Retouching Rand (by Neil Parille)

Back in 2009, I wrote an essay Retouching Rand, which discussed the Ayn Rand Institute’s efforts to create a better Ayn Rand.  These efforts involved fibbing about Rand (for example, Leonard Peikoff’s claim that Rand quit smoking because she concluded it was dangerous, when in fact she quit because she got lung cancer, and James Valliant’s dishonest hit piece, The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics).  A lot has happened in the past fifteen years, so it’s time for an update.

Retouching Ayn Rand’s Posthumously Published Material

At the time my essay was published, Jennifer Burns had not published her 2009 autobiography of Rand, Goddess of the Market.  Burns revealed for the first time what was suspected: much of Rand’s posthumously published material was so heavily edited as to be essentially worthless.  As described by Laissez Faire Books at the time:

One other area that I found of significant interest is Burns discussion of the various problems surrounding Rand documents made public by the Ayn Rand Institute, Leonard Peikoff’s organization. There has been a great deal of controversy over indications that ARI doctored documents. Some of this doctoring was admitted by ARI, which asserted that they merely made clarifications consistent with what Rand had intended to say. Burns, who has seen the originals, says this is not the case.

She does say that the letters of Rand, that have been released, “have not been altered; they are merely incomplete.” But the same is not true for other works of Rand, including her Journals Burns writes, “On nearly every page of the published journals an unacknowledged change has been made from Rand’s original writing. In the book’s foreword the editor, David Harriman, defends his practice of eliminating Rand’s words and inserting his own as necessary for greater clarity. In many case, however, his editing serves to significantly alter Rand’s meaning.” She says that sentences are “rewritten to sound stronger and more definite” and that the editing “obscures important shifts and changes in Rand’s thought.” She finds “more alarming” the case that “sentences and proper names present in Rand’s original …have vanished entirely, without any ellipses or brackets to indicate a change.”

The result of this unacknowledged editing is that “they add up to a different Rand. In her original notebooks she is more tentative, historically bounded, and contradictory. The edited diaries have transformed her private space, the hidden realm in which she did her thinking, reaching, and groping, replacing it with a slick manufactured world in which all of her ideas are definite, well formulated, and clear.” She concludes that Rand’s Journals, as released by ARI, “are thus best understood as an interpretation of Rand rather than her own writing. Scholars must use these materials with extreme caution.”

The bad news is that “similar problems plague Ayn Rand Answers (2005), The Art of Fiction (2000), The Art of Non-Fiction (2001), and Objectively Speaking (2009).” Burns says all these works were “derived from archival material but have been significantly rewritten.” Rand scholars have long suspected such manipulation of documents; Burns confirms it with evidence she herself saw.*

As noted above, Journals was edited by David Harriman.  Ayn Rand Answers and The Art of Non -Fiction were edited by Robert Mayhew, Objectively Speaking was edited by Peter Schwart, and The Art of Fiction was edited by Tore Boeckmann.  Harriman is no longer associated with the ARI.  However, Schwartz and Mayhew are.  I’m not sure about Boeckmann.

One would have thought that this revelation would have sent shock-waves through the world of Objectivism, but it passed hardly without notice.  If one wants to see just how heavy the editing was, Robert Campbell purchased and made transcripts of all the questions and answers in Ayn Rand Answers and published a detailed critique.  It took Campbell seventy-one pages to analyze all of Mayhew’s jiggery-pokery.  To take one example, when Rand was asked about claims that Augusto Pinochet was torturing and killing opponents, Rand answered as follows:

Those stories I don’t believe; I would want to have proof from some authorities better than the extreme Left. But I express my opinion of the junta: I don’t think that they have any idea what they’re doing, I don’t think they’re, know what they want—if they do, they’re going about it the wrong way. I think they’re immeasurably better than what, than the Allende government, but I don’t believe they will be able to achieve much, because the country is wrecked. Uhh, I don’t know any signs of their ideology. They had none before, which was what permitted Allende, who was incidentally a minority, euhh, government—he did not get a real majority —but it was made possible by the fact that his opposition didn’t have any particular prob, program, and the experience has not given them any particular program. But compared to Allende I would say they’re gentlemen and scholars and giants. [some laughter from audience] 

This was rewritten by Mayhew as follows:

At present, I don’t believe those stories. I want proof from authorities more reliable than extreme leftists. Given what I do know of the junta, I’d say they have no idea what they’re doing; and, I don’t think they’ll achieve much, because the country is too Red [Rand said “wrecked”]. But they’re better than the Allende government. 

