The Rewrite Squad

[Robert Campbell]

Brant,

I don't know of any later Ford Hall Forum appearances where Rand took no questions.

In 1976, she answered questions for 44 minutes. Judge Lurie then announced that the question period was over and Miss Rand wouldn't be staying afterwards because she was awaiting "an anxious telephone."

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

I don't know of any later Ford Hall Forum appearances where Rand took no questions.

In 1976, she answered questions for 44 minutes. Judge Lurie then announced that the question period was over and Miss Rand wouldn't be staying afterwards because she was awaiting "an anxious telephone."

Robert Campbell

I think your information is better than my memory. I do remember the queer elocution in that telephones really aren't anxious. It was just a clever use of a short sentence.

--Brant

[Neil Parille]

Rand: Because libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when it fits their purpose, and denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication when that fits their purpose. They're lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They want an amoral political program.

Rand comes across as rather cranky, if not something of a crank when it comes to libertarianism. Sometimes she says she has nothing in common with them; other times she says they plagiarize her ideas.

It's not as if no one heard of the NOIF principle before her.

-Neil Parille

[George H. Smith]

Rand: Because libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when it fits their purpose, and denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication when that fits their purpose. They're lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They want an amoral political program.

Rand comes across as rather cranky, if not something of a crank when it comes to libertarianism. Sometimes she says she has nothing in common with them; other times she says they plagiarize her ideas.

It's not as if no one heard of the NOIF principle before her.

-Neil Parille

The amount of venom that Rand spewed at libertarians is at once curious and disturbing. I sometimes wonder if a lot of it had to do with the fact that libertarianism was (and is) a broadly based movement that Rand could not control.

A similar thing happened with Murray Rothbard, who, in later life, went after a lot of dissenting libertarians (many of whom were Rothbardians) with a vengeance. Murray used to say that the libertarian movement began in his living room. After Murray begin attacking everyone and anyone who didn't agree with him about some movement detail, I often remarked that if Murray had his way, the libertarian movement would shrink to a number of people that could still fit in his living room.

Similar reactions can be seen throughout history in other movements. When someone sees himself, perhaps rightly, as the founder of a movement, he may react with anger when the movement grows beyond his ability to control its development.

Ghs

[Dragonfly]

It's not as if no one heard of the NOIF principle before her.

The NOIF principle?

[Chris Grieb]

It's not as if no one heard of the NOIF principle before her.

The NOIF principle?

"NOIF" Neil; What does that mean? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Alfonso Jones]

It's not as if no one heard of the NOIF principle before her.

The NOIF principle?

"NOIF" Neil; What does that mean? Inquiring minds want to know.

Just in case anyone doesn't realize that there's surely some teasing going on:

No

Initiation

Of

Foce

as perturbed by a transposition error.

Bill P

[Philip Coates]

> The amount of venom that Rand spewed at libertarians is at once curious and disturbing...When someone sees himself, perhaps rightly, as the founder of a movement, he may react with anger when the movement grows beyond his ability to control its development. [George]

I think it's understandable with regard to anything of great importance which one creates. If you put lots of effort, thought, emotion, and hopes into something and then see people come along who either don't understand or misstate (in your view) or confuse it or fail to appreciate, you will be bitterly angry and resentful. It's human nature. And often very appropriate, if one cares about what one creates.

If I start a project, whether a movement or a philosophy or a cure for cancer, which largely rests on or springs from my contributions and which I judge to be of earth-shaking importance, if I'm a serious person I likely wouldn't want to relinquish all control or influence or see it turned in a harmful or pointless direction.

(How to go about this, and whether or not to be insulting or abusive is another question.)

Edited April 18, 2010 by Philip Coates

[George H. Smith]

> The amount of venom that Rand spewed at libertarians is at once curious and disturbing...When someone sees himself, perhaps rightly, as the founder of a movement, he may react with anger when the movement grows beyond his ability to control its development. [George]

I think it's understandable with regard to anything of great importance which one creates. If you put lots of effort, thought, emotion, and hopes into something and then see people come along who either don't understand or misstate (in your view) or confuse it or fail to appreciate, you will be bitterly angry and resentful. It's human nature. And often very appropriate, if one cares about what one creates.

If I start a project, whether a movement or a philosophy or a cure for cancer, which largely rests on or springs from my contributions and which I judge to be of earth-shaking importance, if I'm a serious person I likely wouldn't want to relinquish all control or influence or see it turned in a harmful or pointless direction.

