We knew this would return to bite us

[9thdoctor]

It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal

I sure would like to know exactly whom she meant when she wrote that. If it were Walter Duranty, and I don’t think it could have been, but let’s just say… (he was in Russia at the time)

To expand on my admittedly speculative comment, consider the following from Walter Duranty (Wikipedia):

In a June 24, 1931 article in the New York Times, Duranty gives his views of the Soviet actions in the countryside that eventually led to the famine in Ukraine. He asserted that the kulaks, i.e. the allegedly rich peasants who opposed the collectivization of farming had been an "almost privileged class" under Lenin. Duranty said that just as the Bolsheviks had eliminated the former ruling class of the Czarist regime, so would the same fate now befall the kulaks, whom he numbered at 5,000,000. They would be "dispossessed, dispersed, demolished". He compared Stalin's logic in the matter to that of the Biblical Prophet Samuel or Tamerlane. He said that these people were to be "'liquidated' or melted in the hot fire of exile and labor into the proletarian mass". Duranty sometimes claimed that individuals being sent to the Siberian labor camps were given a choice between rejoining Soviet society and becoming underprivileged outsiders. However, he also said that for those who could not accept the system, "the final fate of such enemies is death.".

This was 3 years after Hickman, but Duranty was reporting from Russia in 1928, presumably expressing the same ideas. If the “majority” that Rand indicts were those lauding the “Russian experiment”, her journal note isn’t quite as nutty. How did people publicly express their topical opinions then? Newspaper columns and letters to the editor, that’s about it, right? If the majority of what she was reading was pro-communist…I’m not saying it’s an excuse, but it suggests her view may have been better grounded in reality. Is it worse to write something that contributes to the murder of millions than to kill one person by your own hand? Of course we all abhor both, but there's room for debate here.

As opposed to what? I think there’s an unnamed implication here, that by “worse sins and crimes” she really meant the kind of activities portrayed in a French bedroom farce. Or petty shoplifting. Small everyday peccadillos. I have a hard time believing that, but there isn’t enough material to work with to come to a definitive conclusion. Plus, who knows what the Journals really say, pre-Heirbrushing®?

[Philip Coates]

> Barbara is one of the few Objectivists who doesn't try to fake reality. [DF]

Most Objectivists - like most human beings - don't try to fake reality. They can however be mistaken, which is a very different thing.

Willful "faking" is not the only or even most likely possibility in most cases. One of Ayn Rand's big mistakes -- perhaps her biggest (too often blindly followed) was to greatly overstate how much was "evasion", fraud, deliberate self-blinding --- as opposed to ignorance, error, sloppiness, emotional-shortcuts, logical sequence problems, failures of context-holding, lack of intelligence, or a variety of other intellectual and cognitive slip-ups, boners, and pratfalls.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Jonathan]

As opposed to what? I think there’s an unnamed implication here, that by “worse sins and crimes” she really meant the kind of activities portrayed in a French bedroom farce. Or petty shoplifting. Small everyday peccadillos. I have a hard time believing that, but there isn’t enough material to work with to come to a definitive conclusion. Plus, who knows what the Journals really say, pre-Heirbrushing®?

I think that by "worse sins and crimes" Rand meant something along the lines of what JR wrote: "Their smug self-satisfaction, the open pride they take in their ignorance and stupidity, is enough to sicken anyone of any intelligence."

Apparently the idea is that it's understandable that Rand rated the smug self-satisfaction of the ignorant masses as a worse crime than the mutilation of a little girl, but it's disgusting (and perhaps proof of smug, self-satisfied ignorance) for people to take Rand a little too literally and to be disturbed by her sense of proportion -- her queasiness over ignorant smugness and her comparative tolerance for mutilation.

J

[BaalChatzaf]

This was 3 years after Hickman, but Duranty was reporting from Russia in 1928, presumably expressing the same ideas. If the "majority" that Rand indicts were those lauding the "Russian experiment", her journal note isn't quite as nutty. How did people publicly express their topical opinions then? Newspaper columns and letters to the editor, that's about it, right? If the majority of what she was reading was pro-communist…I'm not saying it's an excuse, but it suggests her view may have been better grounded in reality. Is it worse to write something that contributes to the murder of millions than to kill one person by your own hand? Of course we all abhor both, but there's room for debate here.

Even if Americans were praising Communist (i.e. Stalinist) Russia, how many of them actually knew what was going on there? Stalin and his flacks constructed elaborate ruses and "Potemkin Villages" for foreigners, especially folks from liberal circles in England and the U.S.. These Americans who were taken in were "useful idiots" for Stalin and his buddies to use.

