Barbara Branden

Thank you all so much for your good wishes. Please consider this a personal thank you to each of you separately. But there seems to have been a mistake. How can I be 81? People's grandmothers are 81. What can that have to do wIth me? I feel as if I were 18 -- I blinked once -- and here I am!

I'm not complaining. I'm well aware that I have nothng in the world to complain about. When I was very young, I used to think that, above all, I wanted my life to be interesting, It has been more interesting than I could have imagined. (In fact, I could have used a few dull moments now and then.) And it's great to know that even now, I'm still learning and still growing. So I plan to stick around, so long as reasonable health allows, for a long time. I like it here!

George, about your story of the review: If there is anything I know. it's literary style, I may have told this story before -- but at my age, don't I have the right to forget now and then? Years ago. I came home quite late one night, and went to my bedroom. I switched on the television but I wasn't looking at it, just half-listening as I prepared for bed.. A writer was being interviewed, but I didn't know who it was -- until I realized, "That's Chaim Potok!" (a writer whose work I very much admire.) I recognized his literary style in his conversation, (And by the way, I do rather like the jazz version of Happy Birthday -- although not as much as the chipmunk version. Thank you for that, Dennis.)

Michael... thank you for being so good a friend.

Barbara

Phil: "It takes at least ten years of thorough study - including taking most of the basic courses - then, even harder, you have to integrate it with your life, integrate it with other subjects of study (history, psychology, life skills, communication skills, etc.) "

If that is so, Rand's first and fatal mistake was in writing fiction. Clearly, she expected her readers to understand her -- without taking ten years from their lives. and attending courses that did not yet exist. She would have been the first person to vehemently dispute your concept of the complexity and difficulties of Objectivism.

Barbara

I hadn't read any of this thread until now-- but before I began to read it, I had posted the following to another thread::

"Brant, by my understanding of Rand you're quite right that she did not grasp the effect of her rants and moralizing. She had no understanding of the power of her personality -- for good or for bad. I remember once telling her that when she entered a room, all eyes turned to her, that she exuded an aliveness, an intensity, a certainty, that had an almost hypnotic effect. She was startled by my statement; it was not at all her sense of herself -- especialy since she felt inadequate in social situations.

"I did not add that I had come to understand the dangerous power of certainty after years of studying her effect on people -- that for many people, the strength of her convictions persuaded them of the truth of what she claimed almost apart from the content or reasons of those convictions."

Barbara

Ayn Rand only partially understood humor. She also made some factual misstatements. She didn't say writing fiction wasn't important, but she could have with some of her same reasoning concerning humor. And laughing at yourself (as evil)--spitting in your own face--is something I can't get my brain around.

She didn't know a lot of what she thought she did, but in that respect she always put on a better show of it than Leonard Peikoff--i.e., more modest and interesting. Yes, she was frequently modest about what she knew, but if something pissed her off she was off to the races. It was as if the motives of the questioner were more important than the question.

--Brant

Brant,

I think the whole motives thing was Rand's way of quickly sorting lots and lots of data and opinion. It certainly wasn't foolproof, but it allowed her to be incisive. Don't bother to examine a folly, examine what it accomplishes.

Jim

This is a terrible thing to say about her, for if true it was indefensible that she would jump down someone's throat for the sake of quick and clear thinking, which wasn't the result regardless. I think she was purblind as to the effect she would have on people by acting this way and that the explanation had to have been psychological.

--Brant

Brant, by my understanding of Rand, you're quite right that she did not grasp the effect of her rants and moralizing. .She had no understanding of the power of her personality -- for good or for bad. I remember once telling her that when she entered a room, all eyes turned to her, that she exuded an aliveness, an intensity, a certainty, that had an almost hypnotic effect. She was startled by my statement; it was not at all her sense of herself -- especialy since she felt inadequate in social situations.

I did not add that I had come to understand the dangerous power of certainty after years of studying her effect on people -- that for many people, the strength of her convictions persuaded them of the truth of what she claimed almost apart from the content or reasons of those convictions.

Barbara

I was thinking about how I might try to summarize some of the key points of Barbara’s lecture when I came across a website devoted to Christian fundamentalism. One particular passage seemed to say it all. I did have to make a few changes beyond substituting “Objectivism” for “Christianity,” but not all that many. Please note that this is my summation, not Barbara’s. I do not mean to speak for her, and I humbly apologize in advance if I have misrepresented her in any way.

