What do you think?
Rate this book
GODDESS OF THE MARKET
Worshipped by her fans, denounced by her enemies, and forever shadowed by controversy and scandal, the novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand was a powerful thinker whose views on government and markets shaped the conservative movement from its earliest days. Drawing on unprecedented access to Rand's private papers and the original, unedited versions of Rand's journals, Jennifer Burns offers a groundbreaking reassessment of this key cultural figure, examining her life, her ideas, and her impact on conservative political thought.
Goddess of the Market follows Rand from her childhood in Russia through her meteoric rise from struggling Hollywood screenwriter to bestselling novelist, including the writing of her wildly successful The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged . Burns highlights the two facets of Rand's work that make her a perennial draw for those on the her promotion of capitalism, and her defense of limited government. Both sprang from her early, bitter experience of life under Communism, and became among the most deeply enduring of her messages, attracting a diverse audience of college students and intellectuals, business people and Republican Party activists, libertarians and conservatives. The book also traces the development of Rand's Objectivist philosophy and her relationship with Nathaniel Branden, her closest intellectual partner, with whom she had an explosive falling out in 1968.
One of the Denver Post 's Great Reads of 2009
One of Bloomberg News 's Top Nonfiction Books of 2009
"Excellent."
-- Time magazine
"A terrific book--a serious consideration of Rand's ideas, and her role in the conservative movement of the past three quarters of a century."
-- The American Thinker
"A wonderful beautifully written, completely balanced, extensively researched. The match between author and subject is so perfect that one might believe that the author was chosen by the gods to write this book. She has sympathy and affection for her subject but treats her as a human being, with no attempt to cover up the foibles."
-- Mises Economics Blog
Goddess of the Market follows Rand from her childhood in Russia through her meteoric rise from struggling Hollywood screenwriter to bestselling novelist, including the writing of her wildly successful The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged . Burns highlights the two facets of Rand's work that make her a perennial draw for those on the her promotion of capitalism, and her defense of limited government. Both sprang from her early, bitter experience of life under Communism, and became among the most deeply enduring of her messages, attracting a diverse audience of college students and intellectuals, business people and Republican Party activists, libertarians and conservatives. The book also traces the development of Rand's Objectivist philosophy and her relationship with Nathaniel Branden, her closest intellectual partner, with whom she had an explosive falling out in 1968.
One of the Denver Post 's Great Reads of 2009
One of Bloomberg News 's Top Nonfiction Books of 2009
"Excellent."
-- Time magazine
"A terrific book--a serious consideration of Rand's ideas, and her role in the conservative movement of the past three quarters of a century."
-- The American Thinker
"A wonderful beautifully written, completely balanced, extensively researched. The match between author and subject is so perfect that one might believe that the author was chosen by the gods to write this book. She has sympathy and affection for her subject but treats her as a human being, with no attempt to cover up the foibles."
-- Mises Economics Blog
388 pages, Hardcover
First published October 1, 2009
85 people are currently reading
1735 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 137 reviews
September 21, 2011
So Ayn Rand was a miserable, pathologically self-centered asshole. Who knew?
This, I believe, is the first academically-minded/"impartial" account of Alisa Rosenbaum's early life in Russia, flight to America and recreation as Ayn Rand, screenwriter become novelist become public philosopher become cult leader.
That attempt at impartiality, in fact, is the book's biggest misstep - Rand's persona and philosophy were so one-sided and blatantly lacking in subtlety that you really are either for it or against it, and as Rand herself was actively against altruism or sympathy for fellow human beings, why should Burns expect her readers to have any sympathy for, for example, the failure of the philosophical profession to take Objectivism* seriously? (Burns, I have the feeling, isn't convincing herself, and she certainly isn't convincing me, and according to a few of the reviews by goodreads's resident libertarians, she isn't sympathetic enough anyway)
Burns does an excellent job of tracing Rand's life and intellectual development, arguing throughout that she gave libertarianism a moral-philosophical grounding in addition to its traditional economic defense. I thought more space could have been devoted to her larger legacy, but that's a different book I guess. There were also a few organizational snags where glancing references would be made here and there to certain larger issues which would only be explained or explored later in the book (thinking specifically of Rand's relationship to feminism and her outright hostility towards anarcho-capitalism [yes even AYN RAND thinks anarcho-capitalists are idiots - but then she also thought conservatives were idiots and, toward the end of her life, that libertarians were idiot plagiarists]).
My other biggest complaint here, I guess, is that Burns completely neglects genre fiction - she mentions from time to time that Rand was most partial to Mickey Spillane and the like, but there isn't much discussion of her interaction with genre beyond that. Most glaringly "author Robert Heinlein" is mentioned, but beyond that there's nothing about Rand and science fiction, despite the fact that _Anthem_ was a pretty straightforward example of the dystopic side of the genre. Meanwhile the most overtly science-fictional aspects of _Atlas Shrugged_ are dismissed as jokes, despite the fact that the novel (and its author) are notoriously lacking in humor. I don't expect Burns to devote a lot of space to an in-depth examination of Rand's heinous influence throughout the literature of the fantastic, but at least a nod in that direction would have been appreciated (and come on, deconstructions of Terry Goodkind pretty much write themselves, don't they?)
I also thought it was odd that there wasn't a single mention of Ron (or RAND) Paul.
I will leave you with this: Rand had a dollar-sign topiary at her funeral.
* "objectivism" even having a different meaning when used by most philosophers, but of course Rand didn't realize that when she used it as the name of her school of thought - this problem of her reinventing or misinterpreting philosophical tradition is one of the more hilarious aspects of this story.
This, I believe, is the first academically-minded/"impartial" account of Alisa Rosenbaum's early life in Russia, flight to America and recreation as Ayn Rand, screenwriter become novelist become public philosopher become cult leader.
That attempt at impartiality, in fact, is the book's biggest misstep - Rand's persona and philosophy were so one-sided and blatantly lacking in subtlety that you really are either for it or against it, and as Rand herself was actively against altruism or sympathy for fellow human beings, why should Burns expect her readers to have any sympathy for, for example, the failure of the philosophical profession to take Objectivism* seriously? (Burns, I have the feeling, isn't convincing herself, and she certainly isn't convincing me, and according to a few of the reviews by goodreads's resident libertarians, she isn't sympathetic enough anyway)
Burns does an excellent job of tracing Rand's life and intellectual development, arguing throughout that she gave libertarianism a moral-philosophical grounding in addition to its traditional economic defense. I thought more space could have been devoted to her larger legacy, but that's a different book I guess. There were also a few organizational snags where glancing references would be made here and there to certain larger issues which would only be explained or explored later in the book (thinking specifically of Rand's relationship to feminism and her outright hostility towards anarcho-capitalism [yes even AYN RAND thinks anarcho-capitalists are idiots - but then she also thought conservatives were idiots and, toward the end of her life, that libertarians were idiot plagiarists]).
My other biggest complaint here, I guess, is that Burns completely neglects genre fiction - she mentions from time to time that Rand was most partial to Mickey Spillane and the like, but there isn't much discussion of her interaction with genre beyond that. Most glaringly "author Robert Heinlein" is mentioned, but beyond that there's nothing about Rand and science fiction, despite the fact that _Anthem_ was a pretty straightforward example of the dystopic side of the genre. Meanwhile the most overtly science-fictional aspects of _Atlas Shrugged_ are dismissed as jokes, despite the fact that the novel (and its author) are notoriously lacking in humor. I don't expect Burns to devote a lot of space to an in-depth examination of Rand's heinous influence throughout the literature of the fantastic, but at least a nod in that direction would have been appreciated (and come on, deconstructions of Terry Goodkind pretty much write themselves, don't they?)
I also thought it was odd that there wasn't a single mention of Ron (or RAND) Paul.
I will leave you with this: Rand had a dollar-sign topiary at her funeral.
* "objectivism" even having a different meaning when used by most philosophers, but of course Rand didn't realize that when she used it as the name of her school of thought - this problem of her reinventing or misinterpreting philosophical tradition is one of the more hilarious aspects of this story.
April 26, 2024
Fourth supplemental to a multi-part review series.
The subtitle is key here: the text primarily focuses on Rand’s relationship to other misanthropic rightwingers in the United States, though the normal trappings of biography are present.
Off to a bad start when describing Rand’s father as a “self-made man” (9), which is of course a conceptual impossibility deployed only by capitalist numbnuts. Rand’s mother “came from a wealthy and connected background” (id.). Rand “grew up with a cook, a governess, a nurse, and tutors” (10). She was disliked by other children, and wondered if they disliked her “because she was smarter” and were “penalizing her for her virtues” (13)—though the author here more reasonably concludes “her classmates simply found her abrasive”—i.e., she was an entitled prick as a kid and remained one her entire miserable life, taking that self-oriented moment of acute meconnaissance and making it the basis of her entire ideology. Definitely not a hagiography insofar as author concludes “for all her bluster, Rand’s ethics were rather anodyne” (87).
Though she loathed the Bolsheviks, “they liberalized admission policies and made tuition free, creating a flood of new students, including women and Jews, whose entrance had previously been restricted” (15)—Rand was “among the first class of women” at university (15). She read Nietzsche and Herbert Spencer (16), but “in the movies [she] glimpsed America: an ideal world” (17)—i.e., her ideas formed in a filmic imaginary, influenced by misanthropic rightwing philosophy, which retrograde fantasia remained with her indefinitely.
She obtained a visa to the United States by means of a “quick fib” about a sham marriage in the US (19), which is consistent with objectivism’s normal principle of lying to people with whom its adherents disagree. (See our comments on Peikoff’s summation, e.g..) The more bizarre item, however, is that Rand is the beneficiary of her three sisters’ “round of fervent Communist activity intended to prove the family’s loyalty” (18), i.e., which means that she received the unearned benefit of her family’s purported ‘sacrifice,’ anathema to her ideology. Of course, all of the rich brat stuff, supra, is also unearned, but nevermind all that.
We see how motherfucking crazy she is in her response to the Hickman case, wherein “a teen murderer mutilated his victim and boasted maniacally of his deed”; “Rand was sympathetic rather than horrified”—the criminal “embodied the strong individual breaking free from the ordinary run of humanity” (24). She wrote: “It is an amazing picture of a man with no regard whatever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own” (25). Tabling the question of whether one can have a consciousness all one’s own (I mean, really), this explains every single one of her hideous protagonists—lumpenized antisocial nihilists, all of them. Rand liked Nietzsche’s ubermensch thesis, and “seems never to have doubted that she was one of the creators” (25)—she would have benefited from studying Malcolm Bull’s ‘Reading Nietzsche like a Loser.’ Rand did not understand Nietzsche very well, and “translated by Rand into fiction, Nietzsche’s transvaluation of values changed criminals into heroes and rape into love” (28).
