Barbara Branden

Here's one for all suffering writers. (I don't know the name of the author.) "My father never suffered from truck-driver's block." Barbara

Isn't it interesting (read "disgusting") that although Obama had time to go to Copenhagen to plead for the Olympics to take place in Chicago, when he was invited to participate in the celebration of the fall of the Berlin Wall--one of the most important events of the 20th Century -- he said he was too busy. And isn't it interesting (read "an obscenity") that Islamic terrorists are still being allowed to murder Americans -- this time, pregnant American women. Many such woman are dying because the Obama Administration did not keep its promise to make sufficient swine flu vaccine available to those who need it -- except, of course, to Gitmo terrorists who are receiving it. Barbara

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.

JEFF: "there are a handful of works in that genre {fantasy}that do qualify as genuine literary classics of the very first quality. Some of these date from the 19th Century - Ram Stoker's Dracut, Oscar Wild'ss The Picture ofDoreenn Gray, Charles Dickens's A Christmas Carol. I used to tell my students back in the '90s, when I taught a course in Fantasy and Science Fiction at an art college in San Francisco, that those were the three great works of fantasy of the Victorian Era. (There were several great 19th Century works of science fiction, too, including Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Robert Louis Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.)." Is someone putting something in my coffee? Once again I find myself agreeing with Jeff. But I would add the exquisite fantasy writing of Oscar Wilde's Fairy Tales. such as The Nightingale and the Rose and The Happy Prince. Barbara

Obama would have done himself a favor if he'd fired Jones rather than let him resign -- but the hypocrisy might have been too evident even for Obama. Barbara