Objectivist fundamentalists share important key traits with religious fundamentalists. They are certain that they alone possess true knowledge of the fundamentals of Objectivism and that they therefore represent “true” Objectivism based on the authority of a literally interpreted Ayn Rand. They believe it is their duty to carry on the great battle of modern history, the battle of God (i.e., Rand) against Satan (i.e., the Brandens), of light against darkness, and to stamp out all dissenters who attempt to undermine Objectivism. Faced with this titanic, historical struggle, they condemn any non-orthodox “objectivists” as unfaithful to Rand and therefore not genuinely Objectivist. They call for a return to an inerrant and infallible Objectivist canon based on a purified, idolized image of Rand and her “official” statement of the Objectivist doctrines, from which there shall be no deviation. Any criticism of Rand herself is immediately deemed evil and blasphemous. Fundamentalist leaders typically deny allegations of personal power-lust, but their demand for blind, unquestioning obedience suggests otherwise. To accomplish their imperious, tyrannical goals, they use every means available—including cruel, vitriolic screeds (i.e., PARC), vicious public denunciations based on an appeal to arbitrary moral authority and the flagrant rewriting of history—to defend their ideological domain and propagate their fundamentalist faith and practice.

Dennis, your summary is exact. Thank you.

Barbara

Could someone who has this book answer a question? My recollection is that, in his treatment of honesty, Branden said expressly that honesty precludes what Peikoff calls "privacy lying" (lying in answer to a nosy question). Is this accurate?

Yes, it is accurate. Here is a quote from Lecture 10: (italics mine)

"Honesty does not mean that you owe an answer to any idle or impertinent question anyone chooses to ask you. You do not owe information to those

who have no right, purpose, or business to question you about matters which do not affect them. In such cases, honesty consists of refusing to answer,

not of lying. In such cases, you may point out, if you care to, that their question is improper, but you don't lower yourself to the status of a a liar for

the sake of their impropriety. "

Barbara

Merlin , of course he has the legal right to his opinion, but I do not grant him a moral right to his brutal indifference to human life. Do you recall the Kitty Genovese case? A young woman was being murdered on a New York City street; she screamed for help, again and again -- but none of the residents of the apartment buildings on the street, who heard her cries, who witnessed her murder from their windows, took the trouble even to call the police. After all, why should they care? Canada and Israel and Belgium and Iran are not mere abstractions; they are inhabited by millions of innocent Kitty Genoveses, who want to live as much -- perhaps more -- than Chris does . . . even if he does not care to visit them.

This is a straw man argument. If a crime is occurring and I am in a position to do something about it, I am going to do something. However, there is nothing I can do if a rape is occurring 1000 miles away or even 100 miles away. I am not Superman, nor do I have a transporter like the one on Star Trek. In fact, there is no way for me to know when and where rapes are occurring if they are not within immediate sight and earshot. There is no point in worrying about things that I can not control.

I do not have the power to render nuclear weapons harmless. I can't even stop bullets, so I can hardly expect to stop missiles, fighter jets, or tanks. I can only impact what my own country does and does not do. Even with regard to that, my power is quite limited.

I gave a little money to Doctors without Borders right after the earthquake in Haiti. I'm probably the only one on this board who did.

Chris, I have not said and I'm not concerned with whether or not you are a sociopath, anti-Semitic, or a bigot. I was responding to your statement: "What do I care if Israel is nuked?" I'm quite aware that you are not in a position to stop war or crime or a speeding bullet-- but that has nothing to do with whether or not you give a damn if millions of people are killed.

Your attitude keeps shifting and changing throughout this thread, If you spoke too hastily and in fact you are not indifferent to evil, as you now seem to be insisting, why not say so?

Barbara

Michael wrote, "But I do respect Chris's right to be indifferent."

I do not. Precisely what is worth caring about, if human life is not?

Barbara

:

You don't respect his right or his opinion? That is a huge difference.

Merlin , of course he has the legal right to his opinion, but I do not grant him a moral right to his brutal indifference to human life. Do you recall the Kitty Genovese case? A young woman was being murdered on a New York City street; she screamed for help, again and again -- but none of the residents of the apartment buildings on the street, who heard her cries, who witnessed her murder from their windows, took the trouble even to call the police. After all, why should they care? Canada and Israel and Belgium and Iran are not mere abstractions; they are inhabited by millions of innocent Kitty Genoveses, who want to live as much -- perhaps more -- than Chris does . . . even if he does not care to visit them.