She was not a liberal in the classical sense, and “gravitated first to writers who were deeply skeptical of democracy, such as H.L. Mencken, Oswald Spengler, Albert Jay Nock, and Jose Ortega y Gasset” (43). As I have elsewise argued, this is fascism for the United States. She even wondered at one point if “the white race is degenerating” (44). FFS. All’y’all objectivists need to grow right the fuck up on this.
Burns here summarizes Rand’s writings in addition to her political interactions. We the Living is erroneously said to draw “liberally from her own experiences to describe the frustration and angst of living under Soviet Communism” (33); we know this is false because Rand’s preface to the novel disclaims this exact thesis (cf. our comments thereupon). Comical that “among political conservatives” this text made her “an expert on Soviet Russia” (70), despite her disclaimer. The summation of Anthem as “extrapolation of Communist Russia far into the future” (50) is just asinine, considering the primitivism, dumb linguistics, and other idiocies in the novel—am not sure if it is Rand who thought that or author here. As for the The Fountainhead, “adolescents responded with particular fervor to her insistence that dreams, aspirations, and the voice of self be heeded” (91). She demanded that the rightwing use the text to “build me into a ‘name’” (95) even while claiming that “a Pink-New Deal-Collectivist blockade” prevented her view from being heard—despite the book’s sales and reviews (id.). Author notes that “Atlas Shrugged was a throwback to socialist realism, with its cardboard characters in the service of an overarching ideology” (179).
When she worked on the Willkie campaign, contra FDR, she came to believe that “I was a marvelous propagandist” (55). We should keep this estimation in mind while assessing her other writings; it is likely that each and every of her writings is propaganda for capitalist interests. Her conceptual incoherences are always manifest, such as the silly belief that the “traditional American way of life” is “individualism” (57), contrasted against the fear of “a Totalitarian America, a world of slavery” (5)—as though traditionally the purported ‘individualism’ in the United States were not founded precisely on actual slavery of human persons. At the same time she deployed this incoherent individualist doctrine, she adhered to “pseudoscience” such as the thesis, from R. A. Cram, that “most people were not ‘psychically’ human” (74).
She interacted with many figures of the US rightwing, and unequivocally alienated every single one of them because she is such an entitled jerk (cf. Aaron James’ Assholes). Standard asshole dunning-krugerism in the belief that “I have not adopted any philosophy. I have created my own” (127), which is patently false. Author is sufficiently aware to note that “Rand’s discourse was in many ways aggressively anti-intellectual” (id.).
She hit it off early in her career, for instance, with Isabel Patterson, impressing the latter by responding to her query about parental altruism for children with the asinine “if the child has no one but the parent and the situation is such that the parent has to sacrifice himself and die, how long would the child survive thereafter?” (82). The implication that the ‘sacrifice’ must be total, that there would never be anyone else to care for the kid, creates a false dilemma and imputes it to all altruist doctrine—that total sacrifice is always required. That’s unwarranted, of course—as is every one of her conclusions.
Even though Rand lifted a number of his ideas, she considered Hayek “pure poison” (104). She liked von Mises better (106), though still thought he was wrong on ethics. She picked needless quarrels with Milton Friedman (117). She fought with Buckley (140) and alienated Murray Rothbard (144). Worthless Whittaker Chambers savaged Atlas Shrugged in the National Review, and the general response to the novel caused her “a deep depression” (178). She repelled Sidney Hook (184), who regarded her as “substituting denunciation for analysis and mouthing slogans instead of considering problems” (193). She threw Goldwater under the bus (207 ff). Her brand of crazy was too much even for the HUAC, when she testified to smear a WWII film as pro-soviet: “Rand was slow to understand that Song of Russia was not Communist propaganda, but American propaganda about a wartime ally” (124). She even fell out with Paterson eventually (130 ff).
Because she couldn’t get along with other independent ‘individuals,’ she needed a group of pliable followers who agreed with her no matter what, a group of dependent cultists: “They were receptive to her comprehensive view of the world, her unified field theory of existence” (145). Her cult included the Brandens, Greenspan, Peikoff—and “put Rand in a position of authority she had always craved” (151)—consistent with her illiberal, authoritarian ideas, surely—a “hierarchical, stratified society” (id.). The text follows a long process of abusive, controlling bullshit, wherein she humiliated and terrorized these people; I am not feeling too sorry for them—they read her horrible books and signed up for it; they knew exactly the quantum of toxicity that awaited them. (They did nevertheless obtain the benefit of being able to “reject traditional religion without feeling lost in a nihilistic, meaningless universe” (203), which is the interest subserved by far right populism, as identified in Griffin’s Modernism and Fascism.) What is most atrocious is how her cult required counseling sessions with Natty Branden, who claimed to be a psychologist (he was not, really) and then reported all heretical beliefs to Rand, who then disciplined the cultists on the basis of his reports (238). FFS they even had show trials (180).
Just to hammer home how much of an asshole she was, be advised that she believed homosexuality to be a “disgusting aberration” (236); she regarded feminism as “utterly without legitimacy” (263); she thought that the Civil Rights Act sought “special race privileges” (206). It is noted that The Fountainhead “romanticized the rape victim” and represented “rape as grand passion” (264). She “attacked Native Americans as savages, arguing that European colonists had a right to seize their land because native tribes did not recognize individual rights” (266)—see how that works? Completely consistent with her juvenile ideas!
Suffice it to say that Isabel Paterson told Rand “stop taking benzedrine, you idiot” (126) because of her addiction. Let me repeat that: Rand was a drug addict. Her writings are narcotic-fueled trash—and this volume offers coverage of all the major publications. Not sure if the drugs are involved in the affair that she had with Branden or in his subsequent breaking it off, which caused her to excommunicate him, and thereafter the entire cult collapsed. She died of lung cancer, having smoked two packs per day for decades (274). By the end, she had driven away everyone in the cult with her cruelty—even those who nursed her through cancer surgery were driven away “after she harangued them endlessly about their altruistic tastes” (276)—i.e., in helping her during her illness, one assumes. In the end, there was no one left but Peikoff, and she died miserable and alone. Good fucking riddance.
Recommended for blinkered objectivists, drunkard libertarians, and other pointless illiberals.
The subtitle is key here: the text primarily focuses on Rand’s relationship to other misanthropic rightwingers in the United States, though the normal trappings of biography are present.
Off to a bad start when describing Rand’s father as a “self-made man” (9), which is of course a conceptual impossibility deployed only by capitalist numbnuts. Rand’s mother “came from a wealthy and connected background” (id.). Rand “grew up with a cook, a governess, a nurse, and tutors” (10). She was disliked by other children, and wondered if they disliked her “because she was smarter” and were “penalizing her for her virtues” (13)—though the author here more reasonably concludes “her classmates simply found her abrasive”—i.e., she was an entitled prick as a kid and remained one her entire miserable life, taking that self-oriented moment of acute meconnaissance and making it the basis of her entire ideology. Definitely not a hagiography insofar as author concludes “for all her bluster, Rand’s ethics were rather anodyne” (87).
Though she loathed the Bolsheviks, “they liberalized admission policies and made tuition free, creating a flood of new students, including women and Jews, whose entrance had previously been restricted” (15)—Rand was “among the first class of women” at university (15). She read Nietzsche and Herbert Spencer (16), but “in the movies [she] glimpsed America: an ideal world” (17)—i.e., her ideas formed in a filmic imaginary, influenced by misanthropic rightwing philosophy, which retrograde fantasia remained with her indefinitely.
She obtained a visa to the United States by means of a “quick fib” about a sham marriage in the US (19), which is consistent with objectivism’s normal principle of lying to people with whom its adherents disagree. (See our comments on Peikoff’s summation, e.g..) The more bizarre item, however, is that Rand is the beneficiary of her three sisters’ “round of fervent Communist activity intended to prove the family’s loyalty” (18), i.e., which means that she received the unearned benefit of her family’s purported ‘sacrifice,’ anathema to her ideology. Of course, all of the rich brat stuff, supra, is also unearned, but nevermind all that.
We see how motherfucking crazy she is in her response to the Hickman case, wherein “a teen murderer mutilated his victim and boasted maniacally of his deed”; “Rand was sympathetic rather than horrified”—the criminal “embodied the strong individual breaking free from the ordinary run of humanity” (24). She wrote: “It is an amazing picture of a man with no regard whatever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own” (25). Tabling the question of whether one can have a consciousness all one’s own (I mean, really), this explains every single one of her hideous protagonists—lumpenized antisocial nihilists, all of them. Rand liked Nietzsche’s ubermensch thesis, and “seems never to have doubted that she was one of the creators” (25)—she would have benefited from studying Malcolm Bull’s ‘Reading Nietzsche like a Loser.’ Rand did not understand Nietzsche very well, and “translated by Rand into fiction, Nietzsche’s transvaluation of values changed criminals into heroes and rape into love” (28).
She was not a liberal in the classical sense, and “gravitated first to writers who were deeply skeptical of democracy, such as H.L. Mencken, Oswald Spengler, Albert Jay Nock, and Jose Ortega y Gasset” (43). As I have elsewise argued, this is fascism for the United States. She even wondered at one point if “the white race is degenerating” (44). FFS. All’y’all objectivists need to grow right the fuck up on this.
Burns here summarizes Rand’s writings in addition to her political interactions. We the Living is erroneously said to draw “liberally from her own experiences to describe the frustration and angst of living under Soviet Communism” (33); we know this is false because Rand’s preface to the novel disclaims this exact thesis (cf. our comments thereupon). Comical that “among political conservatives” this text made her “an expert on Soviet Russia” (70), despite her disclaimer. The summation of Anthem as “extrapolation of Communist Russia far into the future” (50) is just asinine, considering the primitivism, dumb linguistics, and other idiocies in the novel—am not sure if it is Rand who thought that or author here. As for the The Fountainhead, “adolescents responded with particular fervor to her insistence that dreams, aspirations, and the voice of self be heeded” (91). She demanded that the rightwing use the text to “build me into a ‘name’” (95) even while claiming that “a Pink-New Deal-Collectivist blockade” prevented her view from being heard—despite the book’s sales and reviews (id.). Author notes that “Atlas Shrugged was a throwback to socialist realism, with its cardboard characters in the service of an overarching ideology” (179).
