one and two); the term appears on page 28. I haven't looked at enough entries to detect a pattern, but I suspect that the pagination was somehow changed during the printing process, and the index was not updated accordingly. But again, the entries I've checked are only off by a few pages, and the index as it is still makes the book easier to search than it would be without any index at all.

[syrakusos]

... as to the canonicity of the work. Roger Bissell, who spearheaded the project and Roger Campbell and Patrecia and Jerry Biggers who helped Bissell transcribe the taped lectures are thanked in a brief acknowledgment.

This is definitely an important work to be added to the shelf of Objectivist materials. As for its "canonicity" is there a statement as to which lectures these are? The Basic Principles series was delivered often in cycle and recorded on tape. As live presentations, each would be a bit different. It may not be significant, but nonetheless, a point, as JayBird3rd's below.

Then the main text of the work fills 527 pages in 20 chapters. ... In a second edition, one could hope for a remedy to the layout issues.

That is always a problem with books like this. Who is the actual publisher? Large houses often use a small press label when marketing to niches and that can limit the production.

One additional issue with the book that I've noticed (and forgive me if this has been pointed out elsewhere) is that there are several inaccuracies in the index.

It is interesting what gets noticed by whom. Errors are annoying of course. You understand that indexing should be automatic with computerized production, but that old "ought-is" thing can be so troubling. In aviation, the FAA standardized written tests have such errors and the pilot community reports them via boards and blogs such as this. In numismatics, my "Breen's Encyclopedia" has penciled corrections. It is interesting to consider how much more work got done well in days gone by. I believe that mistakes like these would have been less likely.

[kiaer.ts]

Thanks for pointing it out, Jaybird. I too noticed the index problem. Will Durant is mentioned on pages 23 and 66 but the index refers to pages 32 and 73. It looks like there was a repagination after the index was compiled.

[9thdoctor]

Great review Ted. There’s an interesting piece of memorabilia up on Ebay right now:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Ayn-Rand-Signed-8x10-Photo-1952-to-N-Brandens-Mother_W0QQitemZ360218193006QQcmdZViewItemQQptZAntiquarian_Collectible?hash=item53dead6c6e

I don’t know if it’s kosher to post the photo, if not I can take it down later.

[Alfonso Jones]

My copy (paperback) has finally arrived. They report the leather bound version will arrive next week.

Bill P

[Greybird]

Well, that's both a fascinating inscription and one antidote to the Memory Hole, innit?

As for the Branden book, I'd rather shell out for that than for the two new biographies. It's a slice of the tumult of that time and place, as well as documentation of NB's amplifications and glosses on Rand. I've heard the fourth lecture (Jerry Biggers loaned me his LP many years ago), and NB covered huge ground in an effective and compelling way.

It's rare to get the virtues of a spoken exposition on the printed page. As Robert is documenting in "The Rewrite Squad," massaging a transcribed text to within an inch of its life loses clarity, flavor, and even substantive points.

[kiaer.ts]

The biographies are not worth spending good money unless you are rich or must have everything Rand. They add very little to Barbara's book and any regular here will have already learned the new information. Wait for the ppbk or borrow the from the lIbrary. For those who haven't heard NB's lectures the new book is a treat. There is much I would criticize ideologically, but the read is still worth it.

[Alfonso Jones]

The biographies are not worth spending good money unless you are rich or must have everything Rand. They add very little to Barbara's book and any regular here will have already learned the new information. Wait for the ppbk or borrow the from the lIbrary. For those who haven't heard NB's lectures the new book is a treat. There is much I would criticize ideologically, but the read is still worth it.

I disagree re the biographies. Both have much to offer. They in fact add much. Barbara Branden has acknowledged as much on this forum, wrt the Heller book.

YOu can get either one for well under USD $20 if you shop carefully.