Barbara

Michael wrote, "But I do respect Chris's right to be indifferent."

I do not. Precisely what is worth caring about, if human life is not?

Barbara

:

Tony "I’ll never forgive Reagan for denying us four more years of Carter. And we could have had eight of Mondale, to boot. Damn you Gipper!"

I'm with you, Tony. In 1964, I heard Reagan give his famous speech for Goldwater, and I said then: "When do I get to vote for this man for President?" I had to wait sixteen years, but it was worth it, But every once in a while -- not often -- there are issues I plain damn don't feel like arguing about. So I won't.

Barbara

If America continued its insane rush toward collectivism, and I felt I had to leave this country I have always loved, I'd want to live where technological creativity, medical innovation, scientific (including nuclear) achievement, together with an accelerating movement away from socialism and toward capitalism, would hold out the possibility that the values most precious to me would not vanish from he earth.

I would move to Israel.

Barbara

[...] Enough said. I don't mean to change the subject of this thread.

I gladly give you a special dispensation.

(Just had to say that! {g})

Anyway, having started this symposium, I'll jump in again to say that of all this productive thinking that's gone on about l'affaire Hickman and tangential matters, Barbara's course (or what I've gleaned from it) is probably the simplest and most useful:

Admit, if and when needed, that Rand made a sizable mistake in the object of her attention, when she was a younger writer learning about American culture. Don't gloss over it. Yet proceed to focus on the profound achievements that she did end up finishing.

Steve, I'm very glad you agree. I think the alternative -- leaping to create excuses for Rand -- would make us appear insensitive and defensive when we are not insensitive and have no need to be defensive.

Barbara

George wrote: "It seems odd that Haydn would have made the favorable remark he did (about Rand's philosophical system), given how out of sympathy he was with her philosophy."

Here is what I wrote in Passion after reading Haydn's Words and Faces:

"Ayn has often been criticized for refusing to allow any of her work to be edited. But in fact in her earlier work, she had been amenable to editing. George Abbott had suggested a number of changes in her play, 'The Unconquered', to which she had acceded, and she had found Archie Ogden's suggestions for cuts in The Fountainhead acceptable and helpful. It was only now, with Atlas Shrugged, convinced of her literary professionalism and convinced that she had worked long enough and hard enough to be certan that her work matched her intention, that she would not entertain suggestions for change.

"In his Words and Faces, Hiram Haydn was to write. . . 'Ayn's philosophy, replete with ethical and political consequences, troubled me. Left to myself I would not have published that book. Yet I owed it to the partners to steer Ayn to them if I could, for she was a publishing catch with "best seller" written all over her. . . .

"'How she would have laughed had she known the welter of contradictory reactions I was experiencing! And how well indeed I illustrated her concept of the softheaded, ambivalent, tortured liberal!. . . .

"'In her novels, she wedded her ideas to a first-rate narrative skill; the pace of the action was usually fast, and she was proficient at suspense and the melodramatic, spectacular scene. But her style was drab, and although I respected hr philosophy as one kind of arid intellectual triumph, a tour de force that commanded admiration even though she based it on an utterly false (as I see it) central premise -- although that was how I felt in measured moments, there were times when I conceded that the world I lived in was most probably right, and she really was a crackpot, though of a noble sort.

"'Even now I can't write bout Ayn Rand without feeling upset, unhappy with myself. I know of no other relationship with an author in which I played such shamefaced ball, never being wholly for or against her, never saying right out all the things I believed about her book or her ideas or life in general.'"

Barbara

Tony: "This reminds me of the excellent thrillers of the critically ignored, incredibly popular, John D. MacDonald . . . I own the full collection."

MacDonald was a wonderful writer, who never received the critical understanding and acclaim he deserved. I, too, once owned all his books -- and I now regret that I gave them away. He once did something astonishing. I don't remember what book it was, but in the first two or three pages, he introduced nine or ten characters. each with only a sentence or two of characterization. But so striking and memorable were those characterizations that as the characters kept reappearing throughout the book, one never had to go back to see who any of them were.

Enough said. I don't mean to change the subject of this thread,

Barbara

George, for a massive amount of information about books that discuss Rand's books and philosophy, go to http://noblesoul.com/orc/ -- The Objectivist Reference Center -- and click on Books About Objectivism. Richard Lawrence, the owner of the site, has done a masterful job of compiling information. .