When she worked on the Willkie campaign, contra FDR, she came to believe that “I was a marvelous propagandist” (55). We should keep this estimation in mind while assessing her other writings; it is likely that each and every of her writings is propaganda for capitalist interests. Her conceptual incoherences are always manifest, such as the silly belief that the “traditional American way of life” is “individualism” (57), contrasted against the fear of “a Totalitarian America, a world of slavery” (5)—as though traditionally the purported ‘individualism’ in the United States were not founded precisely on actual slavery of human persons. At the same time she deployed this incoherent individualist doctrine, she adhered to “pseudoscience” such as the thesis, from R. A. Cram, that “most people were not ‘psychically’ human” (74).
She interacted with many figures of the US rightwing, and unequivocally alienated every single one of them because she is such an entitled jerk (cf. Aaron James’ Assholes). Standard asshole dunning-krugerism in the belief that “I have not adopted any philosophy. I have created my own” (127), which is patently false. Author is sufficiently aware to note that “Rand’s discourse was in many ways aggressively anti-intellectual” (id.).
She hit it off early in her career, for instance, with Isabel Patterson, impressing the latter by responding to her query about parental altruism for children with the asinine “if the child has no one but the parent and the situation is such that the parent has to sacrifice himself and die, how long would the child survive thereafter?” (82). The implication that the ‘sacrifice’ must be total, that there would never be anyone else to care for the kid, creates a false dilemma and imputes it to all altruist doctrine—that total sacrifice is always required. That’s unwarranted, of course—as is every one of her conclusions.
Even though Rand lifted a number of his ideas, she considered Hayek “pure poison” (104). She liked von Mises better (106), though still thought he was wrong on ethics. She picked needless quarrels with Milton Friedman (117). She fought with Buckley (140) and alienated Murray Rothbard (144). Worthless Whittaker Chambers savaged Atlas Shrugged in the National Review, and the general response to the novel caused her “a deep depression” (178). She repelled Sidney Hook (184), who regarded her as “substituting denunciation for analysis and mouthing slogans instead of considering problems” (193). She threw Goldwater under the bus (207 ff). Her brand of crazy was too much even for the HUAC, when she testified to smear a WWII film as pro-soviet: “Rand was slow to understand that Song of Russia was not Communist propaganda, but American propaganda about a wartime ally” (124). She even fell out with Paterson eventually (130 ff).
Because she couldn’t get along with other independent ‘individuals,’ she needed a group of pliable followers who agreed with her no matter what, a group of dependent cultists: “They were receptive to her comprehensive view of the world, her unified field theory of existence” (145). Her cult included the Brandens, Greenspan, Peikoff—and “put Rand in a position of authority she had always craved” (151)—consistent with her illiberal, authoritarian ideas, surely—a “hierarchical, stratified society” (id.). The text follows a long process of abusive, controlling bullshit, wherein she humiliated and terrorized these people; I am not feeling too sorry for them—they read her horrible books and signed up for it; they knew exactly the quantum of toxicity that awaited them. (They did nevertheless obtain the benefit of being able to “reject traditional religion without feeling lost in a nihilistic, meaningless universe” (203), which is the interest subserved by far right populism, as identified in Griffin’s Modernism and Fascism.) What is most atrocious is how her cult required counseling sessions with Natty Branden, who claimed to be a psychologist (he was not, really) and then reported all heretical beliefs to Rand, who then disciplined the cultists on the basis of his reports (238). FFS they even had show trials (180).
Just to hammer home how much of an asshole she was, be advised that she believed homosexuality to be a “disgusting aberration” (236); she regarded feminism as “utterly without legitimacy” (263); she thought that the Civil Rights Act sought “special race privileges” (206). It is noted that The Fountainhead “romanticized the rape victim” and represented “rape as grand passion” (264). She “attacked Native Americans as savages, arguing that European colonists had a right to seize their land because native tribes did not recognize individual rights” (266)—see how that works? Completely consistent with her juvenile ideas!
Suffice it to say that Isabel Paterson told Rand “stop taking benzedrine, you idiot” (126) because of her addiction. Let me repeat that: Rand was a drug addict. Her writings are narcotic-fueled trash—and this volume offers coverage of all the major publications. Not sure if the drugs are involved in the affair that she had with Branden or in his subsequent breaking it off, which caused her to excommunicate him, and thereafter the entire cult collapsed. She died of lung cancer, having smoked two packs per day for decades (274). By the end, she had driven away everyone in the cult with her cruelty—even those who nursed her through cancer surgery were driven away “after she harangued them endlessly about their altruistic tastes” (276)—i.e., in helping her during her illness, one assumes. In the end, there was no one left but Peikoff, and she died miserable and alone. Good fucking riddance.
Recommended for blinkered objectivists, drunkard libertarians, and other pointless illiberals.
July 21, 2020
I did finish it - but it was tough, since the Author has such a surface "understanding" of Rand's ideas. On too many issues that Rand dealt with very seriously, she seems to have little understanding at all.
The author did some amazing research, partly due to being given access to all(?) the Ayn Rand archives from ARI.org. Not sure why they gave her access, especially compared to the much better biographer of Ayn Rand, Anne Heller, but they did and she exposes the material pretty well. For instance, she quotes from some huge numbers of the fan letters Rand received. Amazing stuff. I'd love to have seen even more of these letters quoted, or even a study done of the types of letters she received, what issues the correspondents asked Rand about, what concerns they had, etc.
It's really a shame that Burns just either does not understand Rand's philosophical, political economic ideas or has it out for them, while trying to sound "objective" (Ha!). She makes countless mistakes in context to the ideas, interpretation and implications, besides innumerable fact errors of Rand's life and context.
In two or three of Burns' public appearances to help promote the book, I noticed that she stresses her analogy that Rand is a "Gateway Drug of Choice" for those in the right wing. Cute, eh?? Soooo funny. But of course biting too, since "gateway drugs" are what lead to "bad things" like harder drugs (or radical libertarian ideas?).
Overall, the book was quite biased (against Rand) and error prone. But there is some significant new information about Rand, that's for sure.
The author also has this annoying habit of conflating conservatives, libertarians and objectivists. The three groups are in fact quite distinct, despite their overlaps in ideas and sensibilities. Very sad. One wonders if Burns did it for some purpose - to try to blur the actual distinctions, or try to make Rand or people influenced by her, look bad somehow? Or if she really was just confused, sloppy, or both?
2020-07-21 - updated with some hopefully more clarifying text and editing.
The author did some amazing research, partly due to being given access to all(?) the Ayn Rand archives from ARI.org. Not sure why they gave her access, especially compared to the much better biographer of Ayn Rand, Anne Heller, but they did and she exposes the material pretty well. For instance, she quotes from some huge numbers of the fan letters Rand received. Amazing stuff. I'd love to have seen even more of these letters quoted, or even a study done of the types of letters she received, what issues the correspondents asked Rand about, what concerns they had, etc.
It's really a shame that Burns just either does not understand Rand's philosophical, political economic ideas or has it out for them, while trying to sound "objective" (Ha!). She makes countless mistakes in context to the ideas, interpretation and implications, besides innumerable fact errors of Rand's life and context.
In two or three of Burns' public appearances to help promote the book, I noticed that she stresses her analogy that Rand is a "Gateway Drug of Choice" for those in the right wing. Cute, eh?? Soooo funny. But of course biting too, since "gateway drugs" are what lead to "bad things" like harder drugs (or radical libertarian ideas?).
Overall, the book was quite biased (against Rand) and error prone. But there is some significant new information about Rand, that's for sure.
The author also has this annoying habit of conflating conservatives, libertarians and objectivists. The three groups are in fact quite distinct, despite their overlaps in ideas and sensibilities. Very sad. One wonders if Burns did it for some purpose - to try to blur the actual distinctions, or try to make Rand or people influenced by her, look bad somehow? Or if she really was just confused, sloppy, or both?
2020-07-21 - updated with some hopefully more clarifying text and editing.
May 4, 2010
I'm a little bit nervouse about giving this book five stars, lest all my fellow liberal progressives feel alarmed that I've converted to the cause of Free Marketism- dudes, I promise, I'm firmly in the almost socialist camp! With that said, I have an undeniable fascination with Ayn Rand. I've read all of her work (fiction and non-fiction), which perhaps partialy accounts for the fascination- I find that familiarity breeds obsession, in certain circumstances. But I also, when reading her work, find her ideas to be largely absolutely batshit crazy, and also laughably inadequate for any version of the real world which I am aquainted- so part of my fascination with her is my incredulousness that anyone who spends five minutes on planet earth would take her seriously. Yet so many people did! And do! She continues to have a profound effect on the American politically landscape, and this continues to baffle liberals like me.
This just basically blows my mind and also delights me, because I like when thinks are more complicated than one human mind can grasp, and I feel like the Ayn Rand denial of reality/Ayn Rand rampantly affecting reality phenomona is one of those such things.
Heriocally, Jennifer Burns seeks to analyze and make cohesive these divergent and complicated trends in this biography, and she does an admirable job. So admirable, in fact, that I want to write to her and beg her to write the biographies of other fascinating people who don't make any sense to me at all, because maybe she just has that magic gift of illumination that good math teacher's have with calculus and good pr people have with lies.
In any case, one must admit that Jennifer has amazing material to work with in her subject matter. I may think Ayn Rand is crazy as a loon, but she was also brilliant, and her life trajectory was equal parts amazing and tragic. I enjoyed reading about her formative years (even if Ayn Rand herself didn't believe she had formative years), and I enjoyed reading the influences that lead to her particular philosophy (most tragically the horrible treatment of her family- Jewish capitalists in Russia during the revolution- at the hand of the Communists) I also enjoyed seeing the complexities of the woman- her tremendous fragility and vulnerability combined with her determination that a rational person isn't those things, and therefor she wasn't those things. It was illuminating to read parts of her coorospondance with other leading libertarian thinkers of the time- to see her actively engaged in trying to ferret out answers to thorny philosophical and moral issues, to read about her passionate friendships and falling outs.
It's a rare biography, I think, that will be recieved warmly by fans and detractors, but this one deserves to be. Ayn Rand's systems of thought are treated respectfully, but the cognitive gaps and unresolved dilemmas are her thought system are also honestly examined. Likewise, Ms. Rand herself is treated compassionately and fairly. One gets the sense that Ms. Burns has concieved of a tremendous if frustrated compassion with her subject.
Given the role of Ms. Rand in the current tea party debates, and of her thought system in current moral debates surrounding the role of the welfare state, of government regulation of business, of religion in politics, and of the proper relationship between the weak and the strong, I would urge this book on basically everyone for a sense of historical perspective and to broaden the political and moral conversations. I left it without my politcal or moral assumptions shaken, but with much more respect for the woman who would seek to challenge them, and a greater awareness of the environment which not only shaped her beliefs, but made them so popular to so many people.