Bill P

[kiaer.ts]

They are not bad books. Heller adds some of interest about Russia, a little more about the break. I enjoyed reading her on the six hour train trips coming and going to my sister's over Thanksgiving. Basically a chapter's worth of new information. I have only read half way thru Burns. Like I said, at ppbk prices (i.e., "well under $20") they are worth it. Except for information not available to her BB's book tells you what you need to know. Neither Burns nor Heller gets the philosophy, however, and because of that they conflate their criticisms of Rand the person with Objectivism the philosophy. Heller said no one could really live according to Rand's philosophy, but what does she view as essential to that? Mythologizing oneself? Never having to forgive? Always passing moral judgment and breaking with people over single events rather than investing in relationships? Heller can't properly make that judgment because she doesn't understand the epistemological essence of Rand's method and the radical nature of her validation of the objectivity of values. The philosophy is self-correcting, no matter what Rand's personal excesses.

It's quite proper for BB to praise the books. She knows they are largely accurate and not the intentional hatchet jobs that some would suggest. BB went thru the same crap from the same people that are now attacking them. Of course she is sympathetic. The question for the average reader who has already read BB is, is the chapter worth of new information worth the cost of an entire book? Each of us can judge for himself.

Edited December 23, 2009 by Ted Keer

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Keer,

You are free to post on this site and present your work to the audience here.

I do register that your post before this review (at the end of October) started and ended as follows:

Michael, you are a hypocrite and a creep. You posture about civility, and wallow in the gutter. Your pathology is exactly the same as that of Lindsay Perigo's, the name calling, the he said she said, the constant obsession not with reality, but with the opinions of others.

. . .

You are a creep, an embarrassment, and a fool.

Please note that I deleted that.

You did not.

Nor did you try to fix any fallout from it before publishing your review here. Since you did not see fit to address it, I will.

Please note that I do not subscribe to sanction of the victim as a moral principle.

In my mind, it is inconceivable for me to call someone names like that on that person's site, then show up later presenting my work to him and his audience as if nothing happened. Apparently it is normal for you.

I will not tell you how to structure your normative thinking, but I do consider that to be an act of bad character. In fact, it is one more proof to me that simply knowing some things about Objectivism does not really impact a person's character at all. Deciding to own a good character is a choice he has to make on his own ability and desire.

And, since I let this first one slide, here is your only warning. If you repeat this kind of behavior towards me (or Kat) here on OL, that utterance will be deleted and your future posts on OL will be screened. If you feel compelled to express yourself like that, I suggest you do it at places where such behavior is accepted and applauded.

As for the rest, within the bounds of OL's flexible civility, feel free to enjoy the site and discussions.

Michael

[tjohnson]

The philosophy is self-correcting, no matter what Rand's personal excesses.

Hmmm...sounds like "do as I say, not as I do"

[Robert Campbell]

Ted K,

I think there is a good deal more than a chapter's worth of new material about Ayn Rand's life—in both the Burns and Heller books.

Jennifer Burns' book has much more about her interactions with a number of "right-wing" political thinkers and activists. If you had read Brian Doherty's Radicals for Capitalism, and Justin Raimondo's biography of Murray Rothbard, and Stephen Cox's book on Isabel Paterson, you would find some of this material familiar.

Anne Heller's book has much more about her early days in Russia, her first years in Hollywood, and her dealings with the movie business, theatrical productions, and publishers. You would know some of this already had you been following the Mayhew volumes about her works of fiction, Chris Sciabarra's articles about her university transcript, and other specialist sources.

I wouldn't take either book as an account of the development of her philosophy, although Burns offers some further insight into changes in her moral and political philosophy in the 1940-1942 period. Burns doesn't try to cover her metaphysics and epistemology. Heller is not interested in the fine details of her philosophy.

A full account of the development of Objectivism requires access to materials such as the 1969-1971 epistemology workshop tapes (in the Archives, but not examined in much depth by Burns) and the old NBI lecture tapes, from all lecturers. Who even knows where the oldest tapes of Nathaniel Branden's course are being kept? Or of Leonard Peikoff's pre-1968 courses? One can only hope they haven't been been allowed to deteriorate, or been discarded. (One of the things that's become painfully apparent as I've followed the Ford Hall Forum recordings is that the tapes of her question and answer periods often have serious technical problems, and some of them have been subjected to amateurish cutting and splicing. Neither the speech nor the Q&A from her 1970 Ford Hall Forum talk is being offered for sale, which makes me wonder about the shape the 1970 recordings are in.)

