In the Rand Archives, Part 3: Publishing

Jennifer Burns is Assistant Professor of History at the University of Virginia.

In the Rand Archives, Part 3: Publishing

September 26 2009

By the end of my research, I had been disabused of many assumptions I had made about the Ayn Rand Archive. Rather than some weird type of cultish organization, it was comparable to a typical university or government archive.

One question remained: would I be able to publish any of my research?

The Ayn Rand Archive is distinct from the Estate of Ayn Rand. Like most archives, it serves as a depository of materials, but does not own copyright and cannot grant permission to publish. I knew by now the Archives staff was on my side. They had watched me work for more than eight years, and had seen me through graduate school, a book contract, getting married, starting my first academic position. They wanted to see my hard work pay off as much as I did.

Now we were down to the wire. My manuscript was due in a matter of weeks. It was now finalized to the point where I knew what I wanted to include. This in itself had been a tricky process. I had tried to write the manuscript so that if I were denied permissions to quote directly, I could do a quick rewrite. But in truth, I knew that a denial of permissions would have gutted the book.

The first step was to hand the manuscript over for review by an Objectivist scholar trusted by the Estate. The verdict was favorable. The reviewer disagreed with much of what I said, but recognized this was a serious book about Rand. The Estate indicated it would grant permission for all but two quotes, both involving Ayn Rand’s opinions about certain people close to her. This was from archival material I was not supposed to see, but had discovered in my diggings. Since neither quotation was pivotal to my central theme or arguments, I was happy to comply.

And then came the amazing day when I received a letter signed in the spidery handwriting of Leonard Peikoff, Rand’s intellectual heir.

Comments (16)

|2009-09-28 17:06:14 economista - Peikoff

Hello Professor,
You have certainly perfected the dramatic technique of ending with a cliffhanger to get your audience to tune in next time. So, what did Peikoff say in his letter? Also, in checking the index, I noted that there is no entry for Leonard Peikoff. Is there a story behind that? He was her legal heir, so the omission seems noteworthy. Thank you very much.

|2009-09-28 23:49:28 economista - PS

When I said, in my previous post, "...in checking the index..." the index I refer to is the index of your book Goddess of the Market. That was probably obvious, but just in case it wasn't...Thank you.

|2009-09-29 08:01:13 Jennifer Burns - Leonard Peikoff in index

due to an editing error, the entry is filed under "Leonard Peikoff" not "Peikoff, Leonard"

|2009-09-30 14:41:00 Craig - Leaving us hanging

Jennifer,
And . . .

|2009-10-05 03:28:02 Chris Grieb - Thank you!

Thank you again for the story of your dealings with ARI archives. I can't wait to read the next installment.

|2009-10-05 12:20:00 Susan Belter - Ayn's cousin

Jennifer,
Congratulations on your book. I am Ayn's cousin, Anne Stone's Greatgrandaughter and Burton Stone's Grandaughter. I provided in formation to Shoshana Milgram Knapp, Associate Professor English, Virginia Tech.
I am looking forward to reading your work.
Susan Belter

|2009-10-14 18:59:28 Ed Cline - Preliminary review of your book

Prof. Burns:

I have not yet read your book, and may order a copy to review (together with Anne Heller's book on Ayn Rand). However, you may profit by reading this review of the introduction of your book at this link: http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/10/introducing-jennifer-burns-on-ayn- rand.html

I am in total agreement with the author's remarks -- I don't think they're off the mark at all -- but I wish to read it and the balance of your work to judge for myself.

Regards, Ed Cline
Williamsburg, VA
(Author: First Prize, Whisper the Guns, Sparrowhawk; chief columnist for Rule of Reason)

|2009-10-22 01:56:09 Neil Parille - Prelimary Review of Book

Ed,

I think it is only fair to read the entire book before one comments. In any event, Armstrong's remarks are rather off the point. For example,

1. "Yet Burns overstates the point. One's friends, one's romantic love, one's career -- these are not ideas, they are values."

Values aren't ideas?

2. "Is Burns correct that Rand thought of herself as a genius? She denied it when her student and heir Leonard Peikoff called her a genius. Peikoff recounts her words on page 350 of The Voice of Reason: "My distinctive attribute is not genius, but intellectual honesty." In answer to Peikoff's persistence, Rand added, "One can't look at oneself that way. No one can say: 'Ah me! the genius of the ages.' My perspective as a creator has to be not 'How great I am' but 'How true this idea is and how clear, if only men were honest enough to face the truth.'""