Barbara

George "I also have a vague recollection that Haydn was the editor for one of Rand's books, but I'm not sure about that."

Theoretically, Haydn was the editor for Atlas, But he later wrote -- this is not an exact quote but it's very close -- that he was embarrassed to admit that for the first time in his career, he functioned, at best, only as an occasional copy editor. It was out of the question even to attempt to edit Rand, and, to his shame, he went along with her demands.

Further, he was totally out of sympathy with Rand's philosophy. "Left to myself," he said, "I would not have published that book."

Barbara

For more details, see The Passion of Ayn Rand, page 291-293.

Rand’s too-easy, too-sweeping condemnation of the majority of human beings was perhaps the inevitable consequence of her demand for human perfection. I have always loved and been inspired by her exalted concept of the human potential -- but I think she often lost sight of the fact that she was speaking of a potential, not an actuality, a goal, not a point of departure. If you damn man for a failure to possess an unbreached rationality – then in fact, in reality, you damn man.

A further consequence of this demand was that, in order to remain sane in a world of imperfect people, in order to find some values in a world rife with irrationality -- she had to turn the people she loved – Frank, Nathaniel, the collective, (even what she perceived as an aspect of Hickman) – into fantasy figures, into giants of he intellect, giants of ability, giants of rationality. And when a fantasy figure failed her, he inevitably became, in her mind, a monster: there were no excuses for imperfection,

Barbara

To flesh out my previous post: Did AR go down to the courthouse and picket for Hickman? Write letters to the editor in his support?

--Brant

Brant, if I were to tell you I admire Fidel Castro's rejection of conventional morality, that despite all the terrible crimes he's committed, I still see in him a "free, clear spirit," an "egoism" which is the only thing that counts -- would you consider it relevant that II hadn't picketed in Castro's behalf?

Whynot, you wrote:"But if there is anyone else who's life would have been a little bit emptier without the enhancement and support that Rand's philosophy provided, how much significance must we give to those times that she imploded, when she did not live up to her own lofty standards?"

My life certainly was vastly enriched by what I learned from her, and I shall always be in her debt for that -- but that doesn't mean that I should not acknowledge that she was capable of making very serious mistakes. These are two separate issues, and should be kept separate. I'll tell you a secret: I, too, have made some disastrous mistakes in my life, and I don;t expect people to ignore them -- nor to ignore whatever good and valuable things i have done. I don't expect people to damn me to hell-fire and brimstone for my mistakes, nor to canonize me for my virtues. Fellas, facts are facts on both sides of the ledger;

So in this respect, I can echo George:: Lighten up, everybody. Don't turn to jello when you see something in Rand you know to be wrong.

Barbara

[quote name='Jeff Riggenbach' date='28 March 2010 - 04:57 AM' timestamp='1269777470' post='94730']

I'm not a fiction writer, but I've brainstormed mini-essays -- experimental pieces, in effect, that I never intended to be read by others -- that "defend" the most horrible crimes in an effort to push the limits of what I think can be reasonably defended. The whole point of brainstorming is not to censor oneself, but to write in a stream of consciousness manner, see what comes out, and then pick out whatever one finds useful.

Some of you guys need to lighten up on Rand.

I have to go with George on all of the above. Not only do you push the limits in that way, you can drop context in these kinds of internal mental exercises - view someone as possessing 'strength' even though he is vicious. Even though in reality you would never let that outweigh the full context of a person.

I also basically agree with George, except when it comes to Rand's contempt for those who expressed rage for Hickman:

"No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the 'majority.'... It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal...This is not just the case of a terrible crime. It is not the crime alone that has raised the fury of public hatred. It is the case of a daring challenge to society. It is the fact that a crime has been committed by one man..."

That's crazy-talk. Even in a deep, artistic, creative trance, the idea of claiming that good, ordinary people had committed worse crimes than kidnapping, murdering and hacking to bits a little girl is nutty and creepy. To me, it's the point where Rand stepped over the line.

Actually, of course, they don't have to have committed worse crimes than Hickman did. Their smug self-satisfaction, the open pride they take in their ignorance and stupidity, is enough to sicken anyone of any intelligence. It obviously sickened Rand.