This just basically blows my mind and also delights me, because I like when thinks are more complicated than one human mind can grasp, and I feel like the Ayn Rand denial of reality/Ayn Rand rampantly affecting reality phenomona is one of those such things.
Heriocally, Jennifer Burns seeks to analyze and make cohesive these divergent and complicated trends in this biography, and she does an admirable job. So admirable, in fact, that I want to write to her and beg her to write the biographies of other fascinating people who don't make any sense to me at all, because maybe she just has that magic gift of illumination that good math teacher's have with calculus and good pr people have with lies.
In any case, one must admit that Jennifer has amazing material to work with in her subject matter. I may think Ayn Rand is crazy as a loon, but she was also brilliant, and her life trajectory was equal parts amazing and tragic. I enjoyed reading about her formative years (even if Ayn Rand herself didn't believe she had formative years), and I enjoyed reading the influences that lead to her particular philosophy (most tragically the horrible treatment of her family- Jewish capitalists in Russia during the revolution- at the hand of the Communists) I also enjoyed seeing the complexities of the woman- her tremendous fragility and vulnerability combined with her determination that a rational person isn't those things, and therefor she wasn't those things. It was illuminating to read parts of her coorospondance with other leading libertarian thinkers of the time- to see her actively engaged in trying to ferret out answers to thorny philosophical and moral issues, to read about her passionate friendships and falling outs.
It's a rare biography, I think, that will be recieved warmly by fans and detractors, but this one deserves to be. Ayn Rand's systems of thought are treated respectfully, but the cognitive gaps and unresolved dilemmas are her thought system are also honestly examined. Likewise, Ms. Rand herself is treated compassionately and fairly. One gets the sense that Ms. Burns has concieved of a tremendous if frustrated compassion with her subject.
Given the role of Ms. Rand in the current tea party debates, and of her thought system in current moral debates surrounding the role of the welfare state, of government regulation of business, of religion in politics, and of the proper relationship between the weak and the strong, I would urge this book on basically everyone for a sense of historical perspective and to broaden the political and moral conversations. I left it without my politcal or moral assumptions shaken, but with much more respect for the woman who would seek to challenge them, and a greater awareness of the environment which not only shaped her beliefs, but made them so popular to so many people.
November 5, 2020
One of my friends in high school was an 'Objectivist', a follower of Ayn Rand. He was the only right-winger in our circle of generally left-liberal to radical kids, but there was some overlap of attitudes and beliefs. Previously, while taking Evelyn Woods' course in 'Reading Dynamics' at the Park Ridge Inn, I'd been exposed to Rand, her novella 'Anthem' being an early assignment. Beyond that, I'd tried 'Atlas Shrugged' but was offended by what I felt was it's cruel dismissal of ordinary people and, so, never finished it. Beyond that, Rand was only on the margins of my thought, brought to attention only occasionally when Libertarian friends would criticize her. Indeed, the nastiest stuff I've seen about Rand was on right-wing blogs.
Burns' biography is far more charitable, giving the impression of being, as they say, 'fair and balanced'. A scholarly study, it focuses primarily on the development of Rands' thinking as expounded in her writings, fictional and non-fictional. Treating of her later years, however, after the splits with some of her closest followers, the book moves into a treatment of Rands' influence on the right-wing movements of the sixties, seventies and eighties, Rand dying in 1982. This I found most interesting as I'd 'been there' of course, though mostly unaware of the details of right-wing politics which were apparently as convoluted and passionate as what we on the left were going through.
One does not finish this biography with a prettified picture of Ayn Rand. She was an irascible, a difficult person. One does, however, find that she makes sense in terms of her background and that she remains important as regards her influence.
Burns' biography is far more charitable, giving the impression of being, as they say, 'fair and balanced'. A scholarly study, it focuses primarily on the development of Rands' thinking as expounded in her writings, fictional and non-fictional. Treating of her later years, however, after the splits with some of her closest followers, the book moves into a treatment of Rands' influence on the right-wing movements of the sixties, seventies and eighties, Rand dying in 1982. This I found most interesting as I'd 'been there' of course, though mostly unaware of the details of right-wing politics which were apparently as convoluted and passionate as what we on the left were going through.
One does not finish this biography with a prettified picture of Ayn Rand. She was an irascible, a difficult person. One does, however, find that she makes sense in terms of her background and that she remains important as regards her influence.
February 18, 2010
Finally ! A sane, intelligent, full biog. of Rand, "Rand without rant" I dub it. Dub dub. Dub dub.
January 17, 2022
When the USSR collapsed it was the end of an experiment at one extreme, that of the individual being severely restrained in favor of the community. It didn't work because it snuffed out individual initiative indicated by the phrase, "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us." One might dream of a career, but the career one could pursue was determined by what work it was decided needed to be done. How much of this or that was to be produced was decided by committee with terrible shortages and absurd surpluses common. You might find flashlight batteries everywhere but could not get a pair of reading glasses. People would routinely stand in line for things that Americans could easily find in half a dozen well stocked nearby stores, and of far better quality.
The fact was that communism did not produce consumer goods efficiently, if it produced them at all. One was told what to do and in an attempt to divide up national wealth fairly, people were robbed of the thing people naturally want to do: work first of all to improve one's own condition. The atmosphere was dreary and cities had a monotonous look that was most evident in the difference seen across the Berlin Wall between East and West Germany.
Ayn Rand fled this gray, depressing world in its early stages, in 1926, and found in America the opposite extreme: such a high regard for the individual and property that there was no limit to what one person could call his own and the power he could exert with his wealth. There was also no limit to how far a person could fall, even if it was to begging or literally lying in the gutter as people walked by (and still do). The USSR was proud of providing jobs for everyone, no matter how meaningless or low paying. There were no homeless. By contrast, Americans claimed that what happened in life was entirely one's own doing. Success or failure was laid at the individual's door. This was as true in the 1920's as it is today.
With her background, Rand could see no flaw in individualism and she made her life in America an effort to make it the overarching rule of life and source of meaning for as many as she could reach. Obsessed, convinced beyond doubt that the thoughts she came up with were exclusively hers, she dedicated herself to a philosophy that she called Objectivism. Those who admired her were cultivated. Those that wanted to modify her ideas were rejected if not reviled. Though she claimed that life should be founded in reason and not emotion; that man was first of all rational, she could not bear to hear criticism and would openly insult people in any social setting if they expressed something she thought was wrong. What could be more irrational? Things were either right (her ideas) or wrong (not her ideas) and one should charge in regardless of hurting feelings, feelings to be rejected anyway as of no value in the pursuit of truth.
This adamant approach did not lead to a wide circle of friends. Those who gathered around her had to be acolytes and there was no shortage of adoring students and readers of her two famous novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. But of course Rand was human and for all the steel of her public persona she was subject to depression if not in the thick of things and became addicted to Benzedrine as a stimulant to allow her to always be up and ready to roar. She married a little known Hollywood actor and remained with him until his death, greatly dependent on him for his unquestioning support of her, though he had no intellectual interests and stayed out of her all night sessions in rather one-sided conversation with those she allowed to be near her.
Her story is a page turner, filled with people who buy into her thinking then either drift away, are rudely rejected or accommodate themselves to her in order to stay on the bandwagon of her quite specific brand of right-wing thinking. On social issues her views varied, though she would insist her views were all consistent with her philosophy (don't we all do this?). She hated FDR, of course, seeing the New Deal as the death of America if it was not crushed. She supported abortion, but could not stand feminism. She did not support the Vietnam war but was all out for US military supremacy over the USSR.
Jennifer Burns does an outstanding job of handling the philosophies of the right, clearly telling the story of Rand's differences with the garden variety of US conservatism that held religion in high regard (Rand being a vociferous atheist). Libertarians and anarchism get full coverage. Rand, for all her regard of the individual, still felt there was a role for the state in being the holder of power to resolve disputes and restrain criminals, though the criminal idea of being all for oneself is not belittled. The reader will get an excellent foundation for understanding the views of the right that we see in the saddle today.
As you would expect, Rand was the darling of the business world, backing up with her deep thoughts the idea that every dollar, every penny a billionaire has are his alone and no thanks to anyone else. This is where her philosophy, as deep as she could make it, falls apart.
There should be no absolute rule of society over the individual. Nobody mourns the USSR outside of Russia, but it was foolish to celebrate the fall of the Soviet Union by a capitalist West that could not see its own difficulties in the apotheosis of the individual. As surely as communism preached selflessness for society, entertainment and the media in the US preach the glory of the self. Movies and books promote the fearless individual overcoming the threatening mob, or state, or community. How many stories have you heard of the wronged individual who wins in the end, proven right after all? Flip on the TV, there's bound to be one on right now.
There are too many Americans defiantly brandishing arms with a feeling of superiority as individuals over a democratically elected government that represents we the people as a whole. We have quite a number of active haters of government and in the government itself we have those who want to dismantle all regulation of business, though profit-making is a force that seeks every means of satisfaction easily working to defraud the public or go around or through the law to kill competition or simply build monopoly through takeovers. Communism did not work, is capitalism, more unrestrained all the time and leaving the huge majority behind as wealth is funneled to the 1%, is it working out well?
The greatest refutation of Rand's thinking is our own president, Donald Trump, the living case of a man who values himself far above all others and considers those who question him fools, though a fool himself. Rand was in accord with Friedrich Nietzsche's idea of the superman; that there are people, the few, who are superior to the teaming inferior multitude. She was eager to say that selfishness is good. This is a mad theory because what person does not feel an innate sense of superiority that if not held at bay can become monstrous if given free rein as Rand wanted? What king of old did not think of himself with the greatest regard even as horrors were inflicted on the common people? How many "common men" have risen up in coups and revolutions to become monsters of power who believe they can do no wrong? If one is to be the judge of oneself alone, what is the barrier to megalomania?
Ayn Rand's extremism was no improvement over the extremism she fled. Deadly dull communism is not answered with every citizen armed and for himself. Anyone who reads this book will realize just how close to the edge we are at present in the apotheosis of individualism. What thoughts of individual power and glory run through the heads of mass shooters that are now in the news almost weekly? For society to work well, there must be a balance of limited power to assure the good of the community as well as the freedom of the individual. Ayn Rand went off the deep end and far too many people were influenced by her philosophy that took individualism to a toxic extreme. It is no excuse to say it is the antithesis of communism. It is killing us.
The fact was that communism did not produce consumer goods efficiently, if it produced them at all. One was told what to do and in an attempt to divide up national wealth fairly, people were robbed of the thing people naturally want to do: work first of all to improve one's own condition. The atmosphere was dreary and cities had a monotonous look that was most evident in the difference seen across the Berlin Wall between East and West Germany.