I found it difficult to hear all the words of McKennet's The Highwayman, so here is the poem: The Highwayman The wind was a torrent of darkness upon the gusty trees, The moon was a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas, The road was a ribbon of moonlight looping the purple moor, And the highwayman came riding-- Riding--riding-- The highwayman came riding, up to the old inn door. He'd a French cocked hat on his forehead, and a bunch of lace at his chin; He'd a coat of the claret velvet, and breeches of fine doe-skin. They fitted with never a wrinkle; his boots were up to his thigh! And he rode with a jeweled twinkle-- His rapier hilt a-twinkle-- His pistol butts a-twinkle, under the jeweled sky. Over the cobbles he clattered and clashed in the dark inn-yard, He tapped with his whip on the shutters, but all was locked and barred, He whistled a tune to the window, and who should be waiting there But the landlord's black-eyed daughter-- Bess, the landlord's daughter-- Plaiting a dark red love-knot into her long black hair. Dark in the dark old inn-yard a stable-wicket creaked Where Tim, the ostler listened--his face was white and peaked-- His eyes were hollows of madness, his hair like mouldy hay, But he loved the landlord's daughter-- The landlord's black-eyed daughter; Dumb as a dog he listened, and he heard the robber say: "One kiss, my bonny sweetheart; I'm after a prize tonight, But I shall be back with the yellow gold before the morning light. Yet if they press me sharply, and harry me through the day, Then look for me by moonlight, Watch for me by moonlight, I'll come to thee by moonlight, though hell should bar the way." He stood upright in the stirrups; he scarce could reach her hand, But she loosened her hair in the casement! His face burnt like a brand As the sweet black waves of perfume came tumbling o'er his breast, Then he kissed its waves in the moonlight (O sweet black waves in the moonlight!), And he tugged at his reins in the moonlight, and galloped away to the west. He did not come in the dawning; he did not come at noon. And out of the tawny sunset, before the rise of the moon, When the road was a gypsy's ribbon over the purple moor, The redcoat troops came marching-- Marching--marching-- King George's men came marching, up to the old inn-door. They said no word to the landlord; they drank his ale instead, But they gagged his daughter and bound her to the foot of her narrow bed. Two of them knelt at her casement, with muskets by their side; There was Death at every window, And Hell at one dark window, For Bess could see, through her casement, the road that he would ride. They had bound her up at attention, with many a sniggering jest! They had tied a rifle beside her, with the barrel beneath her breast! "Now keep good watch!" and they kissed her. She heard the dead man say, "Look for me by moonlight, Watch for me by moonlight, I'll come to thee by moonlight, though Hell should bar the way." She twisted her hands behind her, but all the knots held good! She writhed her hands till her fingers were wet with sweat or blood! They stretched and strained in the darkness, and the hours crawled by like years, Till, on the stroke of midnight, Cold on the stroke of midnight, The tip of one finger touched it! The trigger at least was hers! The tip of one finger touched it, she strove no more for the rest; Up, she stood up at attention, with the barrel beneath her breast. She would not risk their hearing, she would not strive again, For the road lay bare in the moonlight, Blank and bare in the moonlight, And the blood in her veins, in the moonlight, throbbed to her love's refrain. Tlot tlot, tlot tlot! Had they heard it? The horse-hooves, ringing clear; Tlot tlot, tlot tlot, in the distance! Were they deaf that they did not hear? Down the ribbon of moonlight, over the brow of the hill, The highwayman came riding-- Riding--riding-- The redcoats looked to their priming! She stood up straight and still. Tlot tlot, in the frosty silence! Tlot tlot, in the echoing night! Nearer he came and nearer! Her face was like a light! Her eyes grew wide for a moment, she drew one last deep breath, Then her finger moved in the moonlight-- Her musket shattered the moonlight-- Shattered her breast in the moonlight and warned him--with her death. He turned, he spurred to the West; he did not know who stood Bowed, with her head o'er the casement, drenched in her own red blood! Not till the dawn did he hear it, and his face grew grey to hear How Bess, the landlord's daughter, The landlord's black-eyed daughter, Had watched for her love in the moonlight, and died in the darkness there. Back, he spurred like a madman, shrieking a curse to the sky, With the white road smoking behind him and his rapier brandished high! Blood-red were his spurs in the golden noon, wine-red was his velvet coat When they shot him down in the highway, Down like a dog in the highway, And he lay in his blood in the highway, with the bunch of lace at his throat. And still on a winter's night, they say, when the wind is in the trees, When the moon is a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas, When the road is a gypsy's ribbon looping the purple moor, The highwayman comes riding-- Riding--riding-- The highwayman comes riding, up to the old inn-door. Over the cobbles he clatters and clangs in the dark inn-yard; He taps with his whip on the shutters, but all is locked and barred; He whistles a tune to the window, and who should be waiting there But the landlord's black-eyed daughter, Bess, the landlord's daughter, Plaiting a dark red love-knot into her long black hair. ----------------------------------------------------- The above poem can be found in print, for example, in: Noyes, Alfred. Collected Poems. New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company, 1913. A recording of the poem being sung can be found on: McKennitt, Loreena. The Book of Secrets [CD]. Burbank, CA: Warner Bros. Records Inc., 1997.

Some of the comments about Edward Kennedy's death show a very naive concept of human beings and of the amount of good and bad they are able to absorb into their characters, Some of your comments about Kennedy would be justified only if you believed that an objective court of law should pronounce upon him the penalty of death. I do not believe it. I don't like Edward kennedy, for three reasons: his political ideology, the sleaziness of much of his personal life, and, of course, the Mary Joe Kopechne incident,. But he was not Satan incarnate., He wa also a man who survived the many tragedies of his life without losing a certain gusto for life. He was a man who took on the job of being father to the çhildren of his asassinated brothers, and those children clearly love him to this day. By all accounts, he was a man capable of considerate, fiercely loyal friendships -- a virtue I greatly respect. .And he was a man who apparently performed many acts of kindness wihout fanfare.or publicity. And by all acounts, he faced his certain death with courage and dignity, with even a touch of humor. I'm not suggesting you wish him long life and happinesss , but is it really necesssay to dance on his grave? This gloating over suffering and death becomes repulsive. It reminds me of nothing so much as Perigo's ugly contention that Frank Zappa deserved to die a slow, painful death from prostate cancer. In my mnd, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, bin Laden, are wholly political men. That is, their political and human evil is so great that no circumstances can be mitigating, no other qualities of character matter. I am not prepared to say that about Kennedy. Now start yelling. Barbara