In one almost humorous example, Rand was asked about the government regulating marijuana, cyclamates (artificial sweeteners such as saccharine) and tobacco.  In her answer, she said that tobacco might be dangerous but didn’t know if it was.  (As noted above, Rand was a smoker at the time and ultimately contracted lung cancer.)  Mayhew edited “tobacco” out of the question and answer.  Mayhew even took to Diane Hsieh’s now-defunct Philosophy In Action blog to call Campbell a liar.  When the ARI invited Jordan Peterson to speak at OCONN, Yaron Brook said while this was controversial, it was cleared by the ARI’s “Ethical Integrity Committee” which was headed by Mayhew!  

Yaron Brook was once asked about claims of poor editing of the posthumously published material and said it was lies spread by opponents of the ARI.  He said that the editing was done under Leonard Peikoff’s supervision.  (This was confirmed by Harriman.)

The only acknowledgement of the questionable editing was made by Greg Salmieri in A Companion to Ayn Rand (2016).  Salmieri said the critics (such as Campbell and Chris Sciabarra) were correct about the changes and conceded there were editorial decisions “that I wished had been made differently,” but concluded that the volumes “serve their purpose well  . . . and deserve to be read.”  I’m not sure how, for example, changing what Rand wrote to conform to later Objectivist orthodoxy serves any purpose.  And anyone who wants to read an author’s journals is almost by definition a person who has a scholarly interest in the author and doesn’t want to read what are at best paraphrases.

Robert Mayhew was recently asked about the editing and, in particular, the tobacco question:

Well, this is an awkward kind of question because I was asked by Dr. Peikoff if I would edit Rand's Q&A.  I mean I think I broached the subject with him and he talked about how it had to be edited or you know Penguin [the publisher] wouldn't go for it and that he was going to oversee the editing and now there was there was no there wasn't any you know I would edit her and then he would have suggestions and I would edit a bit more and he would you know  you need more editing here and I was aware at the time that people are not going to you know like this but I assumed people would be good spirited for because almost all of it is available and you know any of the cuts that were made you could see and I mean I think it's possible that I made cuts that I shouldn't have but I stand by the work.  

But if it weren't for the fact that the estate of Ayn Rand was behind the project and had control of it, I probably would have done some things differently but then it wouldn't have been published by Penguin -- it would have been a different kind of book.   

Now I don't remember that particular one but there was some issue that Leonard had issues about but I just don't remember it so if  you have the original and you're comparing it to the Q&A and the Q&A is different in a way that you don't like then I you should you should blame me -- I mean I did it what can I say? 

I'm not going to throw Leonard under the bus because I could have -- if I objected to something I could have said so and sometimes I did and sometimes he said okay and other times he didn't and so there it is.

I think it’s fair to conclude that based on what Harriman and Mayhew have said, the rewriting was directed by Peikoff.

Retouching Ayn Rand’s Life

As readers of the Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature Blog know, the first biography of Rand was Barbara Branden’s biography The Passion of Ayn Rand, which was published in 1986.  Branden’s biography was largely commendatory; however, she first revealed that Rand and Nathaniel Branden had an affair and alleged that this affair led to Rand’s husband Frank O’Connor’s excess consumption of alcohol (which is well documented for his sad, final years but less well documented in the 50s and 60s).  Peikoff went so far as to denounce the book (while saying he would never read it) as an “arbitrary assertion.”  Shortly after its publication, Peter Schwartz denounced it as one long arbitrary assertion.  