While this was an error in judgment it was nowhere near the kind of evil that would lead a sociopath to slice and dice a little girl and mock her parents.

If one wishes to attack conventional or bourgeois morality, one need not make a shining example out of a sociopath monster.

I am no friend of conventional morality for I have little patience with altruism and bourgeois sentimentality (or any sentimentality for that matter), but I would not allow myself to be in the same camp with a fiend who deliberately kills helpless children. I am hard headed and have a harder heart which puts me in opposition with the kind of sentimental slop that most Americans bathe in. Unlike most Americans, appeals to pity rarely moves me a millimeter.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited March 28, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[9thdoctor]

I think that by "worse sins and crimes" Rand meant something along the lines of what JR wrote: "Their smug self-satisfaction, the open pride they take in their ignorance and stupidity, is enough to sicken anyone of any intelligence."

I agree that that is a fair reading of what she (apparently) wrote. My point is that the only contemporary product of the chattering classes that could qualify as worse than murdering a child was in the writings of a Duranty. And his cheerleading squad. So I speculate that she was referring to that.

[9thdoctor]

Even if Americans were praising Communist (i.e. Stalinist) Russia, how many of them actually knew what was going on there?

It's reasonable to think that she did.

[George H. Smith]

We could nitpick forever -- and probably will. But the simple, common-sense fact remains that Rand wrote with breathless admiration -- and in the terms she would later use to describe her heroes -- of ;a loathsome, sadistic child-murderer. There have to be better ways to attack conventional morality than to find great virtue in a subhuman killer. Fortunately, she would find those ways.

Barbara

(I haven't reviewed earlier posts to determine if what I say here has been said before, so I apologize in advance if I have failed to cite anyone who made similar points. I know that I have duplicated some quotations.)

I don't think it's fair to say that Rand wrote about Hickman with breathless admiration. Her comments that Hickman was a "purposeless monster" who had committed a "horrible crime," and that "there is a lot that is purposelessly, senselessly horrible about him" (pp. 38. 37, 43), are things she would never have said about her later heroes.

I have reread the relevant section in Rand's Journals several times since my last post, making a serious effort to "get inside the head" of the young Rand so I could understand her diffuse, repetitive, and sometimes inconsistent exercise in brainstorming. It is a truly fascinating read, the controversial parts notwithstanding.

Rand discusses a number of journalists who wrote about the Hickman case, according to whom Hickman's greatest crime was not that he savagely murdered a girl, but that he was anti-social, in effect. Rand's comment (42-3)on one such writer is key to understanding her position:

"Her claim that Hickman's greatest crime is his anti-socialness confirmed my idea of the public's attitude in this case—and explains my involuntary, irresistible sympathy for him, which I cannot help feeling just because of this and in spite of everything else."

As far as I can tell, Rand's fascination with Hickman had nothing to do with his "horrible crime" per se. Rather she was interested (1) in how Hickman, a boy with great potential, became the "purposeless monster" that he did; and (2) in the psychological implications of Hickman's thumbing his nose at society after his crime.

(1) It is rather strange, given Rand's later views, that the young Rand blamed society for transforming Hickman into a monster, but that was basically her point. She writes (38-9):

"Yes, he is a monster—now. But the worse he is, the worst must be the cause that drove him to this. Isn't it significant that society was not able to fill the life of an exceptional, intelligent boy, to give him anything to outbalance crime in his eyes? If society is horrified at his crime, it should be horrified at the crime's ultimate cause: itself. The worse the crime—the greater its guilt. What could society answer, if that boy were to say: "Yes, I'm a monstrous criminal, but what are you?""

Rand continues with an important comment (39), part of which I quoted in a previous post:

"This is what I think of the case. I am afraid that I idealize Hickman and that he might not be this at all. In fact, he probably isn't. But it does not make any difference. If he isn't, he could be, and that's enough. The reaction of society would be the same, if not worse, toward the Hickman I have in mind. This case showed me how society can wreck an exceptional being, and then murder him for being the wreck that it itself has created. This will be the story of the boy in my book."