(How to go about this, and whether or not to be insulting or abusive is another question.)

Successful movements grow, branch out, and become more diverse, but this doesn't necessarily mean that the ideas of the founders have been misunderstood or misstated. General principles are one thing; the practical application of those principles is another. There is a good deal of room for differing approaches in application.

Rand didn't like libertarianism partially because it is a coalition of people on the political level. If one is committed to the the noninitiation of force principle, then the reason for this commitment doesn't matter, so far as libertarianism is concerned. It might matter philosophically, but that is a different issue. Unfortunately, Rand didn't appreciate the wisdom of keeping this difference in mind.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

> The amount of venom that Rand spewed at libertarians is at once curious and disturbing...When someone sees himself, perhaps rightly, as the founder of a movement, he may react with anger when the movement grows beyond his ability to control its development. [George]

I think it's understandable with regard to anything of great importance which one creates. If you put lots of effort, thought, emotion, and hopes into something and then see people come along who either don't understand or misstate (in your view) or confuse it or fail to appreciate, you will be bitterly angry and resentful. It's human nature. And often very appropriate, if one cares about what one creates.

If I start a project, whether a movement or a philosophy or a cure for cancer, which largely rests on or springs from my contributions and which I judge to be of earth-shaking importance, if I'm a serious person I likely wouldn't want to relinquish all control or influence or see it turned in a harmful or pointless direction.

(How to go about this, and whether or not to be insulting or abusive is another question.)

Successful movements grow, branch out, and become more diverse, but this doesn't necessarily mean that the ideas of the founders have been misunderstood or misstated. General principles are one thing; the practical application of those principles is another. There is a good deal of room for differing approaches in application.

Rand didn't like libertarianism partially because it is a coalition of people on the political level. If one is committed to the the noninitiation of force principle, then the reason for this commitment doesn't matter, so far as libertarianism is concerned. It might matter philosophically, but that is a different issue. Unfortunately, Rand didn't appreciate the wisdom of keeping this difference in mind.

Ghs

And unfortunately it extended to Objectivists themselves who, btw, were not to call themselves "Objectivists" but "students of Objectivism." I now think that's horseshit. Call yourself whatever you want. That was all about her being in control.

--Brant

[Roger Bissell]

Robert, if you're trying to find FHF Q&As for two years, I know one year there wasn't any. Probably early 1970s. Judge Lurie announced Rand would not take any questions because she had "an urgent telephone." Must have been the year she went without Frank. This was a real disappointment because 75% of the reason you went to these things was to hear her answer questions. The talks themselves were subsequently published and I always considered them to be Rand at 20% of her brainpower. This was true of just about everything she wrote and published after ITOE in 1966.

--Brant

Brant, I would put the tipping point squarely in 1968. She had a spate of pieces on aesthetics, almost all of which were excellent--with the exception of "Art and Cognition," which (IMO) was atrocious. I think ~that~ essay, more than any other, marks a clear transition into illogic and uninformed hand-waving.

Yes, I think that the Split shook her greatly and severely affected her mental powers. I'm not mind-reading or psychologizing--just inferring from what I observe of the trend in her writings, pre- and post-Split.

She still wrote inspiring pieces after 1968, but they were largely on a more journalistic level. What theory she ~did~ write after the Split was of questionable value. (E.g., not only "Artand Cognition," but also "Causality vs. Duty," which has spawned a fierce debate and cottage industry of Randians and fellow travellers, arguing about whether and how the "choice to live" is "premoral.")

BTW, she was still writing/publishing ITOE in 1967.

REB

[Roger Bissell]

> The amount of venom that Rand spewed at libertarians is at once curious and disturbing...When someone sees himself, perhaps rightly, as the founder of a movement, he may react with anger when the movement grows beyond his ability to control its development. [George]

I think it's understandable with regard to anything of great importance which one creates. If you put lots of effort, thought, emotion, and hopes into something and then see people come along who either don't understand or misstate (in your view) or confuse it or fail to appreciate, you will be bitterly angry and resentful. It's human nature. And often very appropriate, if one cares about what one creates.

If I start a project, whether a movement or a philosophy or a cure for cancer, which largely rests on or springs from my contributions and which I judge to be of earth-shaking importance, if I'm a serious person I likely wouldn't want to relinquish all control or influence or see it turned in a harmful or pointless direction.

(How to go about this, and whether or not to be insulting or abusive is another question.)

