mike rael:

as to asking nb, i feel he's heard -quite- enough
about this person and no doubt has better things
to do than answer the same question for the 798th
time (or even the occasional new one, at this
point). he's given us a whole memoir (in two
editions) about the experience, of not
inconsiderable depth and self-revelation. let's
look at nb not as our daddy or tribal chief but
as a subjective person like ourselves. he writes
a fan letter at age 20 (this is ~57 years ago),
gets precipitously involved with his idol. it's a
really bad thing and she's -not- how she seemed
to be. (i don't think people appreciate this last
point sufficiently.) nb got in way over his head,
yet now this person is telling him her whole life
and world depends on him - and, let’s bear in
mind, this person is regarded in their circle as
the mind of the ages and the possible savior of
the world. (this ltoo is not well-enough
appreciated.) -she- terminates their relationship
(we're now up to 50 years ago) due to depression,
then when she feels like resuming it’s - just
supposed to resume. did nb do bad things? he did,
and he admitted it, publicly, in 1989 – just as
he did in 1968. which is more than one can say
about rand, apologists and
publishers-of-private-diary-entries to the
contrary notwithstanding. so i’d rather speak to nb about anything but rand.

one other point i want to make about nb, and here
i have to veer into the details of "my years with
ayn rand": nb clearly shows that he was giving
off abundant, copious, prolific signals that he
didn't want to get deeply re-involved *and didn't
want to hurt her.* rand's private-journal
entries in the book most of us know about
completely back him up there. just about any
woman - and i include even a woman on a peasant
level - would have known instantly that nb was
trying to let her down gently, and also would
know that he was in love with someone else.
should nb have prevaricated? of course not. but
should he have been involved with ar? of course
not. did ar appreciate the unbelievable pressure
she was exerting? no. her private-diary entries
show that abundantly clearly. they really are
shocking to me - not only for the utterly
mechanical view of psychology they display but
for the lack of empathy, the lack of
understanding how human "entities" actually work.
and that's something i hold deeply against ar:
that she paraded around as one with all the
answers (and one with whom nb would ascend to the
stars), and yet she was so oblivious to the
nature of the entities with which she was
dealing. and i very purposefully use her own
lingo there. she didn't live what she preached,
not in her emotional life. she failed to know
herself as a subjective being, and hence didn't
know others as subjective beings. she was, in the
most unfortunate sense, an objectifier.

( it's an old chestnut in dominance/submission
circles that many submissives are narcissistic
and controlling and see their dominants as
pet-objects. indeed, it's somewhat of an axiom
that the submissive holds the real power in the
relationship, and can become vicious and vengeful
when denied / rejected. all that certainly fits.
notice how hank rearden instantly accepts dagny's
leaving his life? she's basically done with him
and he is dismissed, and on the most inconsiderate terms. what a fantasy! )

as to rand's anger – take a look at the two taped
donahue interviews, particularly the first: watch
the instant persona-shift at the infamous
encounter with the “hippie” (who looks more like
a nerdy proto-yuppie) ... take a look at her
taped last public appearance in new orleans in
late 1981 and how she reacts to the philosophical
question from the floor about what she calls
“this junk” ... most of all, take a look at her
books and the obsessive, grinding negativity
toward people other than the heroes and the few
virtuous more-ordinary folks. look at the
constant negative biases of her non-fiction
writing, of her marginalia even (unconvincingly
excused by the ARI apologist in the foreword).
rand was seething with negativity and anger, and
she never dealt with it properly.

to whirl off into the realm of psychological
speculation/intuition, i see ayn rand -as a
person- is as follows: she was a deeply
traumatized person (walking 2000 miles on foot
then starvation then terror-state horror will do
that to you) ... and she never dealt with it. i
see "ayn rand" as a protector personality who
guarded the vulnerable child inside - shall we
call her alissa? - and the two of them only
rarely had much of any contact with one another.
they were not utterly dichotomized, but they were
pretty damn close. a lot of her work, fictional
and philosophical, can be seen as a mediating
attempt between these two poles or personae.

not one word of this is meant to take away from
my regard for rand both as a thinker and artist
and as a person (though unfortunately i never met
her). she quite literally saved my life when i
found "atlas" when i was 12 and entombed in
military school. i read her just about every day
and still find new things in her. she's always
alive to me. that's one reason she irks me so. it
is always thus with those i love - i have to be
able to feel everything for, and with, them.


michael r. brown