Ayn Rand fled this gray, depressing world in its early stages, in 1926, and found in America the opposite extreme: such a high regard for the individual and property that there was no limit to what one person could call his own and the power he could exert with his wealth. There was also no limit to how far a person could fall, even if it was to begging or literally lying in the gutter as people walked by (and still do). The USSR was proud of providing jobs for everyone, no matter how meaningless or low paying. There were no homeless. By contrast, Americans claimed that what happened in life was entirely one's own doing. Success or failure was laid at the individual's door. This was as true in the 1920's as it is today.
With her background, Rand could see no flaw in individualism and she made her life in America an effort to make it the overarching rule of life and source of meaning for as many as she could reach. Obsessed, convinced beyond doubt that the thoughts she came up with were exclusively hers, she dedicated herself to a philosophy that she called Objectivism. Those who admired her were cultivated. Those that wanted to modify her ideas were rejected if not reviled. Though she claimed that life should be founded in reason and not emotion; that man was first of all rational, she could not bear to hear criticism and would openly insult people in any social setting if they expressed something she thought was wrong. What could be more irrational? Things were either right (her ideas) or wrong (not her ideas) and one should charge in regardless of hurting feelings, feelings to be rejected anyway as of no value in the pursuit of truth.
This adamant approach did not lead to a wide circle of friends. Those who gathered around her had to be acolytes and there was no shortage of adoring students and readers of her two famous novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. But of course Rand was human and for all the steel of her public persona she was subject to depression if not in the thick of things and became addicted to Benzedrine as a stimulant to allow her to always be up and ready to roar. She married a little known Hollywood actor and remained with him until his death, greatly dependent on him for his unquestioning support of her, though he had no intellectual interests and stayed out of her all night sessions in rather one-sided conversation with those she allowed to be near her.
Her story is a page turner, filled with people who buy into her thinking then either drift away, are rudely rejected or accommodate themselves to her in order to stay on the bandwagon of her quite specific brand of right-wing thinking. On social issues her views varied, though she would insist her views were all consistent with her philosophy (don't we all do this?). She hated FDR, of course, seeing the New Deal as the death of America if it was not crushed. She supported abortion, but could not stand feminism. She did not support the Vietnam war but was all out for US military supremacy over the USSR.
Jennifer Burns does an outstanding job of handling the philosophies of the right, clearly telling the story of Rand's differences with the garden variety of US conservatism that held religion in high regard (Rand being a vociferous atheist). Libertarians and anarchism get full coverage. Rand, for all her regard of the individual, still felt there was a role for the state in being the holder of power to resolve disputes and restrain criminals, though the criminal idea of being all for oneself is not belittled. The reader will get an excellent foundation for understanding the views of the right that we see in the saddle today.
As you would expect, Rand was the darling of the business world, backing up with her deep thoughts the idea that every dollar, every penny a billionaire has are his alone and no thanks to anyone else. This is where her philosophy, as deep as she could make it, falls apart.
There should be no absolute rule of society over the individual. Nobody mourns the USSR outside of Russia, but it was foolish to celebrate the fall of the Soviet Union by a capitalist West that could not see its own difficulties in the apotheosis of the individual. As surely as communism preached selflessness for society, entertainment and the media in the US preach the glory of the self. Movies and books promote the fearless individual overcoming the threatening mob, or state, or community. How many stories have you heard of the wronged individual who wins in the end, proven right after all? Flip on the TV, there's bound to be one on right now.
There are too many Americans defiantly brandishing arms with a feeling of superiority as individuals over a democratically elected government that represents we the people as a whole. We have quite a number of active haters of government and in the government itself we have those who want to dismantle all regulation of business, though profit-making is a force that seeks every means of satisfaction easily working to defraud the public or go around or through the law to kill competition or simply build monopoly through takeovers. Communism did not work, is capitalism, more unrestrained all the time and leaving the huge majority behind as wealth is funneled to the 1%, is it working out well?
The greatest refutation of Rand's thinking is our own president, Donald Trump, the living case of a man who values himself far above all others and considers those who question him fools, though a fool himself. Rand was in accord with Friedrich Nietzsche's idea of the superman; that there are people, the few, who are superior to the teaming inferior multitude. She was eager to say that selfishness is good. This is a mad theory because what person does not feel an innate sense of superiority that if not held at bay can become monstrous if given free rein as Rand wanted? What king of old did not think of himself with the greatest regard even as horrors were inflicted on the common people? How many "common men" have risen up in coups and revolutions to become monsters of power who believe they can do no wrong? If one is to be the judge of oneself alone, what is the barrier to megalomania?
Ayn Rand's extremism was no improvement over the extremism she fled. Deadly dull communism is not answered with every citizen armed and for himself. Anyone who reads this book will realize just how close to the edge we are at present in the apotheosis of individualism. What thoughts of individual power and glory run through the heads of mass shooters that are now in the news almost weekly? For society to work well, there must be a balance of limited power to assure the good of the community as well as the freedom of the individual. Ayn Rand went off the deep end and far too many people were influenced by her philosophy that took individualism to a toxic extreme. It is no excuse to say it is the antithesis of communism. It is killing us.
July 13, 2020
As someone who has spent a great deal of time with Rand’s ideas, and with the Objectivist movement, I can’t praise this book enough. It is informative, extremely enjoyable to read, but most of all fair. The author clearly finds much to appreciate in Rand’s ideas, such as her celebration of individual self-direction and the heroic dimension of entrepreneurial production under capitalism. This is not a smear job from the left. But neither is it an entirely uncritical hagiography. The book does not gloss over the flaws in Rand’s ideas, or in her actions. In particular, the author is effective in pointing out the devastating effects of Rand’s tendency to capture everything under the umbrella of reason, including her own idiosyncratic likes and dislikes, and her neglect of the importance of emotion and (ironically) individual difference. This, combined with Rand’s insistence that her followers “judge, and prepare to be judged,” led to a sociological environment that was often felt as oppressive and conformist, and that could have devastating effects on the self-esteem and interpersonal relationships of those who became ensnared in it. The book recounts the many schisms that plagued The Collective, and later the Objectivist movement more broadly. But it also places those schisms in context, and by the time the reader comes to them, they arrive not as a surprise but as the entirely predictable result of the movement that Rand had created.
I am perhaps dwelling too much on the author’s criticisms of Rand. Again, this is not a hatchet job, but a remarkably fair, even-handed and well-informed treatment of Rand, her ideas, and the movement they gave rise to. I highly recommend it for anyone with an interest in her ideas or in libertarianism more broadly.
I am perhaps dwelling too much on the author’s criticisms of Rand. Again, this is not a hatchet job, but a remarkably fair, even-handed and well-informed treatment of Rand, her ideas, and the movement they gave rise to. I highly recommend it for anyone with an interest in her ideas or in libertarianism more broadly.
July 25, 2015
This is a well written biography that provides what appears to be a thorough recounting of Ayn Rand's life with emphasis on her political philosophy and activities over the years. However, while I learned new information about her life I cannot recommend this book to any except those who feel they must read every word written about Ayn Rand. I say that because I found that the author does not have respect for the ideas of Ayn Rand (or other serious libertarian thinkers). That lack of respect (for example the off hand reference to "Objectivism's kooky side" on p. 219) and some obvious factual errors lead me to distrust much of the book. While I mostly enjoyed reading the story of Ayn's life, warts and all, I found what seemed like an underlying skepticism of the author that made me conclude this was a flawed depiction of the life of Ayn Rand.
June 17, 2012
You know what's funny? I found myself hesitating to include this book on my shelf, and I realized that even confessing to have read it feels like confessing to having once been under Ayn Rand's spell. I came to the book hoping to find an intellectual and cultural history of Rand's ideas, which intrigues me because she herself claimed no intellectual forbears except Aristotle. She perceived herself as entirely outside of history and above the academy, though she was deeply engaged in American politics.
I was fascinated to learn that two of Rand's biggest early influences were both women intellectuals: Isabel Paterson and Rose Wilder Lane. Rand's history with libertarians is the real draw of this book, and where Burns' prose really comes alive. And I loved reading about William F. Buckley's takedowns of Rand in the National Review, and the anarchist Libertarians' attempts to convert her to their cause. Also: "not beatniks but buckniks" and Randian "heads" who embrace both logic and LSD.
Jennifer Burns had full access to Rand's papers in the partisan Ayn Rand Archive, so this book stands as one of the first scholarly books written about Rand by someone who does not identify as an Objectivist. Burns does at admirable job of taking Rand seriously while also fully acknowledging her faults. It is clear that Burns, an academic historian publishing with a university press, does not agree with Objectivism, but the need to exercise stylistic restraint when writing about such a lightning rod takes its toll on Burns' prose, which is at times a little too generic. I would have appreciated a more spirited and personal engagement with her subject.
Goddess of the Market mainly traces a vector from Rand outward to the various factions of the right wing, not inward. I found that the book still hewed too closely to the biography, to Rand's own account of what she was doing. That account is quite fascinating and new to me--from her campaigning for Wendell Willkie in 1940 to her utter rejection of Reagan as she exited public life--but it is clear that work remains to be done on why her and why then.
I was fascinated to learn that two of Rand's biggest early influences were both women intellectuals: Isabel Paterson and Rose Wilder Lane. Rand's history with libertarians is the real draw of this book, and where Burns' prose really comes alive. And I loved reading about William F. Buckley's takedowns of Rand in the National Review, and the anarchist Libertarians' attempts to convert her to their cause. Also: "not beatniks but buckniks" and Randian "heads" who embrace both logic and LSD.
Jennifer Burns had full access to Rand's papers in the partisan Ayn Rand Archive, so this book stands as one of the first scholarly books written about Rand by someone who does not identify as an Objectivist. Burns does at admirable job of taking Rand seriously while also fully acknowledging her faults. It is clear that Burns, an academic historian publishing with a university press, does not agree with Objectivism, but the need to exercise stylistic restraint when writing about such a lightning rod takes its toll on Burns' prose, which is at times a little too generic. I would have appreciated a more spirited and personal engagement with her subject.
Goddess of the Market mainly traces a vector from Rand outward to the various factions of the right wing, not inward. I found that the book still hewed too closely to the biography, to Rand's own account of what she was doing. That account is quite fascinating and new to me--from her campaigning for Wendell Willkie in 1940 to her utter rejection of Reagan as she exited public life--but it is clear that work remains to be done on why her and why then.
