Atlas Shrugged

[Bonam]

For all your talk about Rand's "admiration" of a child killer, you may want to place that quote in context. I didn't know what you were talking about, but a quick google search says this:

In 1928, the writer Ayn Rand began planning a novel called The Little Street, whose hero, Danny Renahan, was to be based on "what Hickman suggested to [her]." The novel was never finished, but Rand wrote notes for it which were published after her death in the book Journals of Ayn Rand. Rand wanted the hero of her novel to be "A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me.

Rand clearly opines that Hickman is "degenerate". Certainly doesn't sound like she "admired" him. Rather, hearing about him got her an idea. Have you never heard some tragic event on the news, or a description of some bad person, that gave you an idea, made you think about something related? A bad person may have some aspect of their psyche that is interesting to an author. One may condemn the millions of deaths caused by a historical figure like Ghengis Khan but appreciate his ability to forge a nation out of nomadic tribes and build an empire. One may condemn Rome for its slavery and violence but appreciate its contributions to learning, engineering, culture, etc. One may be stricken by the loss and damage that a hurricane can inflict, and yet marvel at the awesome power of nature thus unleashed. One may deplore the crimes committed by a man and yet appreciate something in his words, his writings, etc. Think of all the people who read and quote and agree with Ted Kaczynski despite his crimes.

[bleeding heart]

For all your talk about Rand's "admiration" of a child killer, you may want to place that quote in context. I didn't know what you were talking about, but a quick google search says this:

Rand clearly opines that Hickman is "degenerate". Certainly doesn't sound like she "admired" him. Rather, hearing about him got her an idea. Have you never heard some tragic event on the news, or a description of some bad person, that gave you an idea, made you think about something related? A bad person may have some aspect of their psyche that is interesting to an author. One may condemn the millions of deaths caused by a historical figure like Ghengis Khan but appreciate his ability to forge a nation out of nomadic tribes and build an empire. One may condemn Rome for its slavery and violence but appreciate its contributions to learning, engineering, culture, etc. One may be stricken by the loss and damage that a hurricane can inflict, and yet marvel at the awesome power of nature thus unleashed. One may deplore the crimes committed by a man and yet appreciate something in his words, his writings, etc. Think of all the people who read and quote and agree with Ted Kaczynski despite his crimes.

I can grant you some of this, and to a point; it's true that Rand wasn't admiring the killing of children, itself. But if that were the case, there'd be no one defending her, and so this conversation wouldn't be occurring right now. But there's still much that's troubling about the scenario...and let's face it, it has virtually nothing to do with any of the examples you pointed out: Rome, Khan, etc. We're not talking about an historically complex entity whose contributions or effects are demonstrable (whatever else one may think about them). Hickman didn't do anything else of note; he didn't propound some philosophical or moral ideas that any rational and healthy individual might appreciate, even as they deplore what he did.

In fact, the sheer banality of it, and the sheer absurdity of Rand's "inspiration" from him is a puzzle. consider:

When Hickman reportedly said that "what is good for me is right"--not exactly an insight, or original, or profound, or anything at all except the sad boasting of a psychopath--Rand's assessment of this is "the best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I have heard."

???

Really?

I mean,leave aside the "real man's psychology" bit, which in and of itself is pretty cringeworthy, reactionary, and outright sexist; never mind that, because more to my point here is that this ridiculous. "What is good for me is right" is the best and strongest expression...? You've got to be kidding me. I can read a hundred phrases more insightful, left, right, centre or neutral, on any given day here on Mapleleafweb. Or by watching Sesame Street. I'm not exaggerating, either.

Also, and here's what's troubling--and what I think is directly related to her philosophy, which should (but doesn't) bother her admirers--is thta, after being bizarrely "inspired" by a dull-witted loser (because of his masculine virtues) she lays out a character sketch, in which the hero (not some character whose morality she is navigating and examining in its compelxity...like a real novelist would do, needless to say...but the admirable hero) is described this way:

A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should.

This is one part mindless, masculinist fantasy, a caricature of the real individualistic sentiment (which always has the good of society in mind, at least peripherally); and one part sociopathy. It's practically textbook: other people don't exist...for the masculine "hero."

Which is to say that I don't think Rand's detractors, largely, misread her. I think her admirers do.

Edited September 17, 2012 by bleeding heart