(2) Rand's expressions of admiration for Hickman are confined to his behavior after he had committed his crime -- something I characterized above as thumbing his nose at society. The following excerpt is typical:

"There is a lot that is purposelessly, senselessly horrible about him. But that does not interest me. I want to remember his actions and characteristics that will be useful for the boy in my story. His limitless daring and his frightful sense of humor, e.g., when he was playing the Victrola while policemen searched his apartment and he offered to help, asking if he could do anything for them. His calm, defiant attitude at the trial. His deliberate smiling when posing for photographs after the sentence. His hard, cynical attitude toward everything, as shown in the little detail that he expressed his feelings after the sentence by saying one obscene word."

Rand was clearly abstracting specific features of Hickman's psychology that might prove useful in developing her fictional character, Danny. And Danny, we should keep in mind, was also going to be portrayed as someone who had savagely murdered an innocent person (his pastor)in cold blood. Here is how Rand (47) sketched the murder:

"When Danny kills the pastor, he shoots him straight in the face, mad with loathing and the desire to destroy him. He then shoots the rest of the bullets into the body, in his hatred and fury to kill. After that—no regrets, no remorse whatsoever. A clever and calm scheme to escape. He is found and arrested only through the betrayal of a friend."

Given this depiction, I think it is clear that Danny was not going to be portrayed as a heroic character. Rather, in her extraordinarily dark account of "The Little Street" -- a metaphor for society at large -- Rand was going to indict the mediocrities who would not tolerate the independent spirit that Danny displayed from an early age. Danny, like Hickman, was destined to be either very great or very evil, and the society he grew up in left him no realistic choice except the latter.

It seems to me that Rand's analysis is more sociological than moral (though there is obviously a moral component). Indeed, at one point, she says something to the effect that she wants to view "The Little Street" from the outside, as a dispassionate observer. In other words, Rand was primarily interested in the sociological factors that can turn a young person with great potential into a "purposeless monster."

Such is my take on the infamous Rand/Hickman connection.

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

Even if Americans were praising Communist (i.e. Stalinist) Russia, how many of them actually knew what was going on there?

It's reasonable to think that she did.

Of course. But the people who she criticized for their attitude toward communism were fat, dumb and happy Americans from their birth or childhood. I think Rand was aware to some degree of the good nature of Americans but she was not always patient with their shortcomings.

Americans are a cheerful unaware lot, which is why we had to wait for Pearl Harbor to be bombed before we would go to war. That is both a virtue and a fault. In a peaceful world Americans would be a happy lot, in the world we live in, which is a "tough neighborhood" we are at a disadvantage. If a dog pees on our leg we think we accidentally stepped into a puddle and not a poodle.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[ginny]

Rand came to this country for a better life. She found it in spades, first with the help of relatives, then by being offered jobs almost immediately upon her arrival in Hollywood. Thanks to Americans, she had food, shelter and work, things not easily obtainable in Russia. She claimed America was the land for her. And yet, within just a few years of her arrival, she seems to have a lot of contempt for this country's inhabitants. Her opinion of the very average, honest, middle-class member of her new society is that his or her sins are worse than that of a horrid killer. Come on! Something is wrong with her thinking.

[Brant Gaede]

Rand came to this country for a better life. She found it in spades, first with the help of relatives, then by being offered jobs almost immediately upon her arrival in Hollywood. Thanks to Americans, she had food, shelter and work, things not easily obtainable in Russia. She claimed America was the land for her. And yet, within just a few years of her arrival, she seems to have a lot of contempt for this country's inhabitants. Her opinion of the very average, honest, middle-class member of her new society is that his or her sins are worse than that of a horrid killer. Come on! Something is wrong with her thinking.

Not on the basis of your comments.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

C'mon, George. Hickman as a victim? He was heroic to kidnap, murder and mutilate a little girl? It was all society's fault? One wonders why millions of little girls weren't treated similarly by millions of other so-called victims.

The problem isn't Rand's brainstorming, but that the enormity of the crime didn't bring her up short at the horridness of it all. Her brain was strangely wired, but she transcended it as best she could.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Rand came to this country for a better life. She found it in spades, first with the help of relatives, then by being offered jobs almost immediately upon her arrival in Hollywood. Thanks to Americans, she had food, shelter and work, things not easily obtainable in Russia. She claimed America was the land for her. And yet, within just a few years of her arrival, she seems to have a lot of contempt for this country's inhabitants. Her opinion of the very average, honest, middle-class member of her new society is that his or her sins are worse than that of a horrid killer. Come on! Something is wrong with her thinking.

It's quite possible that Rand came to agree with you. She never wrote the novel, after all. All she did was sketch some ideas for a possible novel, and the novels she wrote later do not exhibit the remorselessly bleak and pessimistic perspective that we find in her notes for The Little Street. The ideas expressed in those notes (which I didn't quote) are so profoundly pessimistic that they might have even caused Schopenhauer to wince.