Robert C

[kiaer.ts]

Ted K,

I think there is a good deal more than a chapter's worth of new material about Ayn Rand's life—in both the Burns and Heller books.

Jennifer Burns' book has much more about her interactions with a number of "right-wing" political thinkers and activists. If you had read Brian Doherty's Radicals for Capitalism, and Justin Raimondo's biography of Murray Rothbard, and Stephen Cox's book on Isabel Paterson, you would find some of this material familiar.

Anne Heller's book has much more about her early days in Russia, her first years in Hollywood, and her dealings with the movie business, theatrical productions, and publishers. You would know some of this already had you been following the Mayhew volumes about her works of fiction, Chris Sciabarra's articles about her university transcript, and other specialist sources.

I wouldn't take either book as an account of the development of her philosophy, although Burns offers some further insight into changes in her moral and political philosophy in the 1940-1942 period. Burns doesn't try to cover her metaphysics and epistemology. Heller is not interested in the fine details of her philosophy.

A full account of the development of Objectivism requires access to materials such as the 1969-1971 epistemology workshop tapes (in the Archives, but not examined in much depth by Burns) and the old NBI lecture tapes, from all lecturers. Who even knows where the oldest tapes of Nathaniel Branden's course are being kept? Or of Leonard Peikoff's pre-1968 courses? One can only hope they haven't been been allowed to deteriorate, or been discarded. (One of the things that's become painfully apparent as I've followed the Ford Hall Forum recordings is that the tapes of her question and answer periods often have serious technical problems, and some of them have been subjected to amateurish cutting and splicing. Neither the speech nor the Q&A from her 1970 Ford Hall Forum talk is being offered for sale, which makes me wonder about the shape the recordings are in.)

Robert C

Well, it's certainly not worth arguing about on what size pinhead the new material could dance. I did read Cox's biography of Paterson, of whose God of the Machine, one of the best monographs of the last century, I am a huge fan. (Neither Raimondo nor Rothbard is my cup of tea.) It is quite evident that Rand got much from Paterson and Paterson seems to have gotten much from the Jesuits. I think it is quite accurate to describe Objectivism as a form of atheistic Scholasticism. I'd love to see a scholarly intellectual biography of Rand. Burns treats of the personal interactions, but I find her analysis of the connections between, Rand, say, and Nietzsche to be preliminary at best. The sad thing is that had Rand not been hostile to crediting and citing other thinkers that work would already be done.

I am curious, if a fairly well versed Objectivist could only afford one of the three books, which would you recommend?

Edited December 23, 2009 by Ted Keer

[Roger Bissell]

Ted K,

I think there is a good deal more than a chapter's worth of new material about Ayn Rand's life—in both the Burns and Heller books.

Jennifer Burns' book has much more about her interactions with a number of "right-wing" political thinkers and activists. If you had read Brian Doherty's Radicals for Capitalism, and Justin Raimondo's biography of Murray Rothbard, and Stephen Cox's book on Isabel Paterson, you would find some of this material familiar.

Anne Heller's book has much more about her early days in Russia, her first years in Hollywood, and her dealings with the movie business, theatrical productions, and publishers. You would know some of this already had you been following the Mayhew volumes about her works of fiction, Chris Sciabarra's articles about her university transcript, and other specialist sources.

I wouldn't take either book as an account of the development of her philosophy, although Burns offers some further insight into changes in her moral and political philosophy in the 1940-1942 period. Burns doesn't try to cover her metaphysics and epistemology. Heller is not interested in the fine details of her philosophy.

