 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Millions of people have encountered the works of Ayn Rand. Their first exposure to her writing may have come with We the Living or The Fountainhead, with Anthem or Atlas Shrugged, or with one of her numerous collections of essays and articles. Regardless, Rand's ideas and her portrayal of a vision of the world as it is and -- perhaps more importantly -- as it should be have moved these readers to anger or admiration, disgust or delight. Few come away shrugging in indifference.
Of all that vast audience, only a relatively small number of people saw her in person. Fewer still met and talked with her. A mere handful or two interacted with Rand on a regular or, rarer still, intimate basis. Her secretary and typist, Mary Ann Sures, nee, Rukavina, dealt with Rand for nearly three decades. Mary Ann's husband, Charles, shared that friendship for twenty years.
In Facets of Ayn Rand, the Sureses convey some of their experiences and insights into one of the most controversial and influential writers -- in either fiction or philosophy -- of the Twentieth Century.
This book -- which consists of transcriptions of interviews with Mary Ann and (the late) Charles -- is part of "The Ayn Rand Archives Oral History Program" created by the the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI). According to a note in the front of the book, these conversations were led by Scott McConnell. He has completed "169 interviews (about 300 hours) with Miss Rand's family, friends, and associates." Apparently, we can expect additional entries in what will become a series of "selected interview transcripts...currently being prepared for publication."
We can both thank and criticize ARI for this project. On the one hand, for those of us whose introduction to Objectivism transformed our lives, information about Rand's personality and habits helps shed light on how she integrated and demonstrated her beliefs in her day-to-day existence. On the other hand, the fact that these interviews are sanctioned -- and edited -- by ARI ensures that nothing truly negative about Rand's life will see print in this series.
Given Rand's amazing accomplishments in fiction and in her presentation of a consistent philosophy that truly begins at the beginning, "accentuating the positive" is entirely appropriate. To dwell upon every character flaw, to dissect and magnify beyond all reason every inconsistency between word and deed, to invert the pyramid and claim priority for Rand's faults above her successes reveals far more about such harping critics than about either Rand or the philosophical and political principles she espoused.
Attempting to elevate Rand's personal negatives above her philosophical discoveries is no more valid than someone trying to discredit Newton's explication of gravity because he could be an arrogant SOB. Any such endeavor is simply an ad hominem fallacy. The character of a person in no way disproves -- or proves -- the validity of what he claims to be true.
That said, ARI does neither Rand's memory -- nor her ideas -- a service by whitewashing, diverting, or omitting unpleasant facts about her. This is an extremely odd way of honoring someone whose life was, overall, fiercely dedicated to focusing her laser-like attention on the reality of any given situation. Objectivity demands the acknowledgment -- and integration -- of all facts...not just those that paint an almost cloying and naive portrait of an amazingly complex and mesmerizing person such as Rand.
Sadly, ARI seems to act from the odd notion that any recognition or admission of Rand's (relatively minor) warts vitiates the validity of Objectivism and the worthiness of Rand's existence. But conceding the facts is not equivalent to granting the arguments of Objectivism's opponents. A simple statement of the reality of who Rand was would be sufficient to establish one's respect for objectivity. If the folks at ARI did this, they could escape the trenches they have constructed for themselves and get past all this nonsense and devote themselves to battling their real enemies. Until they embrace the truth, however -- all of it -- I don't see how they can possibly bury this issue and move on.
I think Rand's legacy -- and the philosophy she discovered -- are strong enough to survive such relatively inconsequential matters. Indeed, both would doubtless be strengthened by an unflinching willingness to face every facet of each.
Facets of Ayn Rand is most valuable if one approaches it as a source of information about Rand's personal life while "considering the source" when deciding whether or not to accept many of the interpretations about those facts.
Both Mary Ann and Charles recount their first meetings with Rand. Through Joan Mitchell (later Blumenthal), Mary Ann met Rand and her husband, Frank O'Connor, Leonard Peikoff, Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, and other members of the "Collective" (as Rand called her admirers and friends). Charles met Rand after one of Nathaniel Branden's New York lectures when Rand and the others went for coffee. Eventually, Mary Ann became a typist for Rand as she struggled through the years of creating Atlas Shrugged. The point of intersection with Rand for Charles largely consisted of their mutual interest in stamp collecting. He also did some legal work for her.
The interviewees describe working for Rand and recount various discussions they had with her on philosophical issues. Rand's role as mentor and hostess, as celebrity and friend, her views on art and certainty, her sense of humor, and her personal favorites form the bulk of this book. Some of the information is familiar from other sources. Some is fascinating. Some is rather trivial.
Though never directly stated, a few of the questions asked and opinions offered seem to be presented as refutations -- "to correct the record" -- of descriptions of Rand by Barbara Branden in The Passion of Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden in Judgment Day (revised as My Years With Ayn Rand) that helped set the stage for the "feud" that exists among the main Objectivist organizations. (For more on this issue, see my review of the book Ayn Rand and Business.)