Successful movements grow, branch out, and become more diverse, but this doesn't necessarily mean that the ideas of the founders have been misunderstood or misstated. General principles are one thing; the practical application of those principles is another. There is a good deal of room for differing approaches in application.

Rand didn't like libertarianism partially because it is a coalition of people on the political level. If one is committed to the the noninitiation of force principle, then the reason for this commitment doesn't matter, so far as libertarianism is concerned. It might matter philosophically, but that is a different issue. Unfortunately, Rand didn't appreciate the wisdom of keeping this difference in mind.

Ghs

And u nfortunately it extended to Objectivists themselves who, btw, were not to call themselves "Objectivists" but "students of Objectivism." I now think that's horseshit. Call yourself whatever you want. That was all about her being in control.

--Brant

I agree, Brant. Personally, I now think of myself as a demi-Objectivist. (And no, I was not formerly married to Bruce Willis. :-)

REB

[Robert Campbell]

The amount of venom that Rand spewed at libertarians is at once curious and disturbing. I sometimes wonder if a lot of it had to do with the fact that libertarianism was (and is) a broadly based movement that Rand could not control.

A similar thing happened with Murray Rothbard, who, in later life, went after a lot of dissenting libertarians (many of whom were Rothbardians) with a vengeance.

George,

She couldn't stand not being able to control the libertarian movement.

I think Rand and Rothbard were similar enough personalities that their ego duel and ensuing feud were close to inevitable.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1981

Q&A, Track 4, 2:05 through 3:20

Moderator: In The Objectivist, you state that utilitarian objects such as furniture and clothing cannot be called works of art. How do you then determine that architecture could be a work of art?

A: I define that very clearly in The Fountainhead, uh, in, what aspect of architecture, uh, is artistic. And it is not the purely utilitarian aspect, but the way that utilitarian functions are expressed in terms of general, fundamental, metaphysical human values. That is the difference between, uhh, architecture and other utilitarian objects. I even said that the utilitarian objects such as lamps or furniture can be, euh, very artistic. They have a very strong artistic element when they are good. But it is in the nature of a work of art that it does not serve any other purpose—it is an end in itself.

Ayn Rand Answers: not included.

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1981

Q&A, Track 4, 3:21 through 4:02

Q: Miss Rand, what do you think of the work of Beethoven?

A: Well, I would have to say that he's a very great composer, but that I cannot stand him. [Laughter] I'll tell… Again, let me tell you why: Uhh, because music expresses what I call a sense of life, an emotional response to metaphysical issues. And Beethoven is great, because he can make his message so very clear by means of music. And his message is malevolent universe: man's heroic fighting against destiny and man's defeat. That's the opposite of my sense of life.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 226)

Very mild editing, by Mayhewian standards.

I still think her 1974 answer about Beethoven is better.

[George H. Smith]

The amount of venom that Rand spewed at libertarians is at once curious and disturbing. I sometimes wonder if a lot of it had to do with the fact that libertarianism was (and is) a broadly based movement that Rand could not control.

A similar thing happened with Murray Rothbard, who, in later life, went after a lot of dissenting libertarians (many of whom were Rothbardians) with a vengeance.

George,

She couldn't stand not being able to control the libertarian movement.

I think Rand and Rothbard were similar enough personalities that their ego duel and ensuing feud were close to inevitable.

Robert Campbell

http://www.voluntaryist.com/backissues/005.pdf

I posted a link to this article before, on a blog entry about Gandhi. Published in 1983, most of it deals with Rothbard, and it put the final nail in the coffin of our friendship. Murray and I never spoke after this, except briefly at a memorial for Roy Childs held in New York.

I am posting this link again because the article deals, in part, with the issue that you raised.

Ghs

[Robert Campbell]

Mayhew chose Rand's 1981 answer about Beethoven (see above) in place of the 1974 answer that I posted a while back:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7801&view=findpost&p=86886

I'd still really like to know which compositions of Beethoven's Rand had listened to.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

George,

I'd never seen your 1983 piece about Murray Rothbard's attack on "Gandhism" before.

It looks like he could have taught Peter Schwartz a thing or two.

Robert Campbell

[Alfonso Jones]

The amount of venom that Rand spewed at libertarians is at once curious and disturbing. I sometimes wonder if a lot of it had to do with the fact that libertarianism was (and is) a broadly based movement that Rand could not control.

A similar thing happened with Murray Rothbard, who, in later life, went after a lot of dissenting libertarians (many of whom were Rothbardians) with a vengeance.

George,

She couldn't stand not being able to control the libertarian movement.