How is this a denial that she claimed to be a genius?

Etc., etc.

|2009-10-22 18:51:50 Michael Caution - Armstrong Critique

Strictly speaking values are not ideas. Values are that which one seeks to gain/keep. They are out there in the world and we look to gain them in order to live. Man doesn't live on thought alone. Man is mind and body, an integration. Values are not Platonic.

As to the genius quote I would say read it again and repeat. She explicitly states she doesn't think of herself as a genius. Rand didn't think of honesty being the same thing as genius.

I would suggest you post these questions on Ari's webpage if you're interested in his critique. Dr. Burns' page isn't the ideal location for long discussion.

|2009-10-23 01:15:42 Neil Parille - Armstrong Critique

Mr. Caution,

1. "Strictly speaking values are not ideas. Values are that which one seeks to gain/keep."

I use words the way they are commonly used, not the way they are used by Objectivist insiders.

2. Rand said genius was not her "distinctive attribute," which implies it is an atribute. Incidentally, at a conference celebrating Atlas, Prof. Gotthelf reports Rand as saying once that "I've done for consciousness what Aristotle did for existence." This sounds like a claim of genius to me.

|2009-10-23 09:44:49 Michael Caution

If you take issue with Rand's definition of value and can offer a better one you should have offered it up right away to bolster your question. Since you didn't, you come off as one who can only offer snide remarks such as the above.

As to Gotthelf's quote, I am not aware of this. But I would like to ask could you give a fuller context of the discussion or point me to where you heard this? Also, Rand's "distinctive attribute" qualification seen in the context of the whole quote seems to stress her view that things should be defined/described by their fundamental natures. For example, man is the rational animal. This is a description of his fundamental nature. He isn't the animal with opposable thumbs. Further, her quote goes on to explicitly say, "No one can say: 'Ah me! the genius of the ages.' My perspective as a creator has to be not 'How great I am' but 'How true this idea is and how clear, if only men were honest enough to face the truth.'" If you think a contr...

|2009-10-23 09:47:07 Michael Caution - (continued)

If you think a contradiction arises from this it is only because of your lack of maintaining context with regard to fundamentals. Or is this only "Objectivist logic"?

As I stated before, I'm sure Ari would welcome honest discussion on his forum.

|2009-10-25 08:22:10 Neil Parille - Ayn Rand and Aristotle

Mr. Caution,

It may be found here at 48:30 --

http://facetsofaynrand.com/additional/ny_centenary_reminescences.html

My recollection was reversed. It was Gotthelf who compared her to Aristotle and she responded favorably.

|2009-10-25 19:54:21 Michael Caution - Aristotle Recollection

Thanks Neil for taking the time to find that. I have to say though that if you listen to the whole recollection, he recounts Rand telling those in the room not to compare her to Aristotle or to put her above him in philosophical stature. And once Gotthelf does say the quote you mention he follows up with Rand having said that yes this maybe true but I couldn't have done it without him. Meaning she still thinks of Aristotle as her superior. And looking back on all of Rand's works and what she has contributed philosophically it is only then that other people can say that she is a genius, but Rand never could and never did think of herself that way.

|2009-12-01 10:53:16 Mark Kraft - Neil & Michael

Neil & Michael I found your intellctual banter very entertaining, and I mean that in positive way. This seams to be representative of the typical divide between Objectivists and anyone else. Objectivists tend to argue semantics almost to the exclusion of meaning. Rand denies "Genius" and speaks of "intellectual honesty". I would bet that she thought that she was the most intellectually honest person of her era. To the rest of us, that is a genius!

|2009-12-01 11:34:20 Mark Kraft - To follow up

To follow on that, I concider myself an Objectivist although I doubt other Objectivists would agree, Rand least of all. I too read Rands fiction, and then read Leonard Peikoff's "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand". All of my questions were answered, and quite succinctly. But I am not rigid, it's not in my personal nature.

I think that more effort should go into supporting the major principals then in arguing semantics. I feel that to honestly be an Objectivist (i.e to understand what that means) you have to have above average intelligence. Which by definition the average person does not have. SO lets at least push them in the right general direction!