January 17, 2010
I enjoy biographies, but this was more than a biography. Burns shows how Ayn Rand influenced the political right and the conservatives. But her primary focus toward the end of the book was to show how Rand influenced the libertarian movement. After reading this book it is easy to conclude that Ayn Rand has much more influence on classical liberals and libertarians than conservatives and right-wingers. It’s hard to make the case that a classical liberal or libertarian is on the political right, but that was Burns’ primary thesis; notice the subtitle of this book. Maybe her definition of the American right is different than many others. We’ll never know because Burns didn’t define what she meant by right, left, liberal, and conservative. She just made the assumption that libertarians are on the political right because they want to minimize government control in order to secure individual rights and freedoms, a somewhat limited definition for the American right. A thorough discussion of the problems placing libertarians on the political right would have made her analysis of Ayn Rand’s influence on the American right more interesting.
February 10, 2011
This book was a really excellent biography of Ayn Rand. I wrote my honors thesis in college on Rand from a feminist perspective, and I've also seen a lot of writing about her from an economic perspective. I had never seen a biography of her told through the lens of politics, however, and I found it really well done. Burns does not skip any major (or even minor) events in Rand's life, keeping this book foremost a biography. But she is careful to include all indications of Rand's evolving thoughts on politics, as well as how Rand fit (or did not fit) into American politics and philosophical thought. Given Rand's mercurial personality, it is an open question whether Rand would have serious issues with today's conservative right, but Burns did a great job showing (and not telling or judging) that Rand was by no means a natural fit with conservatives during her lifetime. I would have liked a little more about how Rand has been used (and mis-used) by politicians, students, etc. since her death, but Burns really does a great job leaving the reader incredibly well informed enough to make up his or her own mind.
July 26, 2018
Burns starts with the premise that Rand's "ideas" have been influential within the American Right. She then inadvertently or deliberately identifies American conservatism with unbridled, unfettered capitalism (hardly) and even more damaging to her thesis, can't prevent the alert reader from realizing that Rand offers NOTHING coherent to a discussion of human nature, let alone political discourse. She was the intellectual equivalent of the bully boys who marched in Charlottesville. Whittaker Chambers, who probably understood Rand better than most, reviewed Atlas Shrugged by identifying its dreary totalitarian central "thesis". She never forgave Bill Buckley for running Chambers' review in National Review.
None of this is Burns' fault, but it does beg the question about an attempt to impose intellectual coherency upon Rand's nonsense. No one seriously maintains that Mein Kampf offers an insight into an intellectually coherent system. Rand's novels are at the heart of whatever she offered, and they do deliver a strong jolt of moody Byronic romanticism. But her thinking is so arguably third-rate that as an actual influence? Burns is unconvincing. Of course, so was Rand.
None of this is Burns' fault, but it does beg the question about an attempt to impose intellectual coherency upon Rand's nonsense. No one seriously maintains that Mein Kampf offers an insight into an intellectually coherent system. Rand's novels are at the heart of whatever she offered, and they do deliver a strong jolt of moody Byronic romanticism. But her thinking is so arguably third-rate that as an actual influence? Burns is unconvincing. Of course, so was Rand.
January 27, 2022
The goal of this book was not to be a biography rather the author's stated intention was to argue that Rand has had an outsized influence on the trajectory of the American political right. But it is also a biography because Rand's writings and activities were intimately connected to her philosophy and outlook. I came into this knowing very little about Rand and her work other than a few vague assumptions. I found this book a very interesting read. While I do not agree with much of Rand's philosophy or really even get much of her appeal, I found her to be a fascinating person. Very few people, it seems had the ability to both draw people to her while simultaneously pushing them away. But Rand seems to be one of those people. Rand comes off as a driven and determined person convinced of her own greatness and righteousness while at the same time being insecure and defensive to a fault. She desired the company of devout followers and hanger oners while at the same time being rude and disdainful to anyone who was too obsequious and even ruder to those that disagreed with her. Some of her most violent disagreements came with those who, one would think would be her closest political allies. Rand was a cluster of contradictions but she was also admired and looked up to by millions who have read her work. Burns does a great job of putting Rand in her proper political reference and showing how Rand had an outsized influence on the American libertarian right and she provides just enough biographical background to make you want to read more about Rand's personal life. This book has a little for everyone with even a passing interest in Ayn Rand's life and work. There is a detailed discussion of her philosophy and intellectual development and enough biographical information to put the philosophy in proper context. While this is an academic book and it is written like one, it would be of interest to anyone doing research or with just a passing interest in Ayn Rand. This book sets out to be an intellectual history of an American Icon but ends up being much more.
December 16, 2018
A good source to know the complexities and contradictions of Ayn Rand. Throughoutly researched and, despite the title, not as corny as it sounds. Burns shows that the myth of a decontextualized, ever cold and reasonable Ayn Rand, like libertarians would have you believe, is fake. Nor was the movement cohesive enough. How can you advocate a collective of individualists? At surface level there are other topics like Ayn Rand's reaction to libertarians, anarchists, conservatives, feminists and enviromentalists and their subsequent reception / rejection.
I disagree profoundly with what Ayn Rand had tried to foster, and her morals whether Nietzschean, selfish-egoist, utilitarian, reckless or outright evil, but I do feel a deep compassion for her. In the beginning, few people did ever believe that the USSR was not the paradise it was reported to be.
In addition, this book made the current libertarian fever and the consequential conservative endorsement of them less understandable to me (as becoming familiar with the libertarian movement made me understand they were little more than teenagerish anarchists). On to less heavy things, now, I suppose!
I disagree profoundly with what Ayn Rand had tried to foster, and her morals whether Nietzschean, selfish-egoist, utilitarian, reckless or outright evil, but I do feel a deep compassion for her. In the beginning, few people did ever believe that the USSR was not the paradise it was reported to be.
In addition, this book made the current libertarian fever and the consequential conservative endorsement of them less understandable to me (as becoming familiar with the libertarian movement made me understand they were little more than teenagerish anarchists). On to less heavy things, now, I suppose!
January 28, 2019
Very good. Combines an overview of her thought, a history of her life, and Rand's interaction with conservative thinkers of her day. Very helpful. 4.5 really
May 29, 2021
3.5 stars. Read this a few years ago. Going through my library of books I own and updating my Goodreads book list.
Well written and explains why the American Right loves her. I must admit a read all her famous books, and I dug Atlas Shrugged, but for all the wrong reasons. It made me laugh. Fountain Head was, over all, the better book of the two.
Well written and explains why the American Right loves her. I must admit a read all her famous books, and I dug Atlas Shrugged, but for all the wrong reasons. It made me laugh. Fountain Head was, over all, the better book of the two.
April 19, 2025
really interesting look into the person who shaped the dumpster fire of american politics rn
February 22, 2010
This book, this book, it would not end. As a general rule if I've "been reading" something for three months, that shit has been long since tabled. But this biography stayed with me, it was just difficult. By that I don't mean the language was hard or the history complicated to place (although I abandoned footnotes early on, would have never made it through). I mean this woman, Ayn Rand, is so difficult and contradictory and inflammatory and zealous and flawed, that reading about her life and work required a lot of energy devoted to content and context.
Burns, the biographer, deserves major credit for what I can only assume is the most unbiased account possible of a philosopher more often thrown out as a straw-woman in debate than discussed for her actual merits, accomplishments and ideas. The sources are diverse and numerous, and leave me feeling confident that I've been given a multi-faceted picture of Rand.
Oh, Ayn Rand. The philosophy of selfishness. Even reading those words makes my brain hurt, but damn if she didn't try to live it to the teeth. Selfish with her lovers, selfish with her ideas, selfish with friends and enemies a lot. It makes sense, in retrospect, that the consummate Capitalist would be a stickler for intellectual property, and thus that Rand would try to control the dissemination and use of her ideas even as she doggedly worked to spread them wide through America. It's this sort of contradiction, the desire to share genius and simultaneously guard it fiercely, that characterizes Rand in this biography. A woman so loyal to the ideas of individuality and independence that she cannot acknowledge those who contributed to her success. Disavowed by both mainstream conservatives and libertarians, for her audacity in defending atheism and rational thought and the utility of government, albeit limited in scope and power. A lonely, quarrelsome woman who attracted a cult following with strict hierarchies, inner circles, heroes and betrayals. A survivor, a writer, a user of amphetamines and cigarettes, a person hellbent on living her life as she believed she ought to, at the expense of her own happiness and that of those around her.
On the other side of this 300 page tome, I don't like Rand's ideas any better, and feel no less contemptuous toward those of my generation who defend their selfishness with her ideals. But I do sympathize with Rand the person, a fascinating figure of America's political landscape and a remarkably independent, adventurous woman. By extension, I even sympathize with those who were swept up by the dynamism of her ideas in their heyday, even if they should have known better. And that's an interesting contradiction in itself.
(If nothing else, reading this biography frees me from any obligation I might have felt to read Rand's actual novels. I tried with Atlas Shrugged, I really did, but what with all the sympathy for rich folks and insistence that they're capable of acting morally, I couldn't suspend disbelief for more than a few hundred pages. So kudos to Burns, who will enable me to speak about the books in the context of their author's politics and reception with confidence, without sitting through the damnable things.)
Burns, the biographer, deserves major credit for what I can only assume is the most unbiased account possible of a philosopher more often thrown out as a straw-woman in debate than discussed for her actual merits, accomplishments and ideas. The sources are diverse and numerous, and leave me feeling confident that I've been given a multi-faceted picture of Rand.
Oh, Ayn Rand. The philosophy of selfishness. Even reading those words makes my brain hurt, but damn if she didn't try to live it to the teeth. Selfish with her lovers, selfish with her ideas, selfish with friends and enemies a lot. It makes sense, in retrospect, that the consummate Capitalist would be a stickler for intellectual property, and thus that Rand would try to control the dissemination and use of her ideas even as she doggedly worked to spread them wide through America. It's this sort of contradiction, the desire to share genius and simultaneously guard it fiercely, that characterizes Rand in this biography. A woman so loyal to the ideas of individuality and independence that she cannot acknowledge those who contributed to her success. Disavowed by both mainstream conservatives and libertarians, for her audacity in defending atheism and rational thought and the utility of government, albeit limited in scope and power. A lonely, quarrelsome woman who attracted a cult following with strict hierarchies, inner circles, heroes and betrayals. A survivor, a writer, a user of amphetamines and cigarettes, a person hellbent on living her life as she believed she ought to, at the expense of her own happiness and that of those around her.
On the other side of this 300 page tome, I don't like Rand's ideas any better, and feel no less contemptuous toward those of my generation who defend their selfishness with her ideals. But I do sympathize with Rand the person, a fascinating figure of America's political landscape and a remarkably independent, adventurous woman. By extension, I even sympathize with those who were swept up by the dynamism of her ideas in their heyday, even if they should have known better. And that's an interesting contradiction in itself.