Rnd was very much afraid of investing. She said that she was not sufficiently knowledgeable about investments and could not take the time to become knowledgeable. Nor was she willing to take advice on the subject; she knew that even the best of advisors can make mistakes. She had lived through the misery of trying to steal time to write when she had no money, and she wanted never to go through that again. By simply leaving her money in the bank, despite what inflation was doing to it, she could reasonably expect that she would have sufficient income to support herself for the rest of her life. To Rand, money was time -- free time to write. She was relatively indifferent to whatever else it could buy. It was only in the last years of her life that she accepted Alan Greenspan's advice and put some of her money into very safe investments. On another subject, I'm surprised that some of you think Leonard Peikoff should not leave his money to his daughter. If she is the person he cares about most in the world -- as I assume she is -- then of course he wants her to be the one who profits from whatever he has. She can't destroy Objectivism, or stop Rand's books from being read, even if she cares about it less than Peikoff does, or not at all. And I could well understand it if he preferred not to shackle her with legal requirements, just as Rand did not shackle him. Barbara

Phil: "Rand's philosophy is essentially true and scientific. Even if you are not an Oist, you can still see that there is lots of value there. In all kinds of ways, including literaray and matters of close argument and precise 'formulation.'" You also said: "One can't read every original scientist or thinker. Knowledge has grown too vast. That's why - until we see a contradiction or unconvincing argument - we (often) rely on the consensus of specialists who summarize and discuss (until we smell a rat like the 'consensus' over global warming). It is perfectly proper to use 'Secondary sources', especially when they say the same thing ..." You can't have it both ways, Phil. If you first went to the consensus of specialists in philosophy for information about Rand, you would find them denying every word you said about her above. If you relied on secondary sources, "especially when they say the same thing," you would never read Rand. Barbara

Jeff: "Actually, here is the point: Michael says somewhere on another thread that he hopes denizens of OL will check not only their own premises, but also those of people they read and learn from, like Rand and Peikoff. Are you content to parrot the interpretation of Kant or Hume promoted by your teachers without reading Kant and Hume for yourself, finding out first hand what the basis of your teachers' interpretation is, and discerning for yourself whether you agree with it? Or would you rather know what you're talking about? "I'd say, for example, on the basis of my own reading of Kant in the early '70s, that Rand's and Peikoff's interpretation of his work is oversimplified and invariably puts the worst possible face on anything at all ambiguous in Kant's writing." Wonders will never cease. I agree with Jeff. And I have read Kant and Hume. Phil, in addition to Jeff's point, consider this: that no thinker works and thinks in a vacuum, and that in order to evaluate a philosopher's ideas, you have to know what were the problems and issues he was attempting to solve, the apparent philosophical dilemmas he was attempting to deal with. The genius of Plato and the early Greeks, for instance, lay not so much in their answers to philosophical questions as in their definitions of what constituted important philosophical questions that any thinker must seek answers to. This is equally relevant to Rand. One of the reasons we admire her is for her recognition that there had not been a moral defense of capitalism, that it was assumed its only justification was practicality, and that a moral defense must be provided if freedom was to be protected. Or, in the area of epistemology, whether we agree with all her conclusions or not, we admire her for recognizing that a philosophical defense of the human mind's capacity to arrive at truth was urgently required in order to end the philosophical ascendancy of relativism and subjectivism. Similarly with Kant and Hume. In order to evaluate their work -- or to evaluate so-called experts' descriptions of their work -- you have to be reasonably familiar with the philosophical thinking of their times and, most particularly, with what philosophical problems they believed required solutions. In a word, you have to read them. Barbara

Jonathan: "They'd [Objectivists] want their money being spent on creating an army of dedicated Romantic Realists." Jonathan: "I just think that liberals and libertarians would be much more open to encouraging genuinely free artistic expression than the majority of Objectivists would." What would it take to convince you to reconsider your policcy of making vast, global generalizations as if they were self-evident? Barbara

