Ayn Rand Biographical FAQ - Feeback Requested
R Lawrence
in getting constructive feedback about it. As the title indicates, the FAQ
addresses biographical questions about Rand, not questions about philosophy
per se. The entire FAQ is longer than I would want to post to Usenet (it
will be web based), but here is an outline of the draft contents:
1 Introduction and Contents
2 General
2.1 Who is Ayn Rand?
2.2 When/where was Rand born? When/where did she die? Etc.
2.3 How is 'Ayn' pronounced?
2.4 Is 'Ayn Rand' her real name?
2.5 What are the sources for biographical information about Ayn Rand?
3 Career
3.1 What did Rand write?
3.1.1 Novels
3.1.2 Short stories
3.1.3 Plays
3.1.4 Screenplays
3.1.5 Non-fiction
3.2 Besides writing, what did Rand do?
3.3 Did Rand organize a cult?
4.1 Who were Rand's parents? Did she have any brothers or sisters?
4.2 Was Rand married? Who was her husband?
4.3 Did Rand have any children?
4.4 Who are Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden?
4.5 Who is Leonard Peikoff?
4.6 Who is Alan Greenspan?
4.7 Who is Robert Hessen?
4.8 Did Rand have an extramarital affair with Nathaniel Branden?
4.9 Is it true that Rand "excommunicated" friends because they liked
Beethoven's music or other art that she disliked?
5 Ideas
5.1 What were Rand's views about ...
5.1.1 Abortion
5.1.2 Homosexuality
5.1.3 Race relations
5.1.4 Taxes
6 Miscellaneous
6.1 What is an "intellectual heir?"
6.2 What is "tiddlywink music?"
6.3 I heard that Rand was addicted to speed. Is this true?
The draft FAQ may be accessed at
<http://www.objectivism.addr.com/bio/biofaq.html>. I would love to hear
feedback about the content, formating, or other issues. Especially helpful
would be corrections of any factual mistakes, or additional questions that
might be appropriate for the FAQ.
Comments may be posted to the newsgroup or emailed to me.
--
Richard Lawrence <RL0...@yahoo.com>
Visit the Objectivism Reference Center: <http://www.objectivism.addr.com/>
jddescr...@my-deja.com
The quick impression is that it emphasizes the human flaws
that Ayn Rand exhibited rather than the powerful romantic
realism approach that she had to making the American experience
into a permanent philosophy. It seems that a great deal of effort
should go into trying to capture the reason that her works strike
such a resonance with many people and their entire life pattern
is quickly reformed.
Good seeing. JD
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Josh Landess
I thought it was ok. We've all pretty much lived during the
same time period, where at first information was
hard-to-come by and gradually we've gleaned it from whatever
sources we could get.
Didn't she say, at one point, that "We The Living" was as
close to an autobiography as she would ever write, or
something like that? Might be of interest to note, in any
biographical info, that her first novel reflects some of the
general issues and specifics of her early life.
Josh Landess
In section 5, you do an interesting thing of going into her
ideas (how does one choose?). I was going to suggest making
some attempt to give a very brief treatment of the
"Libertarian" question, but then I thought, no, this is just
bio-stuff. But then I re-saw your section 5, so I thought
well maybe a paragraph or so clarifying the issue, in brief.
Might be difficult. Many people come to be interested in
both things... Rand and Libertarianism, and honestly don't
understand why they are often met by hostility from the Rand
camp.
In the end, I guess I might avoid it, because it's not even
really a biographical issue, it's potentially a lengthy
issue and because it's a negative issue (defining what she
was not, rather than what she's for). However, somewhere
else it might be interesting to have a nice balanced
statement explaining to the uninitiated what the basic lines
of thought are on the issue, both from her point of view and
from people who came after. I notice quite a number of
people who identify themselves as "Libertarians" and who
have an unshakeable interest in Ayn Rand and who will
probably be curious about your site.
R Lawrence
>The quick impression is that it emphasizes the human flaws
>that Ayn Rand exhibited rather than the powerful romantic
>realism approach that she had to making the American experience
>into a permanent philosophy. It seems that a great deal of effort
>should go into trying to capture the reason that her works strike
>such a resonance with many people and their entire life pattern
>is quickly reformed.
That's actually a very good point. Because Rand has many critics and
detractors, it is easy to get caught up in responding to them, rather than
affirming a more positive vision. I'll see what I can do to work on that
angle.