(If nothing else, reading this biography frees me from any obligation I might have felt to read Rand's actual novels. I tried with Atlas Shrugged, I really did, but what with all the sympathy for rich folks and insistence that they're capable of acting morally, I couldn't suspend disbelief for more than a few hundred pages. So kudos to Burns, who will enable me to speak about the books in the context of their author's politics and reception with confidence, without sitting through the damnable things.)
May 30, 2019
My first reaction to the beginnings of the book was that it sounded just like any other biography, trying to add flavor to history by writing about how young Ayn felt and thought. So, a few stretches, in order to build a more vivid past narrative. I mean, you make the best of what you have - so when we enter into periods of where there is more material for a biography Jennifer Burns turn more objective, but not totally. She has this anti-Rand bent sometimes, and it's not too bad other than it shows that she has an agenda there somewhere in addition to her claim of objectivity and backing of her research. To be fair, she does seem Rand sympathetic too on many occasions. This comes into light by her focus on the influence Nietzsche had on Rand, and she did, but Burns never tells about where Rand departs from Nietzschean influence(rather she implies in the Essay of the Sources that her Nietzschean wording hints that she never really did, but those things are a natural remnant of past passions that are difficult to get rid of). The same goes with her use of prescripted Benzedrine, where Burns adds Isabel Paterson's remark about overuse and thus indicate repeated over usage - but never tells that the drug was safely prescribed by a doctor and she stopped using them in the '70s. So these hanging in the air "negatives" are a subjective bent to the story, even though they seem to be accurately told, she does not tell it all. There is also the occasional scorn, most visible maybe when she writes about Rand's usage of the Atilla and the Witch Doctor, that Rands "essays mixed history, philosophy, and polemic into a bewitching brew" - hinting that Rand herself was a Witchdoctor, although it could just be a literary flair.
I do appreciate this trying hard to be objective, but it does more feel like trying to be a counterweight to the usual hagiography - but when you look past that, the book is actually a very good addition to literature about Rand with great use of all kinds of sources and a great peek into the influence Rand had on the Right and on libertarianism. In shorter biographies, it is often mentioned Rands either influence or connection with prominent figures in those circles, but only here I have seen a very comprehensive look into the details of those relationships, the flow of influence and the scope of friendships. Burns also uses a lot of time dealing with Rands flirting with politics and her involvement in campaigns and struggles to get her voice though. Sometimes The book does repeat itself, especially when introducing a person and then reintroducing, maybe as a service to those that are not that familiar with the circles where Rands influence was the greatest. For me it was a revelation just how close and how great Rands influence was through her life.
I also found the Burns account of the break between Rand and Branden very enlightening and made me understand much better the details and the severity of the break as the in the buildup we have gotten to know Rands state of mind about this things.
Lastly, the aftermath of Rand after her death is also a nice ending chapter to the book, although that part seemed a bit rushed, but fine since the meat of the biography is about Rands circle when she was alive.
I do appreciate this trying hard to be objective, but it does more feel like trying to be a counterweight to the usual hagiography - but when you look past that, the book is actually a very good addition to literature about Rand with great use of all kinds of sources and a great peek into the influence Rand had on the Right and on libertarianism. In shorter biographies, it is often mentioned Rands either influence or connection with prominent figures in those circles, but only here I have seen a very comprehensive look into the details of those relationships, the flow of influence and the scope of friendships. Burns also uses a lot of time dealing with Rands flirting with politics and her involvement in campaigns and struggles to get her voice though. Sometimes The book does repeat itself, especially when introducing a person and then reintroducing, maybe as a service to those that are not that familiar with the circles where Rands influence was the greatest. For me it was a revelation just how close and how great Rands influence was through her life.
I also found the Burns account of the break between Rand and Branden very enlightening and made me understand much better the details and the severity of the break as the in the buildup we have gotten to know Rands state of mind about this things.
Lastly, the aftermath of Rand after her death is also a nice ending chapter to the book, although that part seemed a bit rushed, but fine since the meat of the biography is about Rands circle when she was alive.
June 17, 2014
A very lucid and readable biography of a fiery Russian immigrant who became one of the greatest champions of liberty, "America-style", and a founder of a cult that still garners members today.
Burns's 300-page book feels like a 800-page book that's been distilled to its essence by cutting away all the boring bits.
The supreme readability is the conservative book's strength, because it does not have a cutting edge as much as a sturdy, solid frame (the sort Atlas Shrugged idolized).
On the downside, for someone who is already quite familiar with Rand's story, there is not a whole lot of revelations to be had, here. Barbara Branden's book turned TV-movie, The Passion of Ayn Rand, raised shock-waves when it was first released almost 30 years ago.
This book does not have such revelations, nor can it match that scandalous effect, because the cat has already been let out of the bag.
People already know that Rand was a fanatic and a control-freak, and a tortured human being with very real emotions that she tried, with the full power of her system, to suppress (to varying levels of success).
Burns can only offer a synthesizing vision, with a more objective - and less Objectivistic - look at Rand's life. Some chapters are kind of ho-hum, like she is going through the motions without saying anything new, but at her best, Burns offers critical insights into the libertarian circles in which Rand, to her dismay, found herself in.
The book is sprinkled with references to her sources of inspiration (yes she had many), including the mostly-forgotten Isabel Paterson and Rose Wilder Lane, in addition to the twisted dreams of Nietzsche; and thus Rand's megalomaniac claim to absolute originality is quietly shattered, even while her immense powers of elocution and persuasion, and her capacity for movement-building, are fully acknowledged.
From the point of view of scholarship, the three main points of strength in Mrs. Burns's book are 1) the studious research and reliance on "primary source" documents rather than second-hand hearsay; 2) in particular, the unrivaled access to previously unpublished archival materials at the over-protective Ayn Rand Institute; 3) all made perfect by a tidy editing job that has resulted in best-seller-worthy supreme readability (that hides all the laborious research behind effortless, simple prose). This is how popular non-fiction should be written, since both the professor and the housewife may appreciate it.
The book reads like a dream. It is stylistically Anti-Rand, because it neither rambles nor tries to overwhelm the reader with calumny or messianic vision. It does not contain supreme surprises or revelations, but whether you are a Rand-novice or a full-blown Objectivist egoist, it is bound to entertain you throughout its streamlined narrative.
The book offers a comprehensive look at the relationship between Rand and her peers, and ultimately makes a subtle criticism of the Randian Collective that is both damning and humanizing. Rand turns out to be just as unique an individual as her heroines in her books, but just as full of contradictions and emotions as the masses she so despised.
Burns's 300-page book feels like a 800-page book that's been distilled to its essence by cutting away all the boring bits.
The supreme readability is the conservative book's strength, because it does not have a cutting edge as much as a sturdy, solid frame (the sort Atlas Shrugged idolized).
On the downside, for someone who is already quite familiar with Rand's story, there is not a whole lot of revelations to be had, here. Barbara Branden's book turned TV-movie, The Passion of Ayn Rand, raised shock-waves when it was first released almost 30 years ago.
This book does not have such revelations, nor can it match that scandalous effect, because the cat has already been let out of the bag.
People already know that Rand was a fanatic and a control-freak, and a tortured human being with very real emotions that she tried, with the full power of her system, to suppress (to varying levels of success).
Burns can only offer a synthesizing vision, with a more objective - and less Objectivistic - look at Rand's life. Some chapters are kind of ho-hum, like she is going through the motions without saying anything new, but at her best, Burns offers critical insights into the libertarian circles in which Rand, to her dismay, found herself in.
The book is sprinkled with references to her sources of inspiration (yes she had many), including the mostly-forgotten Isabel Paterson and Rose Wilder Lane, in addition to the twisted dreams of Nietzsche; and thus Rand's megalomaniac claim to absolute originality is quietly shattered, even while her immense powers of elocution and persuasion, and her capacity for movement-building, are fully acknowledged.
From the point of view of scholarship, the three main points of strength in Mrs. Burns's book are 1) the studious research and reliance on "primary source" documents rather than second-hand hearsay; 2) in particular, the unrivaled access to previously unpublished archival materials at the over-protective Ayn Rand Institute; 3) all made perfect by a tidy editing job that has resulted in best-seller-worthy supreme readability (that hides all the laborious research behind effortless, simple prose). This is how popular non-fiction should be written, since both the professor and the housewife may appreciate it.
The book reads like a dream. It is stylistically Anti-Rand, because it neither rambles nor tries to overwhelm the reader with calumny or messianic vision. It does not contain supreme surprises or revelations, but whether you are a Rand-novice or a full-blown Objectivist egoist, it is bound to entertain you throughout its streamlined narrative.
The book offers a comprehensive look at the relationship between Rand and her peers, and ultimately makes a subtle criticism of the Randian Collective that is both damning and humanizing. Rand turns out to be just as unique an individual as her heroines in her books, but just as full of contradictions and emotions as the masses she so despised.
December 6, 2009
I think Objectivists and non-Objectivists alike will find this to be a worthwhile biography and a case study of the formation of an ideological movement, for better and for worse. I had heard many of these stories before, but often from from sources whose personal involvement may have skewed their memories.
That said, the one minor criticism of this work is that Burns' detachment made some of the stories seem less engaging than when described by those personally involved (particularly in Barbara Branden's Passion of Ayn Rand). Though this book isn't a memoir and is generally more scholarly in tone, some direct quotes might have worked better to bring some of the more dramatic events to life.
Burns' infusion of philosophical ideas do a lot to bring context to the events of Rand's life. Though I knew that Nietzsche had been a significant influence on Rand, I never knew quite to what degree. I found Burns' argument that it was rather intense to be persuasive.
This was the most extensive treatment of Rand's early life that I have yet encountered. I think that's one of the main strengths of this book. (I haven't yet read the Anne Heller book, also released in 2009, which may also cover this terrain well. That's next on my reading list.)
Outside of the body of the book, the backmatter section, "Essay on Sources," was of great interest. I've read quite a lot of the works by and about Rand and Objectivism, and it was very useful and sometimes surprising to hear her take on the state of the archives (generally quite good) and to find out which individuals and institutions were in possession of the materials she used. She also had interesting comments about the degree to which various compilations of source materials had been revised and edited, often to their detriment.
That said, the one minor criticism of this work is that Burns' detachment made some of the stories seem less engaging than when described by those personally involved (particularly in Barbara Branden's Passion of Ayn Rand). Though this book isn't a memoir and is generally more scholarly in tone, some direct quotes might have worked better to bring some of the more dramatic events to life.
Burns' infusion of philosophical ideas do a lot to bring context to the events of Rand's life. Though I knew that Nietzsche had been a significant influence on Rand, I never knew quite to what degree. I found Burns' argument that it was rather intense to be persuasive.