In any case, I think the following explanation by David Harriman (editor of the Journals) is credible:

"[Rand] grew up in Russia, a man-made model of a malevolent universe (see We the Living). Then, in America, she was astonished to discover that the same anti-life ideas that had destroyed Russia were on the rise here. The result seems to have been periods of profound indignation, when AR felt that the whole world was dominated by evil and that she was a metaphysical outcast. It is from this perspective that the story was conceived."

Ghs

[ginny]

George, you make sense. The malovence could very easily have been a carry-over from Russia. I'm willing to back off a bit here.

Ginny

[George H. Smith]

C'mon, George. Hickman as a victim?

You seem to think that I was attempting to defend Rand's position, whereas I was merely attempting to explain it.

There is clearly a strain of social determinism in Rand's analysis. It is interesting to note that one of the first topics she took up in her "First Philosophic Journal" in 1934 (Journals, pp. 68 ff) was the subject of free will. She poses a lot of questions to herself and seems unsure of the answers. This is just a guess, but it's possible that Rand evolved from being a social determinist to being a volitionist. (The fact that Rand mentions and quotes Nietzsche several times in her notes to The Little Street might be relevant to this issue.)

He was heroic to kidnap, murder and mutilate a little girl?

Rand never said this. On the contrary, as I wrote in my last post, she said that Hickman was a "purposeless monster" who had committed a "horrible crime," and that "there is a lot that is purposelessly, senselessly horrible about him."

So how do you get from these condemnations of Hickman and his crime to the conclusion that Rand viewed the murder of a little girl as "heroic"? That's quite a jump.

The problem isn't Rand's brainstorming, but that the enormity of the crime didn't bring her up short at the horridness of it all. Her brain was strangely wired, but she transcended it as best she could.

You refer to the "horridness" of Hickman's crime. Rand called it a "horrible crime." So what's the difference?

Rand doesn't say much about the specifics of Hickman's "horrible crime." Those details were irrelevant to her literary purpose.

Since Danny, the major character in The Little Street, was also a murderer, it makes perfect sense to me that Rand would have looked at the psychology of a real murderer for ideas. That's the sort of thing fiction writers do, after all. Rand focused on Hickman not because he committed an especially horrible crime but because of the kind of public reaction his crime elicited. I discussed this in my last post.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

George, you make sense. The malovence could very easily have been a carry-over from Russia. I'm willing to back off a bit here.

Ginny

In case you or others following this thread don't have access to Rand's Journals, here is how her notes to The Little Street begin:

The world as it is.

Show it all, calmly and indifferently, like an outsider who does not share humanity's feelings or prejudices and can see it all "from the side."

Show all the filth, stupidity, and horror of the world, along with that which is supposed to atone for it. Show how insignificant, petty, and miserable the "good" in the world is, compared to the real horror it masks. Do not paint one side of the world, the polite side, and be silent about the rest; paint a real picture of the whole, good and bad at once, the "good" looking more horrid than the bad when seen together with the things it tolerates. Men see only one part of life at a time, the part they have before their eyes at the moment. Show them the whole.

Show that humanity is petty. That it's small. That it's dumb, with the heavy, hopeless stupidity of a man born feeble-minded, who does not understand, because he cannot understand, because he hasn't the capacity to understand; like a man born blind, who cannot see, because he has no organ for seeing.

Show that the world is monstrously hypocritical. That humanity has no convictions of any kind. That it does not know how to believe anything. That it has never believed consistently and does not know how to be true to any idea or ideal. That all the "high" words of the world are a monstrous lie. That nobody believes in anything "high" and nobody wants to believe. That one cannot believe one thing and do another, for such a belief isn't worth a nickel. And that's what humanity is doing.

Show that humanity is utterly illogical.... etc., etc.

[BaalChatzaf]

The problem isn't Rand's brainstorming, but that the enormity of the crime didn't bring her up short at the horridness of it all. Her brain was strangely wired, but she transcended it as best she could.