R Lawrence
>Didn't she say, at one point, that "We The Living" was as
>close to an autobiography as she would ever write, or
>something like that? Might be of interest to note, in any
>biographical info, that her first novel reflects some of the
>general issues and specifics of her early life.
Another good idea. It should be possible to add something on that point.
R Lawrence
>Also:
>
>In section 5, you do an interesting thing of going into her
>ideas (how does one choose?).
Good question. What I am trying *not* to do is make a FAQ about
Objectivism or philosophical issues in general. However, one of the facts
of Ayn Rand's life is that she spoke out on many issues. There are often
questions about what Rand thought on a particular issue. Because these are
frequently couched in historical terms -- "What did Rand say/think,"
instead of "What follows from Objectivist principles" -- some mention of
them seems appropriate for a biographical FAQ. That said, I don't want this
section to overwhelm the rest of the FAQ, nor do I want to write a book.
The _Ayn Rand Lexicon_ already exists. So I tried to pick issues where
there was clear, succinct information to give, and which I've seen come up
on newsgroups, mailing lists, etc.
> I was going to suggest making
>some attempt to give a very brief treatment of the
>"Libertarian" question,
That's a possible subject to add, as are several others. I will probably
expand the FAQ over time to include additional "Ideas" issues, just as I
will probably include additional questions in other sections.
> However, somewhere
>else it might be interesting to have a nice balanced
>statement explaining to the uninitiated what the basic lines
>of thought are on the issue, both from her point of view and
>from people who came after.
I'm trying not to get very much into "the people who came after." This is
supposed to be a biographical FAQ about Rand, not a history of Objectivism
or the Objectivist movement. If by "somewhere else" you mean some other
part of the Objectivism Reference Center, then that is a possiblity for
future development of the site.
Josh Landess
>>ideas (how does one choose?).
>
>Good question. What I am trying *not* to do is make a FAQ about
>Objectivism or philosophical issues in general. However, one of the facts
>of Ayn Rand's life is that she spoke out on many issues. There are often
>questions about what Rand thought on a particular issue. Because these are
>frequently couched in historical terms -- "What did Rand say/think,"
>instead of "What follows from Objectivist principles" -- some mention of
>them seems appropriate for a biographical FAQ. That said, I don't want this
>section to overwhelm the rest of the FAQ, nor do I want to write a book.
>The _Ayn Rand Lexicon_ already exists. So I tried to pick issues where
>there was clear, succinct information to give, and which I've seen come up
>on newsgroups, mailing lists, etc.
Sounds like a plan. If you start doing an idea FAQ, it will
be 700 pages if it's a paragraph. I imagine AR FAQ's
already exist somewhere? In effect, a Biographical FAQ fits
into something larger which is: what's all this Ayn Rand
stuff about anyway? And then, within that, in addition to
biography, one has her ideas.
One could go on for 700 pages as to what she thought about
this or that, although I bet it would be fun (at first) to
put together a very quick summary of particularly frequently
asked questions as to her ideas.
My favorite bio issue I ran into, 20 years ago, was that
immediately after I read AS, I was confronted by someone who
informed me that AR was a "Lesbian". (This person is much
loved for his particularly nutsy politics and comments. No
one takes it too seriously. He's quite substantial and
respected, generally.) Having no hard information either
way, I just thought it was a funny statement, particularly
since it was uttered as though it was such an epithet. It
seems funny even now. Heck, I'm not even sure I knew AR was
for certain a woman until he made that comment, so I have to
thank him.
Another thing that particularly made an impression upon me
in one of the Branden's books was the news that Oppenheimer
had been used as a model for Stadler. Although one could go
on forever about AR bio-trivia, this seemed not unimportant.
Perhaps it ties more into my philological interest than a
strict bio interest.
As long as I'm there along those lines, another thing that
has come up for me in conversation is gossiping about what
her relationship was with Frank Lloyd Wright, in light of
his success and lasting influence and her commitment to the
efforts of great Architects in the Fountainhead. That is,
going by the info provided in the Brandens' books, (I guess)
I've tried to briefly answer this or that question as to how
or to what extent she'd met with FLW.
jl
jddescr...@my-deja.com
RL0...@yahoo.com (R Lawrence) wrote:
> jlan...@home.com wrote:
> >Also:
> >
> >In section 5, you do an interesting thing of going into her
> >ideas (how does one choose?).