A full account of the development of Objectivism requires access to materials such as the 1969-1971 epistemology workshop tapes (in the Archives, but not examined in much depth by Burns) and the old NBI lecture tapes, from all lecturers. Who even knows where the oldest tapes of Nathaniel Branden's course are being kept? Or of Leonard Peikoff's pre-1968 courses? One can only hope they haven't been been allowed to deteriorate, or been discarded. (One of the things that's become painfully apparent as I've followed the Ford Hall Forum recordings is that the tapes of her question and answer periods often have serious technical problems, and some of them have been subjected to amateurish cutting and splicing. Neither the speech nor the Q&A from her 1970 Ford Hall Forum talk is being offered for sale, which makes me wonder about the shape the recordings are in.)

Robert C

Well, it's certainly not worth arguing about on what size pinhead the new material could dance. I did read Cox's biography of Paterson, of whose God of the Machine, one of the best monographs of the last century, I am a huge fan. (Neither Raimondo nor Rothbard is my cup of tea.) It is quite evident that Rand got much from Paterson and Paterson seems to have gotten much from the Jesuits. I think it is quite accurate to describe Objectivism as a form of atheistic Scholasticism. I'd love to see a scholarly intellectual biography of Rand. Burns treats of the personal interactions, but I find her analysis of the connections between, Rand, say, and Nietzsche to be preliminary at best. The sad thing is that had Rand not been hostile to crediting and citing other thinkers that work would already be done.

I am curious, if a fairly well versed Objectivist could only afford one of the three books, which would you recommend?

Which three books, Ted? Doherty, Raimondo, and Cox -- or Heller, Burns, and Branden?

Of the first three, I'd want to get Cox's bio of Paterson. (I already have the Doherty, but I'm not big on historical surveys; and I'm also not an admirer of Rothbard the person.) Of the second three, even if I didn't already have a copy <g>, I'd want the Branden. As it happens, I'm going to be able to read the Heller and the Burns, and I'm sure I'll get some fascinating tidbits and insights from them, but for sheer heirloom value, they don't hold a candle to NB's lectures.

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Keer is now moderated.

I deleted his outburst as I said I would.

I will let through his thoughtful stuff.

I will not let through his bossy instructions to other posters or overt rudeness.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

Which three books, Ted? Doherty, Raimondo, and Cox -- or Heller, Burns, and Branden?

Of the first three, I'd want to get Cox's bio of Paterson. (I already have the Doherty, but I'm not big on historical surveys; and I'm also not an admirer of Rothbard the person.) Of the second three, even if I didn't already have a copy <g>, I'd want the Branden. As it happens, I'm going to be able to read the Heller and the Burns, and I'm sure I'll get some fascinating tidbits and insights from them, but for sheer heirloom value, they don't hold a candle to NB's lectures.

REB

I would choose the Barbara Branden bio of Rand first. (I have read all three.) It is the one based on a deeper understanding of Rand's philosophy and, I believe, more insight on her motivations. Now, both Heller and Burns benefit (especially Burns) from access to materials Branden didn't have access to. Burns was given fairly extensive access to the archives. That is reflected in some of the new material. Based on the reports I received, I purchased both the Burns and Heller books - and don't regret having spent the time to read each of them.

On the other choice: I'd like to get the Cox biography of Paterson. Haven't gotten around to it yet.

Bill P

[Robert Campbell]

Although the Burns and Heller volumes are both more complete and more accurate about certain matters, I would still start with Barbara Branden's biography.

Among the other three books, I consider Steve Cox's the best, and not just because Isabel Paterson has been overlooked for too long, both in and out of Rand-land; it is also the best written of the three. After that, I'd go with Doherty's volume, sprawl and all. Finally, Raimondo on Rothbard is the work of a zealous partisan, and I'd like to see a biography from an author who can keep his or her distance from the subject, but Raimondo is blunt enough in his presentation that Murray Rothbard's less pleasant attributes and maneuvers come through clearly, despite the author's apparent obliviousness. And the brief alliance between Rand and Rothbard, followed by the unfortunately inevitable ego duel and bitter feud, was an important event in both of their lives, not to mention in the history of libertarian thought.

Robert Campbell

[Neil Parille]

Because Rand was such a polarizing figure and was, in some ways, a contradictory person, I'd recommend reading everything available. Even Walker's The Ayn Rand Cult has its moments.

I would start with Anne Heller's bio.

-Neil Parille