--Brant

And how good was that, in your estimation? To whom did Ayn Rand give any slack. With whom did she cut a break? In the biography I read recently, the one by Anne Heller, Ayn Rand seemed to come across as a Terrible Person. How accurate is the Carson Sand satire, by Rothbard? Since I never met Ayn Rand personally and only saw her in the flesh twice, I have no idea how accurate this impression is. Of the people on this Forum, only Barbara has the first hand knowledge.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited March 28, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[ginny]

Just when I was backing off, I'm backing in. Thanks, Ba'al, I have not read this. Okay, so it's brainstorming, but if this even hints at her view of humanity, it's sick. Here's this woman who spent her life saying that we should enjoy life, but her opinion of people on this planet is that they are pretty much sick. Brainstorming or not, there is a psychosis at work here. I think her unhappy younger years messed her up. This just spews of hathred. Does she really she think she and a few chosen ones are the exception to her view of people? Didn't ... oh, I don't know ... Hitler have such thoughts? I'm not calling her a nazi, but marsicistically psychotic, yes.

Okay, George, can you see any logical cause for such utter malevolence? Apparently, she didn't consider herself a part of mankind.

Ginny

[George H. Smith]

Okay, George, can you see any logical cause for such utter malevolence?

Yes, of course. Rand was really pissed off by those commentators who said that Hickman's greatest crime was not that he murdered an innocent little girl but that he wouldn't conform to social norms, that he was anti-social. It was precisely because Hickman's crime was so monstrous that Rand regarded this conformist blather as pure evil. She passionately believed that Hickman's crime was the murder he committed, not the fact that he was a nonconformist. She is quite clear about this.

As for Rand's general pessimistic outlook, maybe she was venting her dark side in a creative manner. Or maybe she was in an exceptionally foul mood and wanted to channel her anger into a productive project. (I've done both of these before, as have many writers.) Whatever the explanation, she came up with a brilliant idea for a novel, and I'm sorry she never wrote it. It could have been a great exploration of a dark existentialist ethos, a novel that a Camus or a William Burroughs would have envied. If Rand had written and published the novel, however, she might have regretted it later.

Apparently, she didn't consider herself a part of mankind.

Oh, please, spare me. Rand was writing in general terms, as any writer would who was sketching some initial ideas for a novel.

People really should read Rand's complete account a few times and pay very close attention to what she says. Such attention is required because Rand was writing for herself, not for others, so she often didn't state the obvious. She didn't explicitly say, for example, "Please understand that I detest people who torture and murder young girls."

Rand might have said something like this in an essay intended to be read by others, but it would have been rather silly to have included such irrelevant and obvious qualifications in notes to herself.

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

If Rand had written and published the novel, however, she might have regretted it later.

Later in life, Anthony Burgess disowned A Clockwork Orange. I bet he kept the royalties though.

Also, Robert Graves sniffed at I, Claudius, and Thomas Pynchon has been critical of The Crying of Lot 49. In each case, it’s the author’s most read work.

Here's a case where the author has given his best efforts to take something embarrassing out of circulation:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCNGjKnTzaQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCNGjKnTzaQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCNGjKnTzaQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

It could have been worse. Somehow, I'm sure it could have been worse.

[George H. Smith]

Thanks, Ba'al, I have not read this.

Ginny, what are you referring to here? I assumed it was the opening paragraphs of Rand's notes that I posted, and that you mistakenly attributed the post to Ba'al. I based my reply on this assumption. Is it correct? Or were you referring to something else that Ba'al actually did post?

Ghs

[ginny]

"Show that humanity is petty. That it's small. That it's dumb, with the heavy, hopeless stupidity of a man born feeble-minded, who does not understand, because he cannot understand, because he hasn't the capacity to understand; like a man born blind, who cannot see, because he has no organ for seeing.

Show that the world is monstrously hypocritical. That humanity has no convictions of any kind. That it does not know how to believe anything. That it has never believed consistently and does not know how to be true to any idea or ideal. That all the "high" words of the world are a monstrous lie. That nobody believes in anything "high" and nobody wants to believe. That one cannot believe one thing and do another, for such a belief isn't worth a nickel. And that's what humanity is doing."

George, this seems pretty clear to me. Her opinion of mankind stunk. By the way, if this is humanity, how on earth account for all the good in life? I see good every day. I don't think she saw it all all. "Nobody believes in any high." Except of course, she.

I'll accept that as a young woman, she wasn't in an overly optimistic state. You are probably right about that. But she never really adopted a benevolent attitude. I, like many here, heard her answer questions. Her opinion that a lot of innocent questioners weren't "worth a nickel" was very clear. (How do I know they were probably innocent? Because I was one of them.)

If you're saying that her reason for being interested in Hickman is because he was anti-social - as I've pointed out before, so is every convict serving time. So is every child molester and killer walking the planet. If that attitude a source of pride?

