Jennifer Burns

Brant - Disdain or even contempt for the stance of Buckley and National Review towards Ayn Rand and Objectivism is certainly understandable - and appropriate. But not all conservatives associated with National Review have been hostile towards Rand. Some, such as Henry Hazlett, John Chamberlain, and E. Merrill Root, presented contrasting opinions from the Chambers attack. Isabel Paterson, reportedly recruited by Buckley to write for his magazine, severely chastised him and told him in a letter that, in her opinion, Rand certainly had justifiable grounds for a lawsuit, based on the Chambers article. Shortly thereafter, Paterson severed her connections to Buckley and did not write for this magazine. National Review has been, from the start, a curious collection of varied streams of conservative thought, ranging from Buckley's dogmatic Catholicism through traditionalist, fusionist and libertarian varieties. It is also a bellwether of the conservative movement. Now that Buckley is gone, it is problematic whether the editors can hold it together, or keep it recognizable as a Buckley creation. Why is this important? "To hell with National Review!" you say. If one can believe that there is currently enough Objectivists to turn this culture around "all by ourselves," well then, to hell with National Review and its ilk. I, for one, cannot believe that Objectivists currently, or in the foreseeable future, possess that capability. Currently, the Objectivist movement is divided into quarreling factions that would rather fight each other than join in any sort of cooperative effort with "others" (e.g., conservatives and libertarians) to fight and defeat a common enemy. Hell, many Objectivists can't even get along with libertarians, most of whom share identical political and economic beliefs with us! Fifty years after the publication of Atlas Shrugged - and what do we have to show for it? Barack Hussein Obama. Not what I would call an example of the strong influence of Objectivists on our culture, or as progress toward a free society. I do not care for the weltanschauung of National Review conservatives. But if Objectivists cannot form some sort of alliance against the forces of collectivism, then we will "all hang separately" (figuratively speaking,..I think...). FYI, National Review told my publisher they planned "major coverage" of the book, and even assigned a reviewer, but since then... nothing! Too bad they don't want to continue the tradition of NR on Rand, I would have enjoyed being part of that (and feel as though I could predict the content of the review pretty easily...) -Jennifer

Chris, Jennifer is writing about this on her blog here: In the Rand Archives, Part 1: Gaining Access She was kind enough to send me an email about this, so I am going to open a new thread about it soon. Michael Michael; Thanks for the update. I noted in Stephen Cox review of Ann Heller's book that there is a brief interview with Heller in which Heller said that they denied Heller access because ARI Archives had granted exclusive access to Shoshana Milligram for her Ayn Rand book. I suspect in very near time ARI will regret this decision. As I have said before it's going to be a long wait for October for both books. It is going to be very interesting what ARI actually says about both books. If you check out the latest archive newsletter, they have already mentioned both my book and Heller's in conjunction with the archive (though they got my title wrong, arg!). http://www.aynrand.org/site/DocServer/impact_200906.pdf?docID=2041 I believe they are also preparing to update policies and information on the archive (what is on line now is very outdated). I'm writing about these topics now, check out my blog www.jenniferburns.org/blog Jennifer

Dear All, Looks like there is such great interest in this topic, I will think about blogging on it at greater length sometime soon. Reidy: Great work comparing the Wright/Rand correspondence. I don’t know why they altered Wright, but it might have been at the bequest of his Estate. In terms of changing Rand’s reply, one reason for this may be her revised estimate of the producer, who disappointed her, so perhaps the editor didn’t want her in print with three words of praise, only one. As I write in my book Goddess of the Market, the letters are more intact than the journals. But I am sure those of you looking into it will pile up more discrepancies. Re AR’s papers, I think that absolute transparency is perhaps not a realistic goal; it is pretty common for heirs of writers and other literary types to restrict access or hide materials. It is often only decades after death that critical information comes forth. E.g. some of Sylvia Plath’s journals were destroyed and others are sealed; important writing by Edith Wharton was hidden by a friend of hers for years; the estate of Richard Hofstadter denied a biographer permission to quote from his papers; etc. We can, however, hope for better access to AR’s materials then there is now. Though I should not be taken as a spokesperson for the Archives or the Estate in any capacity, I can report that the ARI scholars I met working there and the archives staff are all well aware of the editing and are uncomfortable with it. I believe there is even some talk about a reissued scholar’s edition which would include comprehensive footnotes and unrevised text. It may be that as a new generation rises to the fore at ARA, there is more comfort with Rand’s unadulterated legacy. At least we can hope! -Jennifer

Hello all, I agree the secrecy around Rand’s legacy has probably damaged more than helped her. As a historian, I learned long ago that most people who make history have complicated personal lives. What makes Rand distinctive are her ideas and the extraordinary impact she had on her readers. Like you, I hope that my book will mark a new era of openness at the Ayn Rand Archives, because there are many facets of Rand awaiting further explanation. For the record, I’m not a religious conservative! Jennifer

Dear Michael, Thanks for the appreciation! I'll look forward to hearing what you think about the book. best regards, Jennifer