I think Rand and Rothbard were similar enough personalities that their ego duel and ensuing feud were close to inevitable.

Robert Campbell

http://www.voluntary...kissues/005.pdf

I posted a link to this article before, on a blog entry about Gandhi. Published in 1983, most of it deals with Rothbard, and it put the final nail in the coffin of our friendship. Murray and I never spoke after this, except briefly at a memorial for Roy Childs held in New York.

I am posting this link again because the article deals, in part, with the issue that you raised.

Ghs

Powerful piece, George. For those who are interested, Rothbard's original article to which you are responding can be found at

http://mises.org/journals/lf/1983/1983_03.pdf

Bill P

[Chris Grieb]

George,

I'd never seen your 1983 piece about Murray Rothbard's attack on "Gandhism" before.

It looks like he could have taught Peter Schwartz a thing or two.

Robert Campbell

Peter Schwartz was an amateur in comparison to Rothbard. I noted George Smith reported that Murray was at Roy Child's memorial service. I am little surprised he would show his face considering all he had said about Roy.

[jeffrey smith]

Mayhew chose Rand's 1981 answer about Beethoven (see above) in place of the 1974 answer that I posted a while back:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7801&view=findpost&p=86886

I'd still really like to know which compositions of Beethoven's Rand had listened to.

Robert Campbell

Obviously not the Sixth or Ninth Symphonies, Fidelio, the Choral Fantasy, most of the string quartets and piano sonatas....

If she thought Beethoven's music expressed the "Malevolent universe" idea, then what was her reaction to Mahler? Run screaming from the room?

Jeffrey S.

[George H. Smith]

Powerful piece, George. For those who are interested, Rothbard's original article to which you are responding can be found at

http://mises.org/journals/lf/1983/1983_03.pdf

Bill P

Thanks. Here is another piece in which I criticize Rothbard: "Nathaniel Branden's Judgment Day: Reviewing the Reviewers" (1990).

http://www.anthonyflood.com/smithbranden.htm

Ghs

[Alfonso Jones]

Powerful piece, George. For those who are interested, Rothbard's original article to which you are responding can be found at

http://mises.org/jou...983/1983_03.pdf

Bill P

Thanks. Here is another piece in which I criticize Rothbard: "Nathaniel Branden's Judgment Day: Reviewing the Reviewers" (1990).

http://www.anthonyfl...mithbranden.htm

Ghs

George -

I've read that one before. I like the piece, and I like your attitude in that piece. The notion of NB as lightweight is at odds with the observable facts. His post-1968 writing amounts to a quite formidable career of accomplishments. (I will avoid mentioning others who did not do so well post-1968!)

Bill P

Bill P

[George H. Smith]

Thanks. Here is another piece in which I criticize Rothbard: "Nathaniel Branden's Judgment Day: Reviewing the Reviewers" (1990).

http://www.anthonyfl...mithbranden.htm

Ghs

George -

I've read that one before. I like the piece, and I like your attitude in that piece. The notion of NB as lightweight is at odds with the observable facts. His post-1968 writing amounts to a quite formidable career of accomplishments. (I will avoid mentioning others who did not do so well post-1968!)

Bill P

One thing I planned to include in my review but decided against was a response to what was probably the scuzziest thing that Rothbard ever wrote. In one of his hit jobs masquerading as a review, Rothbard stated that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding Patrecia Branden's accident, and he suggested that NB may have been complicit in her death; i.e., in so many words, Rothbard accused NB of murdering his own wife.

Although I was more of an acquaintance than a friend of Patrecia, I saw her fairly often and liked her a great deal, and I attended her funeral. I could barely contain myself when I read Rothbard's absurd speculation, and I was unable to write anything that was in keeping with the tenor of the rest of my review. After calming myself down, I decided that it was better not to give any more publicity to such malicious gossip, so I didn't mention it. (I feel queasy about even mentioning it here.)

I find Rothbard's unbelievable smear disturbing to this day. I mean, how low can someone get? Whatever personal respect I still had for Murray evaporated on that day.

Ghs

[Dragonfly]

Obviously not the Sixth or Ninth Symphonies, Fidelio, the Choral Fantasy, most of the string quartets and piano sonatas....

Nor any other symphony by Beethoven, as none of them reflect a tragic sense of life or a malevolent universe. The irony is that she was a fan of Tchaikovsky, whose music is so often the expression of tragedy and a malevolent universe, and of Rachmaninoff, neither the most joyful composer you can think of.