>
> Good question. What I am trying *not* to do is make a FAQ about
> Objectivism or philosophical issues in general. However, one of the
facts
> of Ayn Rand's life is that she spoke out on many issues. There are
often
> questions about what Rand thought on a particular issue. Because
these are
> frequently couched in historical terms -- "What did Rand say/think,"
> instead of "What follows from Objectivist principles" -- some mention
of
> them seems appropriate for a biographical FAQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
When you want to be somewhat complete about "What did
Rand say/think," then I have two further comments after
a closer look. Some of the most candid comments [her style
was to have painstakingly have thought out each argument]
came with the Ford Hall Forum question and answer sessions.
As far as I know they are still only available as audio
tapes. In the few comments you do address like abortion you
have fallen into the trap where she changed her opinion
after her huge happiness error revealed in 1968. Since it
is so fundamental to her LOL [Love of Life] or sense of
life spirit it should either be treated completely or not
at all. She, of course, knew the importance of the killing
/murder issue and her position before the error, when she
did all the philosophy work, was that an embryo before a
couple of months wasn't really human and thus could be
killed like a fingernail. She changed this, some say she
went mean and vengeful, after the error but the distinction
should be drawn. She was very careful, before 1968, to say
that she was NOT an abortionist.
Good seeing. JD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That said, I don't want this
> section to overwhelm the rest of the FAQ, nor do I want to write a
book.
> The _Ayn Rand Lexicon_ already exists. So I tried to pick issues
where
> there was clear, succinct information to give, and which I've seen
come up
> on newsgroups, mailing lists, etc.
>
Josh Landess
>have fallen into the trap where she changed her opinion
>after her huge happiness error revealed in 1968. Since it
>is so fundamental to her LOL [Love of Life] or sense of
>life spirit it should either be treated completely or not
>at all.
So far as I know, Richard Presented her view of abortion
accurately, insofar as it may be possible to do so within
such confined circumstances. Are you referring to a
well-known change here in her view? I'm sorry for my
ignorance in this matter if it's some well-known issue.
Perhaps there is a web page you can refer me to, so I can
bring myself up to date. All the quotes in the Lexicon are
from '68 and well after, and she still refers to the first
three months as being crucial, the embryo is "protoplasm",
etc.
R Lawrence
>Sounds like a plan. If you start doing an idea FAQ, it will
>be 700 pages if it's a paragraph. I imagine AR FAQ's
>already exist somewhere?
Actually, there isn't a lot out there. There's a few Q&As on the ARI
website (not really a detailed FAQ); there's an old FAQ that used to be
posted on a.p.o a few years back, which hasn't been kept updated; there's
my "Objectivism Newsgroups FAQ," which is limited in scope and also hasn't
been kept up-to-date. Those are the only ones I can think of offhand.
>My favorite bio issue I ran into, 20 years ago, was that
>immediately after I read AS, I was confronted by someone who
>informed me that AR was a "Lesbian".
This one is a little on the ridiculous side to be addressed in a FAQ. Even
the "Beethoven excommunication" myths have more to support them than this.
>Another thing that particularly made an impression upon me
>in one of the Branden's books was the news that Oppenheimer
>had been used as a model for Stadler. Although one could go
>on forever about AR bio-trivia, this seemed not unimportant.
>Perhaps it ties more into my philological interest than a
>strict bio interest.
This seems to be more about her fiction than about her life. An "Ayn Rand
Literary FAQ" is a project worth doing, but don't expect one from me in the
immediate future.
>As long as I'm there along those lines, another thing that
>has come up for me in conversation is gossiping about what
>her relationship was with Frank Lloyd Wright, in light of
>his success and lasting influence and her commitment to the
>efforts of great Architects in the Fountainhead.
That would be an appropriate item for the Bio FAQ. I'll add it to the list
for future updates. I did manage to get a couple of the other suggestions
from this newsgroup into the latest version, along with several corrections
I got via email.
Josh Landess
>for future updates. I did manage to get a couple of the other suggestions
>from this newsgroup into the latest version, along with several corrections
>I got via email.
I notice you link the site that has her timeline rather than
getting into her University and area of study. I think
perhaps a college and major would be standard biographical
data on anyone. The timeline site does not appear to list
her major (which if I recall she herself mentions in Atlas
Shrugged), by the way, although it does include the bit
about her post-college film study, which I always thought
was interesting, considering her later film-industry
activities.
