Objectivist Round-up, October 2024

1. The Ayn Rand Institute’s Elan Journo interviewed Harry Binswanger about Alexandra Popoff’s new biography of Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand: Creating a Gospel of Success.  The biography of Rand is part of Yale University Press’s Jewish Lives series. While I think Popoff goes a little too far in finding Jewish influences on Rand and her works, Binswanger can’t even concede it’s metaphysically possible.  Binswanger thunders: “Rand was not influenced!”  Apparently, it’s all or nothing for Binswanger.  (How this is consistent with the Objectivist view that it’s ultimately a handful of intellectuals who drive the benighted masses is beyond me.)  Binswanger takes a jab at Barbara Branden’s 1986 biography of Rand, The Passion of Ayn Rand.  He doesn’t name Branden but concedes the author knew Rand.  He then takes a jab at the 2009 biographies of Rand by Jennifer Burns and Anne Heller.   They want to describe Rand as crazy (none of them does) and want to find heightened influence on Nietzsche on Rand “because they want to.”  Apparently, no take on Rand other than Binswanger’s can be made in good faith.  At the end of the interview Binswanger takes exception to Popoff’s claim that Rand’s husband Frank was “meek.”  Binswanger gives a couple examples of Frank’s supposed assertiveness.  I don’t think these examples undercut the portrayal of Frank by other biographers.  In any event, since ARI associated writers have contested over the years that Frank consumed alcohol to excess in his sad, final years why doesn’t Binswanger attack Popoff for confirming this (she had complete access to Rand’s archives, a fact never mentioned by Binswanger or Journo)?  Journo asks Binswanger about how Popoff quotes him but doesn’t acknowledge that Popoff corresponded with him.

2. Yaron Brook was asked about David Harriman’s editing of The Journals of Ayn Rand.  There has been controversy about this for a long time, in particular when Jennifer Burns published her 2009 biography of Rand, Goddess of the Market. Burns reported that Harriman rewrote sentences where Rand was tentative to be more emphatic to conform with her later thinking.  Harriman even moved paragraphs around. (Similar editing plagued 5 other posthumous works.) While Brook doesn’t mention Burns or discuss the nature of the changes, he says that while someone could quibble with this or that editing decision, the editing was supervised by Leonard Peikoff and Peikoff approved the work. Brook also says one can always compare the book with the originals, which is untrue. The Archives are open for the most part only to supporters (but see above and below).

3. Speaking of Burns, the ARI’s Elan Journo recently reviewed, Goddess of the Market. Journo argues that Burns’ book is deficient in matters of scope and interpretation. For example, Burns sees too much influence on Rand’s upbringing on her later philosophy, devotes too much space to Rand’s affair with Nathaniel Branden, devotes too little space on her philosophical views on non-political questions, etc. Some of these contentions I agree with and some I don’t. 

Up front, Journo never mentions that, as noted above, Burns revealed that six volumes of Rand’s posthumously published material were so heavily edited as to be essentially worthless. And all the editors still are associated with the ARI (with the exception of Harriman). I think readers of Journo’s review should know that.

Journo argues that Burns “leans heavily” on the Branden books. Well, Goddess contains 45 pages of endnotes (in smaller print than the body of the text). I counted 630 endnotes. I totted up the notes that mention one or both of the Branden books, and there were a whopping 20 that mentioned a Branden book. That’s 3 percent of the notes. And consider the following: on page 318, Burns cites nearly 30 letters from Isabel Paterson to Rand and vice versa.

Also, Journo fails to mention that Burns confirmed many aspects of their accounts through research at the ARI’s Archives (see her Essay on Sources in Goddess and her website.) She concluded that while the books should be used with caution, they have value as primary source material and we should be grateful for all the interviews Barbara Branden took.  But to Journo, this is too much. And consider this attack on the Brandens: “Each openly admits to being serially dishonest. They admit that for years they deceived themselves and deceived friends and deceived Rand, while she was a close friend, mentor, business partner.” Nathaniel admits that he lied to Rand about having an affair with a young model for years. Barbara admitted that she concealed Nathaniel’s affair with the model but eventually threatened to tell Rand. How this amounts to being serially dishonest not only to Rand but also friends is beyond me.

Continuing his attack on the Brandens, Journo alleges: “For example, she [Burns] notes of Barbara Branden’s book that it includes ‘significantly edited and rewritten’ quotes as if they were verbatim, and that it is ‘marred by serious inaccuracies.’” However, Burns’ statement about quotes being rewritten refers to Branden’s interviews with Rand.  Burns argues that Branden, in effect, “cleaned up” Rand’s responses but doesn’t assert she changed their meaning. And the claim about “serious inaccuracies” reads in full:

Moreover, Branden’s biography is marred by serious inaccuracies and tales that do not stand up to historical investigations, including the now debunked story that Rand named herself after her typewriter. Too often, Branden takes Rand’s stories about herself at face value, reporting as fact information contradicted by the historical record.

Most importantly, if Journo’s contention is that Burns makes mistakes of a strictly historical nature by relying on the Branden accounts, then he should give some examples. Did Frank consume alcohol to excess? Did Rand consume amphetamines to an extent that it comprised her mental health?* Did Rand and Nathaniel obtain the consent of their respective spouses before initiating the affair? Was Rand wrong that Nathaniel was in effect stealing from her? Journo’s evaluation of such contentions? As someone used to say: “blank out.”

As a final point, it’s interesting to see how far we’ve come concerning the Branden accounts. In 1986, after The Passion of Ayn Rand was published, Leonard Peikoff said he wouldn’t read the book but claimed everything in it was an “arbitrary assertion” (he even told David Kelley that the claim of the affair was arbitrary). Peter Schwartz seconded the arbitrary assertion claim, adding that Branden’s recollections should be given no more credence than a person claiming to have visited Buddhist temples with Rand. Then, in 2005, Peikoff sponsored a dishonest hit piece—that is, James Valiant’s The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics, which claimed not only that the Branden books were “arbitrary,” but they were dishonest from beginning to end. Now, after nearly forty years of dissembling, it looks like the Brandens got it right and we are now just quibbling about various interpretation.

_________________

*Incidentally, Barbara Branden acknowledged Rand’s amphetamine use but denied its negative effects on her mental health. Burns concludes otherwise. So much for Burns’ uncritical reliance on the Brandens.

4. Journo followed this review with an equally bad review of Anne Heller’s Ayn Rand and the World She Made.  While containing the usual hand wringing about her use of the Branden books, Journo doesn’t identify any mistakes.

5. James Valliant interviewed Leonard Peikoff recently.  As readers may know (see last month’s update), Peikoff’s daughter has filed a conservatorship action concerning him.  While Peikoff didn’t discuss the legal case, he did say that he and his wife enjoy gambling.  To each his own, but this hardly seems consistent with his letter in which he said he can’t pay his legal fees and yet still feels the need to start a Go Fund Me page. Peikoff strikes me as competent, but a competent 90-year-old isn’t the same as a competent 70-year-old.  Peikoff revealed that he’s creating a committee to decide what to do with Rand’s works going forward. Hard to imagine a younger Peikoff being up in the air about Rand’s books after his death.  Something doesn't seem right here.  At the very least, Peikoff needs a better public relations advisor.

6. The Ayn Rand Fan Club has a discussion of the Peikoff situation.