Hardly anything else in the world can be interesting if you are reading Jennifer Burn’s biography of Ayn Rand called Goddess of the Market. It’s the kind of book that while reading a bomb could go off around you and you wouldn’t notice. It is that engaging, page after page. She manages to be once objective and compelling, reconstructing Rand’s amazing life and work along with her relations with colleagues. It is also a fascinating psychological portrait of an ingenious but fallible self-made intellectual who had a far larger impact on American life than most people know. .
For our own part, the Mises Institute gave her complete access to Rothbard’s papers and Mises’s too. She handled that part of the story with utmost professional and scholarly responsibility. In fact, I learned so much from her book about Rothbard’s own dealings with Rand. She has the timeline figured out in a way that has always eluded me: how their relations went from warm to cold to hot to frigid in the end. I think I see now.
The author permits the reader to draw his or her own conclusions about Rand’s ideas. For my part, I realized just how central the notion of intellectual property is for her understanding of how society works. She had this idea that all ideas had owners, and, as a result, spent an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out what belonged to whom. This ultimately did in her relationship with Isabel Paterson. What’s striking is that there really wasn’t anyone around at the time to debate her on this point. Everyone in those days believed in IP to some extent, even Rothbard. Rand, as was typical, took the idea further than anyone else.
In any case, even the most dedicated opponent of Rand will come away from this biography with new respect for her and her contribution to the world of ideas. As for the dedicated partisans, there is much to learn here too, about the dangers of insularity in intellectual life and what precisely led to the famous defensiveness of the Rand circle in later years.
The author has a blog in which she provides first-hand reports from her work at the Ayn Rand Institute. Most interesting is that reality compared to the reputation. She reports that far from being a cult-like place of purges and fanaticism, it is staffed by serious professionals who are dedicated to integrity in scholarship. They gave her complete access just for the asking, no restrictions except the usual concerning living persons.
{ 16 comments }
Thanks, Jeff, sounds very interesting, I’ll have to read it.
Well, you did have Hayek calling for a compete rethinking of the justification of intellectual property — something he called for at a MPS meeting. Perhaps one more reason Rand hated Hayek so.
“What’s striking is that there really wasn’t anyone around at the time to debate her on this point. Everyone in those days believed in IP to some extent, even Rothbard.”
Thank you Greg. that’s exactly right. He deserves massive credit for this. He didn’t make a big deal out of it, and, also, if it had come from Hayek she would have rejected it immediately. The book shows how she went crazy about Road to Serfdom, particularly with the comprising material in there. She consistently concluded that people who were 80% there were worse than those who were 0% – more dangerous. I don’t see how she could say that so consistently. It meant that anyone who was 99% earned her wrath more than someone who knew nothing.
by the way, Rothbard has this reputation too, but it is not deserved. MNR looked at the direction of change to set his attitude. anyone getting better was praise but anyone getting worse was attacked. It makes much more sense that a blanket rule against anyone who deviates even the most minuscule bit.
Jeff, when you say people who were 80% “there” what do you mean? 80% on the way to 100% agreement with everything Randian?
“She had this idea that all ideas had owners, and, as a result, spent an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out what belonged to whom.”
I wish you’d comment more on this. She did denigrate many of her contemporaries who held views similar to hers, and had trouble being indebted to any contemporary who had influenced her intellectually. We can only guess who they were, because she didn’t acknowledge them. You see, she owned “her” ideas.
Thanks Jeffrey, I’m definitely going to read the book.
Cheers
Mac,
I believe Rand acknowledged her ideas being indebted to Aristotle and Locke. She “denigrated many of her contemporaries who held similar views to hers” because they lacked the metaphysics and epistemology that would ensure consistency in views from one topic to the next. She did, however, know and accept that others would come to apply her ideas to new challenges, situations, technologies, etc. and that their work would be theirs.
I don’t understand how anyone can respect the incoherence that is Ayn Rand, regardless of her accomplishments in championing individual liberty in her writings, when her actions (from what I’ve read from others) were totally opposite.
I consider her at worst to be an agent provocateur (like her boy Greenspan obviously is), while at best, a self-propelled tool who traded in her beliefs for power that comes with fame and fortune. Either way, she sold her soul, and her actions are totally incompatible with ideas behind individual liberty. To promote her as such, is to engage in intellectual suicide (as witnessed by the Objectivists).