This was the most extensive treatment of Rand's early life that I have yet encountered. I think that's one of the main strengths of this book. (I haven't yet read the Anne Heller book, also released in 2009, which may also cover this terrain well. That's next on my reading list.)
Outside of the body of the book, the backmatter section, "Essay on Sources," was of great interest. I've read quite a lot of the works by and about Rand and Objectivism, and it was very useful and sometimes surprising to hear her take on the state of the archives (generally quite good) and to find out which individuals and institutions were in possession of the materials she used. She also had interesting comments about the degree to which various compilations of source materials had been revised and edited, often to their detriment.
December 5, 2009
"What are your premises?"
With this, her opening salvo at the outset of a relationship, Ayn Rand signaled two propositions that too few have questioned.
First, there's the assumption that people are what they think. In fact, people are what they think and what they feel. By ignoring at least half the motivation of the human race, Rand came up with a half-baked philosophy that is causing chaos in America to the present day.
Second, in her arrogance, Rand assumed by her question that she had the right to inquire about and judge the premises of others. In fact, the woman who asserted, in an interview with Mike Wallace, that she was "the most creative thinker alive" created a closed system of thought that, as author Jennifer Burns suggests, "left no room for elaboration, extension, or interpretation, and as a social world it excluded growth, change, or development."
A scholar rather than an economist or libertarian apologist, Burns had access to many original sources in creating, for the first time, an unbiased, well-rounded portrait of the founder of Objectivism and icon of the American right. In Goddess of the Market, she neither endorses nor condemns Rand but acknowledges her importance as a thinker, both historically and in the context of the present struggle for a consistent American narrative.
Authoritative, nuanced, and highly readable, this is a very important book. Those who can read it—pardon the expression—“objectively” will find much that is worth analysis and discussion.
With this, her opening salvo at the outset of a relationship, Ayn Rand signaled two propositions that too few have questioned.
First, there's the assumption that people are what they think. In fact, people are what they think and what they feel. By ignoring at least half the motivation of the human race, Rand came up with a half-baked philosophy that is causing chaos in America to the present day.
Second, in her arrogance, Rand assumed by her question that she had the right to inquire about and judge the premises of others. In fact, the woman who asserted, in an interview with Mike Wallace, that she was "the most creative thinker alive" created a closed system of thought that, as author Jennifer Burns suggests, "left no room for elaboration, extension, or interpretation, and as a social world it excluded growth, change, or development."
A scholar rather than an economist or libertarian apologist, Burns had access to many original sources in creating, for the first time, an unbiased, well-rounded portrait of the founder of Objectivism and icon of the American right. In Goddess of the Market, she neither endorses nor condemns Rand but acknowledges her importance as a thinker, both historically and in the context of the present struggle for a consistent American narrative.
Authoritative, nuanced, and highly readable, this is a very important book. Those who can read it—pardon the expression—“objectively” will find much that is worth analysis and discussion.
April 1, 2013
It can't be easy trying to write an objective biography of the 'founder' of objectivism, in part because it's like writing an objective biography of Marx: no matter how good it is, not matter how objective, at least half of its readers will hate it, because they take 'objective' to mean 'with no independent judgement, in either direction.' Damned if you damn, damned if you don't damn, damned if you deify.
But Burns does a great job. The early chapters are a bit dull, but then I find the opening chapters of every biography dull: they inevitably go into too much detail (because the author spent a lot of time researching these microfacts that nobody cares about, and reasonably enough wants to put them to *some* use), but once Rand gets to Hollywood things really pick up. Burns shows how Rand's ideas developed, debunks some of the myths, does a fantastic job showing how she was mixed up in the resurgence of 'American' conservatism in the post-war U.S., and deals sensitively with the idiocies of Rand's later, messianic phase.
As a special pleasure, she regularly pulls out gems like this: an editor "advised Rand to prune all unnecessary adjectives, a change that would have gutted the novel. Rand did, however, find some of her suggestions useful." This is simple, objective reporting--the editor suggested the superfluous adjectives be removed, Rand thought that would gut the novel. But the irony is delicious. These moments are rare, and Burns mostly keeps a straight face, but she picks her spots well.
But Burns does a great job. The early chapters are a bit dull, but then I find the opening chapters of every biography dull: they inevitably go into too much detail (because the author spent a lot of time researching these microfacts that nobody cares about, and reasonably enough wants to put them to *some* use), but once Rand gets to Hollywood things really pick up. Burns shows how Rand's ideas developed, debunks some of the myths, does a fantastic job showing how she was mixed up in the resurgence of 'American' conservatism in the post-war U.S., and deals sensitively with the idiocies of Rand's later, messianic phase.
As a special pleasure, she regularly pulls out gems like this: an editor "advised Rand to prune all unnecessary adjectives, a change that would have gutted the novel. Rand did, however, find some of her suggestions useful." This is simple, objective reporting--the editor suggested the superfluous adjectives be removed, Rand thought that would gut the novel. But the irony is delicious. These moments are rare, and Burns mostly keeps a straight face, but she picks her spots well.
February 16, 2012
If you had asked me what I thought Ayn Rand was like just after I finished reading Atlas Shrugged at age 16, I never would have come close to describing the person portrayed in this biography. Admittedly, I read Atlas Shrugged based on the recommendation of another 16 year old girl. We both loved the adventure/romance storyline with a strong smart female lead and the idea of the smartest people being the real heroes. (In my high school, as in most, the athletes and cheerleaders were top dogs, not the good students.) When I got to the John Galt speech, I barely skimmed it, just looking for when it ended so I could get back to the story.
Ayn Rand wrote at least one really entertaining novel. (I also read Anthem a few months later and found it did not grab me the same way.) However, she did not see herself as a novelist, but as a philosopher. Her youth in Russia as the communists came into power and seized the assets of her family clearly set her path, but she saw her philosophy as much more than a reaction to that.
Jennifer Burns provides an evenhanded biography for those wondering who wrote these books that people still love and hate today. Well worth reading.
Ayn Rand wrote at least one really entertaining novel. (I also read Anthem a few months later and found it did not grab me the same way.) However, she did not see herself as a novelist, but as a philosopher. Her youth in Russia as the communists came into power and seized the assets of her family clearly set her path, but she saw her philosophy as much more than a reaction to that.
Jennifer Burns provides an evenhanded biography for those wondering who wrote these books that people still love and hate today. Well worth reading.
September 27, 2012
I was first introduced to the ideas of Ayn Rand by a mention from someone else. Before that I'd never even heard of her. On cursory examination I thought she was arrogant and full of her self. I read Anthem out of curiosity and confirmed one of my original thoughts which was that Ayn was strongly anti-religion. But on a second inspection I was able to hear and understand her theories and philosophy in a more direct manner and I was surprised to find that in certain areas she had managed to put into words the truths that I had always believed intuitively. So far my deeper relationship with Rand has helped me to shape and define my own philosophies about life and morality. What I have learned from Rand is twofold: having a well articulated belief system is uplifting, strengthening, helps me to see the world more clearly and is liberating in an inexplicable way; and that you can not take any person's individual philosophy in one lump, that is to say no one person has all the answers, just pieces of them, Rand included. This book was an unbiased look at the accomplishments, history, and life of an incredibly strong woman who had some things right and somethings wrong but was always pursuing the truth. It's a good read and very informative.
January 9, 2015
There is no getting around a very simple fact: Ayn Rand was an asshole. A nasty, bitter, immature asshole. At the same time, she was incredibly intelligent, a self-made woman when it wasn't so easy to be a woman, and well-intentioned (in her own mind). But, like so many ideologues (on the left and right) and ass-holes, she was naive and saw a future America that just hasn't come to be. No doubt she has her believers. I ran into someone reading Atlas Shrugged, and she told me how amazing the book was - we were living in a world that was becoming just what the book foresaw. Serious eye-rolling on my part. What tycoon quit like Gault did? The US is still trucking along, right or wrong, in a way that the wealthy are still racking in the bucks with no sign of running away to wealthy canyon. Beyond that, Rand was - like so many other people - a hypocrite. She spoke of freedom, but wanted followers to worship her and she would ban anyone who offered different opinions. This book, however, was well done. A great discussion of the conservative movement that Rand was an odd part of, and a fascinating overview of her crap-crazy personal life. Well worth the time.
April 10, 2011
I liked the book, but I ended up liking Rand even less than when I started, which was not much. I have never gone for the linkage of libertarianism and rationality. What was more striking was the discontinuity between the supposed rationality of the Randian doctrine and the cult-like orientation of her followers, which she encouraged. Alan Greenspan was one of them. The sleeping around and inbreeding of the key actors in the circle was also distressing. I am left wondering what I ever saw in her - or what others saw. That is not too troubling though - and I ended up feeling good that I went separate ways from libertarian lines of thinking long ago.
The book is a good biography. It would have been even better with a more admirable and sympathetic subject, but that is not Burn's fault.
The book is a good biography. It would have been even better with a more admirable and sympathetic subject, but that is not Burn's fault.
September 6, 2012
Since Ayn is so much in vogue these days, I thought it would be a good idea to read more about who she was. I never could be a convert, but I appreciate many of her ideas regarding self reliance.
As a person, this book supports my understanding that she was all about being at the center of a cult following. I think it speaks volumes about the type of personality that seeks this position in society. Want examples? Just fill in the blank with just about any name from history. I think this understanding speaks much more about us a humans, than it does about the individual that seeks the apex position. This knowledge discourages me, because it lays out just how irrational and contradictory we truly are. Ironic, isn't it?
As a person, this book supports my understanding that she was all about being at the center of a cult following. I think it speaks volumes about the type of personality that seeks this position in society. Want examples? Just fill in the blank with just about any name from history. I think this understanding speaks much more about us a humans, than it does about the individual that seeks the apex position. This knowledge discourages me, because it lays out just how irrational and contradictory we truly are. Ironic, isn't it?
January 2, 2019
I confess I am not a fair reader of this biography even thought Professor Burns writes clearly and fairly given her background and views. She is critical of Ms. Rand but not of the preconceptions upon which Rand built her works and maybe her life.
I detest Ms. Rand. I hated her novels or, at least, the one I was able to read. Some thoughtful people supported Rand but she remained insufferably pigheaded, banal, and, in the end, self absorbed-appropriately self-absorbed. If anyone might have made a case for Ayn, Professor Burns probably was that one. She failed.
I detest Ms. Rand. I hated her novels or, at least, the one I was able to read. Some thoughtful people supported Rand but she remained insufferably pigheaded, banal, and, in the end, self absorbed-appropriately self-absorbed. If anyone might have made a case for Ayn, Professor Burns probably was that one. She failed.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 137 reviews