Jonathan: "If you were very wealthy and decided to establish an arts foundation which financially supported young talent, and then a skilled realist painter or romantic filmmaker, who you felt was more than qualified to receive support from your program, began spending all of his time (and your money) exploring wild abstraction as a means of exp​ression which excited him, or if he was suddenly inspired by postmodernist architecture, performance and installation art and decided to incorporate its dark, eclectic aesthetic ideas into his work, would he still receive your foundation's support and encouragement, or would be seen as someone who became a part of the problem in the culture that your foundation sought to change, and, therefore, would he be cut off from your money if he continued to pursue those modes of exp​ression?" I would not care what they explored. In fact, I would be uneasy if they didn't explore, especially the young ones. An artist is an explorer. (I rather doubt, however, that a mature realist painter would be tempted by installation art, or a romantic filmmaker by postmodernism.) And I would not be standing over them to judge them moment by moment. The purppse of my help would be to enable them to find their own voices, not my voice. But surely you are not suggesting that I must reject any standards. Surely you don't think that I would be narrow-minded and bigoted, more concerned with morality than art, if I believed that silence is not equivalent to a great concerto and that three dots of paint on a wall are not a gteat painting. I've never heard that the head of a foundation is expected to choose and to judge without the guidance of standards. Is art without identity, so that anything goes? If a young composer whom the foundation was sponsoring decided to abandon his talent and devote his career to creating equvialents of John Cage's "4'33", then I, too, would abandon his talent,. Should I not do so? Barbara

X-ray: "My guess is the total number of those who started smoking because of Rand (or did not think of quitting because Rand advocated smoking) was quite high." I don't know why that's your guess, or what it is relevant to. However, Rand did not advocate smoking. She simply did not think that the evidence of its harmful effects at the time was sufficient to require stopping if one enjoyed it. Whether one agrees with her or not -- and I do not -- that is quite different than an advocacy of smoking. Barbara

And I'd like to go on record as saying I have no idea of the point of Jeff's quip. Barbara

Ted: "I've never thought I had a good understanding of Rand's condemnation of Beethoven. She stated that he was a very talented composer, though she abhorred his sense of life. I just don't perceive a malovelent sense of life in his work. Perhaps Barbara B. can lend some insight on the connection Rand made." Sorry. I've never had the least idea why Rand saw Beethoven as malevolent. I do know that she had heard very little of his work. My only guess is that she listened to a composition -- or part of a composition-- that was dark and gloomy. and assumed that the part gave her sufficient information about the total. I have seen her doing the equivalent successfully in the area of philosophy, that is, learning an aspect of a thinker's views and extrapolating the essence of his overall philosophy from that. aspect. It sometimes works with philosophies. It rarely works with music. Barbara.

Jonathan; "Objectivists, whether they're successful businessmen or not, tend to think that they've got quite an eye for aesthetics. They often believe that their tastes in art are 'objectively superior,' and believing in the objective superiority of their tastes seems to be very important to them, even when they admit to having very little knowledge or interest in art." Apparently you'v been spending too much time with ARI-type Objectivists. I simply do not know who you're talking about. You're taking a fringe, cultist element and equating it with the total of Objectivists. You'd have do do better than this in order to make your point. Jonathan: "It's not an expression of contempt to suspect (based on having met a few of them, [Objectivist businessmen ]and based on having met countless other Objectivists that most of them probably don't have much of a clue about the arts, and to think that they would probably be more concerned with moral issues rather than aesthetic ones when funding the arts.....I haven't found them to be aware of their weaknesses, especially when it comes to the arts. In my experience, they seem to act as if their business success should somehow make their views on art carry more weight. And, again, add Objectivism to the mix, and the hubris is magnified -- Objectivists tend to act as if their having read Rand's views on art makes their views 'objectively superior.'" These ae incredihle floating generalizations to base on your statement that "I've known a few, but mostly through online correspondene,." I have knpwn personally any number of Objectivist businessmen whio are highly knowledgeable about the arts, and who certainluy do not suppose that their business success lends added weight to their views on art. "Suspect" and 'probably" are not arguments or evidence, nor are they grounds for equating Objectivist businessmen with Babbitts. I see little but a string of asertions in your post , and an unjustified put-down of Objectivists generally and Objectivist businessmen in particular -- as meaningless as if you'd written that .you suspect that probably most Objetivist businessmen know more about art than the greatest artists. Barbara