JR

Who is this "they?" The total of the Americam public? The total of those who were horrified by Hickman's crime? Is everyone except one's own chosen elite --meaning oneself and those who agree with one -- ignorant, stupid, and proud of it? What philosophy were we discussing?

Barbara

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

It was only this evening that I had a chance to read the posts in this thread (along with the slimy linked article), after which I went back and reread Rand's comments about Hickman in her Journals.

I honestly don't understand what most of the brouhaha is about. Rand calls Hickman "a monster in his cruelty and disrespect of all things," and she adds: "Yes, he is a monster—now. But the worse he is, the worst must be the cause that drove him to this."

Here are some other relevant Journal comments:

"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."

"The model for the boy is Hickman. Very far from him, of course. The outside of Hickman, but not the inside. Much deeper and much more. A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me."

As at least one other poster has suggested, this is obviously the brainstorming of a young writer who is attempting to work out some features and motivations of a fictional character. So what's the big f'ing deal?

I'm not a fiction writer, but I've brainstormed mini-essays -- experimental pieces, in effect, that I never intended to be read by others -- that "defend" the most horrible crimes in an effort to push the limits of what I think can be reasonably defended. The whole point of brainstorming is not to censor oneself, but to write in a stream of consciousness manner, see what comes out, and then pick out whatever one finds useful.

Some of you guys need to lighten up on Rand.

Ghs

George, she also wrote (italics mine): "It is repulsive to see all these beings [society] with worse sins and crimes in their own lives…This is not just the case of a terrible crime. It is not the crime alone that has raised the fury of public hatred. It is the case of a daring challenge to society. ….That tyrannical monster, the mob, feels the helpless fury of impotence in the presence of the one thing beyond its power, that it cannot conquer, the only thing that counts – a man's own soul and consciousness. And when the mob sees one of those rare, free, clear spirits, over which it has no control – then we have the (spectacle) of a roaring, passionate public hatred."

She speaks of Hickman's "strength, as shown in his unprecedented conduct during his trial and sentencing; his calm, superior, indifferent, disdainful countenance, which is like an open challenge to society – shouting to it that it cannot break him; his immense, explicit egoism – a thing the mob never forgives; and his cleverness, which makes the mob feel that a superior mind can exist entirely outside of its established morals"…

"This case showed me how society can wreck an exceptional being, and then murder him for being the wreck that it itself has created."

Rand was speaking of a man who kidnapped and murdered -- chopping her body into pieces -- a twelve-year-old girl. .He sent her parents taunting, threatening ransom notes, and when the father met with him and paid him, he opened his car door and threw the dead girl's torso into the street in front of her father. Where did reality go when Rand wrote of Hickman's "daring challenge to society." or his "rare, free, clear spirit," "his immense, explicit egoism?" Where did reason go? And justice?

Barbara

Peter Reidy' wrote: "When you pronounce on other people's motives, especially in public and especially if you impute bad motives, the burden of proof is on you to support the judgement and rule out the alternatives. I've seen nothing to rule out the possibility that Peikoff countenanced publication of The Little Street, the therapy diaries and the hush-hush passages from We The Living 1.0 because he wanted the world to have an honest picture of Rand's intellectual development."

Peter, if Peikoff wanted the world to have an honest picture of Rand's intellectual development, why did he edit her so drastically? Jennifer Burns, who spent a good deal of time in the archives, said that The Journals of Ayn Rand should have been entitled An Interpretation of the Journals of Ayn Rand.

And by the way, Peikoff could not have done anything to suppress passages from the original We The Living. The book was in print during Rand's lifetime, and she herself made the changes for a new edition, saying in her Foreword that they were "merely editorial line-changes."

Barbara

I don't expect I'll ever understand why Peikoff, in the process of removing from Ayn's statements what he preferred she had not said, left in her reaction to Hickman and her "therapeutic treatment" of Nathaniel.

Barbara,

There's one easy way to understand these kinds of decisions:

Ambivalence.

Big-time.

Robert Campbell

Robert, you're exactly right. I don't know where my head was when I said I didn't understand it. Except that I don't think he realized what was so wrong with her acting as Nathaniel's therapist. For that matter, I don't think Ayn had any understanding of the mistake she was making in attempting to "cure" Nathaniel of his estrangement from her.

Barbara

Would I lie to you?

Barbara

Roger, I've done as you asked: I've sent it on to a number of people.

Barbara