It is only in this context that the question can be raised of whether to believe any of the concrete factual allegations Mrs. Branden makes about Ayn Rand’s behavior.  When the truth of such allegations rests entirely upon the testimony of the author (and of unnamed ‘friends’ she regularly cites), one must ask why she is to be believed when she has thoroughly destroyed her claim to credibility.  It is very easy to accuse the dead of almost anything.  I could readily assert that Ayn met with me at dawn on the first Thursday of every month to join me in secret prayer at a Buddhist temple—and who could disprove it if I maintained that no one else knew about it?

Branden was Rand’s closest female friend for 18 years and interviewed nearly two hundred people who knew Rand during all periods of her life.  How the claims of the book – for example, Rand was born in Russia, had a temper, broke with people, had an affair with Nathaniel, wrote Atlas Shrugged – were assertions on the level of fictitious meetings at a Buddhist temple was never explained.  Most people would probably conclude that these claims were either true or false and subject to empirical testing like most other claims concerning famous people.

This culminated in Peikoff’s friend James Valliant’s 2005 dishonest hit piece, The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics, which purported to show that Branden’s biography (and Nathaniel’s memoirs) were lies from beginning to end.  While Valliant’s book was ridiculous, it did have a superficial appeal: the Brandens had a falling out with Rand and so their accounts should be used with some caution.  The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics was sold by the ARI’s bookstore, but is now out print.

As noted above, Jennifer Burns published her biography of Ayn Rand, Goddess of the Market, in 2009.  Burns, who is not an Objectivist, had almost complete access to the ARI’s Archives.  In addition, she did her own interviews, had access to Branden’s interviews, and did additional archival research.  Burns largely confirms the accuracy of the Branden accounts while making occasional corrections to the historical record (for example Rand didn’t get her name from a typewriter).  Most significantly, Burns asserted that Rand’s decades long amphetamine use had a negative effect on her mental health (which, incidentally, Branden had denied).  She found credible the evidence that Frank consumed alcohol to excess.

From what I recall, the Burns volume got some mention on Objectivist blogs, but only one in-print response.  Robert Mayhew took to the Objective Standard (then the house organ of the ARI) to review Burns’ autobiography and didn’t even tell his readers that Burns revealed the rewriting of posthumous material, much less that she fingered him as a chief culprit.  He says Burns devotes too much attention to Rand’s affair with Nathaniel and obliquely mentions the amphetamine issue.  No one would get the impression reading the review that Burns confirmed the accuracy of the Branden accounts.

Shortly after Burns published her biography, Anne Heller published Ayn Rand and the World She Made, a full-length biography of Rand.  Heller, who unfortunately did not have access to the Archives, took a view similar to Branden and Burns.  Best I can tell, this book was ignored by authors associated with the ARI.

From 2009 until recently, there has been mostly silence on questions related to Rand’s life by the ARI.  In 2010, Scott McConnell published 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand.  The book is a collection of almost entirely positive interviews (generally excerpts) from the ARI’s Oral History Project.  Some interviewees take jabs at the Brandens, but there is nothing that undercuts their accounts.  The interviewees are for the most part people who never broke with Rand.  Rand’s affair with Branden is never mentioned, but Rand’s love for her husband is repeated non-stop.

For some reason, things changed this year.  A couple of months ago, Alexanra Popoff published Ayn Rand: Creating a Gospel of Success.  The biography of Rand is part of Yale University Press’s Jewish Lives series.  Popoff had complete access to the Archives and, while her volume isn’t a full-scale biography like Burns’ and Heller’s, it does confirm Rand’s amphetamine usage and Frank’s alcohol consumption.

The ARI’s Elan Journo interviewed Harry Binswanger about Popoff’s biography.  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.  Binswanger takes jabs at the previous biographies, claiming the authors 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.  

Journo followed this up with a lengthy review of Goddess of the Market.  Apparently this critique was important for the ARI because Journo enlisted the assistance of Chief Philosophy Officer Onkar Ghate and ARI philosopher Ben Bayer.  I discussed the review last month, but to be blunt – it is dishonest.  To take one particularly blatant example:

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.