And I hate to ask - do those who are diligently defending her here think she was excluding them when she described humanity?

[Jonathan]

Rand discusses a number of journalists who wrote about the Hickman case, according to whom Hickman's greatest crime was not that he savagely murdered a girl, but that he was anti-social, in effect.

One of the journalists was alleged by Rand to have claimed that Hickman's anti-socialness was his greatest crime. For Rand to have taken one person's opinion as confirmation of her suspicions of the entire public's attitude is quite a leap. And I'd be interested in reading what the journalists actually wrote, to see if Rand accurately reported their attitudes, or if her Romantic goggles were distorting her vision of them.

Also, I find it interesting that Rand claims that although worse crimes than Hickman's had been committed, none had raised such furious indignation.

First of all, is that true? And how would Rand know? She was pretty new to America to be claiming to know how the American public had reacted to crimes in the past that were worse than child murder/mutilation.

Secondly, Rand claims that the public's rage was not about the crime, but about Hickman's "brazenly challenging attitude," which seems to overlook the obvious possibility that most people would not necessarily see Hickman as displaying a brazenly challenging attitude so much as a brazenly threatening attitude. I don't think that ordinary people tend to romanticize such events as Rand did, so, to them, a murderer of little girls who shows no remorse, but who is instead a boastful, theatrical smart-ass about it, is likely going to be feared as a continuing physical danger rather than as an embodiment of daring individualism. A murderer whose attitude basically announces, "Fuck yeah I did it, and I'll do it again, maybe to your daughter," is naturally going to raise the ire of people who love their families and fear for their safety, and much more so than a murderer who keeps his mouth shut or expresses regret.

Whatever the explanation, she came up with a brilliant idea for a novel, and I'm sorry she never wrote it. It could have been a great exploration of a dark existentialist ethos, a novel that a Camus or a William Burroughs would have envied. If Rand had written and published the novel, however, she might have regretted it later.

I, too, wish she had written it. I think it could have been quite a powerful work of art, but I don't think that she necessarily would have had to regret it later. I see a more positive possibility, which is that she would have come up with a different official Objectivist Esthetics, one that was more open to and appreciative of darker works of art.

J

[George H. Smith]

If Rand had written and published the novel, however, she might have regretted it later.

Later in life, Anthony Burgess disowned A Clockwork Orange. I bet he kept the royalties though.

Also, Robert Graves sniffed at I, Claudius, and Thomas Pynchon has been critical of The Crying of Lot 49.

And let us not forget how Gore Vidal demanded that his name be removed from the screenplay credit for the move "Caligula" -- the greatest, most expensive, and garish over-the-top porn extravaganza ever made.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Rand discusses a number of journalists who wrote about the Hickman case, according to whom Hickman's greatest crime was not that he savagely murdered a girl, but that he was anti-social, in effect.

One of the journalists was alleged by Rand to have claimed that Hickman's anti-socialness was his greatest crime. For Rand to have taken one person's opinion as confirmation of her suspicions of the entire public's attitude is quite a leap. And I'd be interested in reading what the journalists actually wrote, to see if Rand accurately reported their attitudes, or if her Romantic goggles were distorting her vision of them.

Excellent point. I am curious as well.

I, too, wish she had written it. I think it could have been quite a powerful work of art, but I don't think that she necessarily would have had to regret it later. I see a more positive possibility, which is that she would have come up with a different official Objectivist Esthetics, one that was more open to and appreciative of darker works of art.

I had a similar thought while writing my remarks, but they were about the possibility that Rand might have come up with a somewhat different approach to ethics if she had written and published the novel. I think your suggestion about a different approach to esthetics is far more plausible.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

If you're saying that her reason for being interested in Hickman is because he was anti-social - as I've pointed out before, so is every convict serving time. So is every child molester and killer walking the planet. If that attitude a source of pride?"

The crime is not social nonconformity; many brilliant thinkers, writers, inventors, industrialists, etc., have been nonconformists as well.

Nonconformists are the "extremists" that Rand talks about in her notes, and she claims that such extremists tend to be either very productive or very destructive. Her point is that when social factors discourage and repress extreme nonconformity by praising the average get-along Joe and other mediocrities as morally superior, and when social institutions shut out the nonconformists to the point where they can barely make a living, those nonconformists tend to become bitter and angry, and sometimes lash out against society at large. This is very interesting analysis. I might even go so far as to call it brilliant.

Ghs