Since it was a public prominent issue, I suppose you might
want to mention that she did testify or participate in the
House Unamerican Activities stuff, on the anti-Communism
side?
Also: known hobbies, prominent associates? (e.g.
stamp-collecting, Isabelle Patterson)
jddde...@my-deja.com
I'm pulling some information together to document
the situation. This is a brief summary. The abortion/
baby killing issue was a big one long before her huge
happiness error revealed, which essentially stopped
her philosophic works, in 1968. She tried to avoid
the issue because she had some unknown feminist/
family problems in this area [she was a very feminine
woman but she had no children] but in her way she did
respond to questions, primarily at Ford Hall Forum
question and answer sessions. She clearly saw through
most of the feminist braburners and such but she
thought Betty Friedan had some valid points.
Her early position was that the first few months the
embryo wasn't really a human. In understanding her
error you must realize that test tube birth was not
known at the time so the idea that any loving people
could raise up an embroyo just as though it was
attached to the mother was unknown to her. It's
surprising she couldn't figure it out but these are
very emotional issues for a woman and about her
living a full life as a woman. She made it clear
that she condemned abortion but this case was like
a woman choosing to clip a finger nail. I personally
remember her saying [probably at Ford Hall Forum] that
anything after the early months was murder and an
entirely different matter.
There is an authoritarian aufshoot to Objectivism
called the peikhoff - schwartz axis. They are
always for staging some crusade in the middle east
to help their comrades and of course they are
abortionists. Peikhoff has gone as far as condemning
the use of visual pictures in debates because his
partial birth abortion tactics are so obviously
human murder. Hard to believe that such an aufshoot
could come out of the LOL [Love Of Life] or SOL
[Sense Of Life] philosophy that Ayn Rand taught us
but if you look into the matter you will see it is
true. They have managed to cook the quotes by Ayn
Rand on this issue so they are only after 1968 and
only emphasize the statement of such murder being a
right as quoted in the material under discussion.
Good seeing. JD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
R Lawrence
>I notice you link the site that has her timeline rather than
>getting into her University and area of study. I think
>perhaps a college and major would be standard biographical
>data on anyone. The timeline site does not appear to list
>her major (which if I recall she herself mentions in Atlas
>Shrugged), by the way, although it does include the bit
>about her post-college film study, which I always thought
>was interesting, considering her later film-industry
>activities.
I'll see about adding more education info in a future revision.
>Since it was a public prominent issue, I suppose you might
>want to mention that she did testify or participate in the
>House Unamerican Activities stuff, on the anti-Communism
>side?
I have an annotated transcript of her HUAC testimony elswhere on the site
(at <http://www.objectivism.addr.com/texts/huac.html>, to be precise). I'll
see if I can come up with a good way to introduce a link to it.
>Also: known hobbies, prominent associates? (e.g.
>stamp-collecting, Isabelle Patterson)
I got hobbies in, and added another associate -- Frank Lloyd Wright, who
was mentioned in another response. Patterson is probably worth adding as
well, when I get around to it.
Josh Landess
>I'm pulling some information together to document
>the situation. This is a brief summary. The abortion/
>baby killing issue was a big one long before her huge
>happiness error revealed, which essentially stopped
>her philosophic works, in 1968. She tried to avoid
>the issue because she had some unknown feminist/
>family problems in this area [she was a very feminine
>woman but she had no children] but in her way she did
>respond to questions, primarily at Ford Hall Forum
>question and answer sessions. She clearly saw through
>most of the feminist braburners and such but she
Thanks for your answer, I will look forward to reading more
into this when you put it together. I have detected no
discernable rewriting of things in her comments on abortion,
but I will read your stuff when you post it to try and give
some timeline of your claimed change or error. My
perception of Rand's views on abortion was shaped largely by
her essay on the Blackmun-written decision, which she
praised, and which focused on a trimester viewpoint. I tend
to see the issue in those terms, FWLIW.
I also thought Friedan made some excellent points. Have
your own independent life, profession, etc. Heaven-forfend.
The only issue where I detected what I thought was some
signficant change between my understanding of Rand and the
direction of peikoff-aynrand.org was on gun-rights. It
seems to me that I read something on their site a year or so
back, which I can no longer find, which put forth some sort
of right-to-ownership in a free society point of view. This
was not my understanding of her point of view, nor is it
mine. But I can no longer find any discussion on their site
whatsoever of the issue.
jl