Thankfully, I discovered Rothbard, and his coherence first.
If I want to read about a great woman writer on liberty, I’ll stick with Isabel Paterson. As far as I know (which admittedly, isn’t much), she at least held a coherent ideology.
Unless Burn’s book manages to show Rand really didn’t promote collectivism in the form of a strong, centralized state as the only path to ensure individual freedom, then I fail to see how it can sway any opponent of this blatant incoherence.
Mr. Tucker, do you really think Rothbard or Paterson would’ve gained respect for her had they the chance to read this book? Or would it merely temper their scorn with pity?
“I don’t understand how anyone can respect the incoherence that is Ayn Rand, regardless of her accomplishments in championing individual liberty in her writings, when her actions (from what I’ve read from others) were totally opposite.
I consider her at worst to be an agent provocateur (like her boy Greenspan obviously is), while at best, a self-propelled tool who traded in her beliefs for power that comes with fame and fortune. Either way, she sold her soul, and her actions are totally incompatible with ideas behind individual liberty. To promote her as such, is to engage in intellectual suicide (as witnessed by the Objectivists).
Thankfully, I discovered Rothbard, and his coherence first.”
Compared to Rothbard, Rand overtook a much bigger task and thus failed more. But also accomplished more.
Figuring out and representing a contradiction free economics and politics (law) is much easier (although not that easy by itself) than diving into philosophy which also includes epistemology, ethics (including morality) and aesthetics.
The problem with Ayn Rand is that either people despise her or adore her but there is no mainstream effort to enhance her philosophy detached from her personality. This is probably due to her own past actions but she has been dead for a long time and people should take objectivism and improve upon it taking Rand as a pioneer or a milestone.
When people try to improve on Rand’s ideas, they are attacked and denigrated by Randroids who view any deviation from What Rand Wrote as apostasy and heresy.
Hmm, I must read the book – I think.
After I gave “the Fountainhead” to my father, and observed his critical reaction (not realistic: Roark is kicked out of Architecture School and then does nothing else than architecture …with what license? The love hate relation also, with the “rape” of Roark’s soon to be lover disturbed him also very much), I realized how much people have different interpretations while reading the same Ayn Rand quotes. Perhaps the biography will help me sort out my own fantasy from the background.
Of possible interest —
Amazon Kindle version available for $9.99
Regards, Don
This book is two and a half stars on Amazon.com. This is the lowest star rating for a book available from the Mises Institute that I have ever seen. If Mr. Tucker is still viewing the comments and wants to reply, I would like to know if there is any incorrect criticism with the negative reviews that are posted on the Goddess of the Market page on Amazon.com. I welcome the replies of other people with regard to the same query.
http://www.amazon.com/Goddess-Market-Rand-American-Right/dp/0195324870
So many more important books to read…
The reviews are split between love and hate, which is what one expects. The supposed downsides of the book — her own theoretical weaknesses — are easily overlooked given how much information she provides the reader to make intelligent judgements. this is what I loved about it. It gives us the information to think for ourselves rather than trying to tell people what they should think. I love this book from the first page to the last, and it help me think not only about Rand but many other things in a completely new way.
I’d like to recommend to Mr. Tucker and his readers my lengthy review of Burns’ book. If this is an inappropriate use of your comment section, please feel free to delete me post and accept my apologies for the presumption.
Goddess of the Market, Not So Worshipful
I know I am a mere 2 years late to this thread but I just came across the book very recently (today) and probably wont get a response but I’ll post this anyway. It is an excellent biography although Heller’s Ayn Rand and the World She made is equal to Burns. I was just curious what anyone thinks of her snide remark on page 337 n24 where she says “However much Rothbard wished to present himself as ‘Mr. Libertarian’, the evidence simply does not support this claim. Rothbard certainly managed to hog the spotlight and conivnce others that he was the major theorist of libertarianism, but his appeal was far more limited than Rand’s…” She goes on to describe Rothbard’s ” extremism” and “poor strategic thinking” as having damaged libertarianism. She does not provide any instances where this was the case. If anyhting it was Rand who did all the damage with her personality cult whereas Rothbard was the more rational and less authoritarian figure. Any thoughts?
Comments on this entry are closed.