Jim: "I think that what talent needs less than patronage is mentorship. The biggest barrier to success is the inability to market and sell talent. Young people need to learn how to find an environment where they can make mistakes and not have them be fatal. Most of it is figuring out how to be in the right place, at the right time, with the right product and the right message." Mentorship can be extremely valuable, but it won't do much good if the talented person does not, for financial reasons, have the free time to work in the field of his talent. I have in mind not just young people starting out, but, for instance,, writers I know who are able only sporadically to do the work they should be doing, who find the constant strain of not knowing where their next dollar is coming from enervating and depressing, but who are highly accomplished and knowledgeable and do not need mentorship. They only need free time. And free time requires money. Jonathan: "As for what makes or breaks artists, I think it depends on the individual. Starving in a garret in the middle of a brutal war between two competing tyrannical factions might be just what one artist needs to find his voice, where comparatively milder obstacles would quickly make another artist give up." In my experience, I have found that the only people who think starving in garret will help an arrtist find his voice, are those who have never had to starve in a garret and who do not have the least understanding of how miserable and debilitating it is. If am artist finds his voice in such circumstances, it is not because of the circumstances, it is in spite of them. Jonathan: "Being aided by wealthy Objectivists who want to 'change the culture' by establishing arts foundations would probably result in a bunch of mediocre artists being motivated to remain mediocre as artists but to deliver the "right" moral message that their wealthy patrons wanted to hear.. .. Objectivists are generally no more informed about art than others, nor are they more sensitive to what is or is not good art. In fact, since Objectivists often tend to equate moral judgments of art with aesthetic judgments, I doubt that most Objectivists who made their money in non-art-related businesses would have much of a clue about which criteria to use in identifying who has talent worth nurturing and who doesn't, and I think that any Objectivist arts foundations would likely come across as people who know nothing about art presuming to try to buy some influence over those who do." How many highly successful Objectivist businessmen do you know? From my experience,, which is quite wide, I would expect that businessmen in a position to establish such foundations would turn to accomplished artists (or scientists, or inventors. etc,; I had in mind founndatiions that would help talent not only in the arts) to make professional decisions about what constitutes significant ability in their fields. I do not share your apparent contempt for Objectivist bsinessmen; I have found them, for the most part, to be well aware of their own strenths and weakneses. Nor do I share your view of talented young people as Peter Keatings who would choose mediocrity rather than offend wealthy patrons. Barbara

Phil: "If I were a millionaire, it would be enormously to my interest to do what the Medicis did. Find and nurture and subsidize potential great artists, find them commissions, until there is a world in which such artists (and writers, and sculptors, and musicians) can find their footing." I've often had the same thought. I've seen so many enormously talented young people who couldn't afford to do the work they loved, and had to take jobs that were meaningless to them in other fields. And I've wondered why wealthy Objectivists -- who surely know the value of ability -- don't seek out and aid such people, at least among Objectivists. There are endless foundations that support the disabled and the sick, but so few that support the able and the gifted. Starving in a garret is not good for the soul, or the character-- and does not nurture talent. Wouldn't it be wonderful to see an organization created by Objectivists that was dedicated to finding and aiding talent in any field? Barbara

Judith: "Arrogant thighs?" You made it up. Say you made it up. Please. Barbara

John, have you posted you poem about "Until Now" where we can read it? If not, please do post it to Objectivist Living. Barbara

Ralph, I'm curious about -- and intrigued by -- the title of your painting: "Until Now." What did you intend it to convey? Barbara

We'll be on speaking terms only if you admit the terminal moral depravity involved in disagreeing with me. Barbara

Mary, I assume you don't know this, but people representing TOS have approached the representatives of ARI a number of times over the years, hoping to find a way that the two organizations could cooperate. Each time, their suggestions of a rapprochement have been rejected. Barbara