Hello, and thanks to those who have remarked favourably on my review of this book at amazon.com. Here are a few extra notes that may be of interest: 1) As far as I know, the full list of interviewees is not publicly accessible yet; however, I have managed to track down voice #101. I am referring to Mr. Tod Foster, who is the source for Jennifer Burns' account of the dismantling of NBI at page 242 of her book: "Nathan appeared, ashen-faced, before his staff and announced his resignation, explaining that he had committed grave moral wrongs and Rand had justifiably severed their relationship. Rumors flew wildly. New Yorkers willing to hear the gossip quickly divined the full story of Nathan and Rand's affair and its aftermath." It is not difficult to see why McConnell left this interview on the cutting room floor. All of this is consistent with the information on NBI's last days that is supplied in '"The Best of Times, the Worst of Times": Ruminations by Henry Mark Holzer and Erika Holzer about Anne C. Heller’s "Ayn Rand and the World She Made".' Anyone reading this piece, which is available on the Net, can see that the Holzers have a continuing, deep admiration for Ayn Rand. If McConnell had interviewed them, and others like them, he would have produced a far better and more balanced oral history than he did. 2) I note that many people are emphasizing how courtly and polite Rand was to Trotskyites, Liberals and others who clearly did not share her views. The implication seems to be: if she was this nice to such people, surely she would be even nicer to those who shared at least some of her convictions. And this is just a half step away from concluding that people who say otherwise must be lying. This is a plausible but mistaken conclusion - and two quotes from McConnell's book show why: First, there is the following remark from Richard Cornuelle: "I remember Ayn's belief that people were your adversaries in almost inverse proportion to their proximity to your position. She thought that people - like Taft - who seemed very much on our side but were willing to make exceptions, because of their apparent popularity, were worse than people who were utterly and elementally opposed to what we stood for." In practice, this of course meant that that those closest to her - the innermost Objectivist circle - had to be in complete lockstep with her in all particulars or face excommunication. For example, she split with the Blumenthals because of their musical and artistic preferences. Even more revealing is the following from Harry Binswanger: 'She once said to me, "If I ever become very polite and calm and mild, that's the time for you to worry, because then I've lost all respect for you. If I'm angry at you, it's because I expect better of you, and I still care about you, I still respect you. But when that's gone, without that, when I'm just bored and polite, that's when you know I've lost all interest in you."' In short, if you think that Randian politesse is a sign of benevolence to all (rather than indifferent contempt), it's time for you to check your premises. These quotes from Cornuelle and Binswanger are my best proof that the "positive" and "negative" accounts of Rand are not contradictory: rather, they shed light on the different sides of a complex and rather disturbing personality. Clearly Rand could be charming and enthralling. You don't need McConnell to find that out: you can read about it in Burns and Heller, as well as in the memoirs by the Brandens. But the negative accounts - of her intolerance, personal cruelty and emotional volatility - are also true. The key point is: the closer you got to Rand, the more personal autonomy you had to give up (just look up John Hospers' memoirs of her to see how that worked). McConnell's book is vastly comforting reading to many: but it is comforting because it ignores half of the personality of Ayn Rand. - Gordon Burkowski