While I haven’t checked all of the citations to the Branden books, I don’t get the impression that Burns relies on them as her exclusive evidence for particular assertions.  For example, Burns rejects Rand’s 1968 veiled claim that Nathaniel Branden stole from her, but her source is Rand’s former attorney, Henry Holzer.  Burns, as noted, contends that Rand’s mental health was negatively affected by decades of amphetamine use, a claim that Branden rejects.  She concludes that Frank consumed alcohol to excess because she evaluates the sources Branden cites as credible.  Neither of these three assertions are mentioned in Journo’s review.  If Journo thinks there are errors of fact in Goddess which are only there because of undue reliance on the Brandens, he should say what they are.  Journo followed this up with an equally bad review of the Heller biography.

Conclusion

It’s hard to know what to make of this.  As I speculated in my 2009 essay:

1. Rand had an inflated ego and a self-estimation that bordered on the delusional. Not only do ARI supporters have to justify this, but during Rand’s life the sycophancy of the orthodox Objectivism’s current leadership no doubt fed Rand’s borderline megalomania. For example, Allan Gotthelf relates that Rand once said that “I’ve done for consciousness what Aristotle did for metaphysics.” Gotthelf responded, “yes, that’s true.” In particular Leonard Peikoff has paid a high personal price to become Rand’s legal and alleged “intellectual” heir. He was even exiled by Rand to Denver for a time for failing to insufficiently advance Objectivism.

2. Rand also set in motion the claim that her philosophy did not undergo any changes, even telling an interviewer later in her life that she had held the same philosophy since her first memory at age 2 and a half. That Rand went through a Nietzschean phase would suggest that she was not a consistent Objectivist and that her own life’s story was false.

3. A high estimation of Rand the person functions as what sociologists call a “boundary marker.” It identifies those who are “in” and “out.” Those who dissent from a high regard for Rand the person are most likely to question aspects of her philosophy, such as her interpretation of other philosophers and the lack of empirical basis for many of her judgments.

4. Rand saw a particularly close connection between her philosophy and her life. She famously said that her life was postscript to her philosophy: “and I mean it.” To Rand her life was the perfect exemplar of an ideal Objectivist and living proof that the theory/practice and mind/body dichotomy that plagued Western civilization since Plato had been put to rest. If Rand can’t live up to Objectivist standards, then what does that say about Objectivism as a “philosophy for living on earth”?

Something I didn’t appreciate in 2009 is that there has been a long-standing claim that Rand was morally perfect.  Rand lived 77 years, and you don’t have to be an Objectivist to conclude that she largely lived up to her values albeit with occasional failures (most notably her extremely one-sided attack on Nathaniel Branden in 1968).  One thing I suspect is that many Objectivists were hoping that the long-awaited authorized biography of Rand by Shoshana Milgram Knapp would provide the definitive refutation on the Branden accounts.  This biography has been two decades in the making and, if it ever comes out, may not be authorized or even cover all of Rand’s life.

Also, in 2009 I didn’t know that Peikoff supervised (and most likely ordered) the rewriting of Rand’s posthumously published material.  Still, the rewriting of the material is hard to explain given that the truth was bound to come out sooner or later.  And why would Journo deliberately misrepresent a book that has been in print for 15 years?  If one didn’t know better, one might conclude that the ARI has a list of prohibited books.

As a final point, the ARI implicitly claims that it is the only organization that can competently opine on Rand and Objectivism (and they periodically speak for Rand).  And a couple of years ago, the ARI even developed a convoluted epistemological heuristic which essentially makes it immune from criticism.  From following blogs and Facebook pages, there doesn’t seem to be much “push back” from the rank and file.  Perhaps ARI supporters believe that as part of the “New Intellectuals” the flaws of the ARI are small in the grand scheme of things.

_______________________

*Burns didn’t discuss – one way or another – other posthumous material including Ayn Rand’s Marginalia (edited by Mayhew) or the second edition of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (edited by Harry Binswanger).  The second edition of ITOE contains transcripts of Rand’s workshops on epistemology.  Since Objectivists consider the theory of concept formation developed in ITOE the most important of Rand’s philosophical achievements, I hope Binswanger had a higher regard for the integrity of Rand’s work than Mayhew, et al.