For example, in Peikoff's introduction, he says that, "The Sures were among the few people in Ayn Rand's life who were intellectually honest all the way down: they accepted her philosophy, they lived by it, they remained loyal to it and to her throughout her life and theirs." For anyone familiar with the break between Rand and the Brandens in the Sixties and various other estrangements that occurred in the Objectivist community before and after her death, the implications of this statement are clear.
This is not to say that the interviewer doesn't broach sensitive topics, at times. He asks about Rand "expressing her evaluation in public of something that displeased her," for example, "disapproval during question periods after lectures," i.e., her anger at some questions; whether Mary Ann was "attracted to her because you wanted an authority figure in your life"; any times when "Rand didn't welcome questions"; whether she tended "to dominate" discussions; about her "objections to surprise parties" (after the publication of Atlas); how she treated "the public and her fans"; and when she was moody.
I have no reason to doubt the veracity of what Mary Ann or Charles said happened. Even their explanations for how Rand acted and their descriptions of Rand's justifications for acting in ways that have garnered criticism over the years sound reasonable...on the surface.
Yes, I can understand why Rand might object -- angrily -- to a questioner smuggling in a criticism of Objectivism while pretending to agree with her. But did she never overreact to an innocent, ignorant question?
Yes, people have objected to the Objectivist conception of "certainty." But was that mistaken response the real explanation for why some people criticized Mary Ann's "unquestioning agreement and blind loyalty"? Did Rand never eject someone from her life after a refusal to accept what she said, for failure to be sufficiently loyal?
Yes, Rand offered insightful answers for why she disliked a particular television show, musical presentation, or piece of artwork. But did she never condemn someone who enjoyed an artist or writer that Rand felt held a faulty sense of life?
This is the major flaw in how the Sureses remember Rand. In their minds, Rand never acted inappropriately; never unfairly judged someone or something; never acted immorally or violated her own philosophical principles. Like some Platonic Ideal, she exists in these memoirs as untarnished, unblemished, untainted...and unreal.
Facets of Ayn Rand undercuts its own (real) value by holding up a distorted reflection of the person it purports to depict. What is tragic in a minor way is that there is no need to do so. Anyone who is truly an Objectivist can handle the truth. The goal of understanding objective reality is, after all, a prime appeal of this philosophy. One need not, in Charles's words, wrongly "look for flaws and shortcomings, for weaknesses" or seek to "debunk greatness" in merely expressing a desire to face facts. He dismisses any such attitude "to get at what they claim is the 'real' person" as a "miserable outlook on man and life" that "reflects the medieval view that man is imperfect by nature."
Hardly. True: man is not "imperfect by nature." People are born neutral, neither inherently good nor bad. But I've never met anyone who has not made his or her share of mistakes in life. No one is as perfect as Mary Ann and Charles try to paint Rand. I prefer to know the reality of who Ayn Rand was rather than evade the truth and accept the airbrushed image they present. Pretending that "A is not A" merely draws attention to what they seek to diminish and hide.
I, for one, know how to weigh and evaluate the pluses and minuses of a situation and place each in its proper perspective. I cannot do so, however, if I am not given all the facts.
In this book, the reader will find no mention of Rand's affair with Nathaniel; no discussion of Rand's struggles to understand what was happening between them in the later years; no description of the infamous break; no presentation of how these events affected Ayn or Frank; no acknowledgment that the consequences of Rand's errors demonstrated the very validity of the principles she taught us.
Facets of Ayn Rand attempts to offer us a meal that is all desserts; that does not distinguish between filet mignon and liver (ugh). Few readers, though, will be fooled by the disguise...whether it was offered sincerely or otherwise.
I did enjoy learning more about Rand's work routines (she sometimes started writing in her nightgown because she awoke fired up to begin); her devotion to her cats (she feared they might escape the apartment if the front door was left unguarded); her unpretentious attitude towards fame (as when meeting a fan on a bus); her disdain of fruit and vegetables (calling salads "grass"); her concern for the well-being of her guests; her sweet tooth (loving Godiva chocolates and fudge); her explanation of the problems with "white lies" and surprise parties; her desire to be admired as a woman (drawing attention to her legs); Frank's sense of humor (expressed via puns); and the devotion of Ayn and Frank to one another.
Such anecdotes and details help create a more personal image of Rand. As an admirer of Rand and her achievements, I enjoy seeing a rounded depiction of her as an individual. Would that Mary Ann and Charles had followed their own advice on "basing one's knowledge and conclusions exclusively on observation and thinking conceptually" and given those of us who never knew Rand an uncensored panorama of her world.
Regardless of what Charles claimed, I think -- at times -- Rand probably did "use anger to intimidate people, as bullies do." (p. 110) But I admire her despite those outbursts, not because she had failings.
Perhaps I was and am drawn to Rand partly because I see a bit of myself in her. This passage from Charles stands out for me as epitomizing one of her greatest strengths and values:
When she did it right, she did it better than anyone else.
That's one facet of Ayn Rand of which we can all be proud.
