Letters of Ayn Rand

Not surprisingly, the only letters to Nathaniel Branden included were written before he became her associate. The end result is that Branden's contributions to Objectivism are downplayed, which is typical of the material produced by the ARI. (For example, even though Rand approved of Branden's writings published prior to their split, they do not appear in THE AYN RAND LEXICON or other post-split collections.)

The most interesting selections are the letters to Isabel Paterson and the distinguished philosopher John Hospers. In order to get permission to quote Hospers' comments contained in Rand's letters, the editor was obliged to include a statement from Hospers. As Hospers says, Rand occasionally misrepresented or misunderstood his point, so printing only Rand's letters to Hospers makes him "look like a bloody fool. . . . And that isn't quite fair, is it?"


It's a shame someone has to die...   October 26, 2003
 1 out of 4 found this review helpful

...in order for a book like this to be published. But finally we get a real look into the private life of a fascinating author and philosopher. Having just finished a number of years at PSU, it seems clear that Objectivism is making headway as a serious philosophical view.

I'm more interested in music myself than philosophy, but I did notice that in the study of philosophy the Ball that Miss Rand got rolling so many years ago has gathered quite a bit of size and speed. Her ideas made sense to me both before and after I studied Logic, Semantics, and Philosophy. In fact, after studying the "big boys," as one professor of mine called them, I definitely saw a need for a philosophy that states that things are what they are!!

Anyway, I'm devouring this book!!!


Maybe worthwhile for Rand scholars....   July 11, 2003
 3 out of 6 found this review helpful

Perhaps I was just coming down off of an Ayn Rand high when I read this, but whatever the case, this collection of correspondance just doesn't deserve a place beside Rand's self-published work, which is in sufficient abundance to make a collection like this unwarranted.

If you are thoroughly absorbed into Rand's Cult of Personality (amazingly effective even after her death), then you will probably enjoy this work. There was certainly a time where I would have devoured every letter. If, on the other hand, you have been impressed and affected by The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, We The Living, or Anthem, I would strongly suggest working through Rand's nonfiction before diving into this book.


Spectacular!   March 21, 2003
 5 out of 7 found this review helpful

Ayn Rand is the author of numerous philosophical works, fiction and non-fiction alike. She is best known as the founder of her unique Objectivist philosophy, which is essentially concerned with individual men acting in their own rational self-interests, coupled with a strong moral defense of free-market Capitalism. Her ideas are very complex, yet easily grasped by the interested reader.

“Letters of Ayn Rand” is a wonderful book for Rand fans, however I think many of the ideas will be lost on newcomers. “Letters” contains almost 60 years worth of personal letters Miss Rand wrote during the course of her lifetime. We have a very wide range of recipients for her letters here, everyone from philosophers, heads of state, newspapermen, literary agents, Hollywood types, fans, political organizations, you name it. Rand was just as eloquent and blunt with her letter writing as with her “serious” writing.

I very much enjoyed following Rand’s career through these letters. We start with a young Russian woman trying to settle in to American life, through a writer’s struggles to get her work published, and ending with the writings of an established philosopher ahead of her time. Rand fought tooth and nail to get both “The Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged” published as written, however we learn that she was not entirely against having editorial assistance. Rand understood the editor’s job of providing constructive criticism of her work; however she always stood tall and insisted on making any sort of changes to her works personally. She never tolerated any sort of editorial “rewrites” of her novels or her original screenplays, etc.; Rand fought many tough battles with editors, publishers, film producers, etc. during the course of her writing career for the purpose of having her work stand as written by her hand ALONE. This was very difficult to do back in the 40s and 50s (probably more so today), as witnessed by her numerous letters to the powers-that-be.

Rand was brutally honest with everyone she wrote letters to, including family members and adoring fans. Rand was helping to support a niece during the girl’s troubled high school days. Rand then found out that the girl and her caretakers weren’t being up front with her, and subsequently told her relatives in no uncertain terms that Rand’s assistance for the girl is NOT charity and that her help is NOT unconditional. In other instances, fans of Rand who misinterpreted her books were shown little sympathy; not because Rand was against teaching fundamentals of her philosophy (she acted as a teacher far more often than not), but because the letter-writer seemed to have purposefully missed Rand’s crucial philosophical points. Rand had no patience for those who would claim to be fans of “The Fountainhead”, yet ask her to support causes that did not match the ideas of her novels. Her voice is always clear, and her uncompromising use of reason and logic are unmatched.

There are some complaints from other reviewers regarding the choice of publishing Rand’s numerous letters to philosopher John Hospers. The argument revolves around the choice of not publishing Hospers’s responses to Rand, and that the letters presented here are “one-sided”. While I can understand the argument, the fact is that this book is intended to be “Letters of Ayn Rand”, not “Letters of John Hospers”. It is made clear to the reader that Rand and Hospers had numerous conversations other than their written correspondence, and Rand’s letters to Hospers are only a small portion of their conversations. Therefore, EVEN IF Hospers letters were published alongside Rand’s, the discussions between the two would remain incomplete. I myself have no problem reading Rand’s letters to him without having the other side published, mostly because I trust Rand to have been honest with her rebuttals of Hospers’s ideas.

Another complaint revolves around the lack of letters to / from Nathaniel Branden. The philosophical split between Rand and Branden is well known, however I think the choice to ignore their (probable) arguments within these pages was a sound one. Certainly, Rand and Branden’s long term working relationship included far more than dissenting letters between the two of them. Branden and Rand worked side by side for many years, and I find it unlikely that the details of their split are to be found strictly in the form of “letters” to each other. It is much better for both parties in my opinion to refrain from detailing their split, as Rand is not longer with us to defend herself. Truly, I would love to know what went on to cause their split, but I would rather know nothing at all than hear only one side.

I came away with a better understanding of many of Rand’s ideas, which is significant because I have already read the bulk of Rand’s published works. Rand arrives at her conclusions in a different manner within her letters, and the “different” approach presented here served to make clearer her attitudes towards life and politics. Certainly, it was a blessing to read her answers to specific questions, as there are ideas within her work that are difficult to grasp when told from only one angle.

This book is a treasure trove for all Rand fans, but is not for beginners. Rand makes many references to characters and events within her philosophical novels that come across as cryptic to readers not familiar with the material. After reading “Letters of Ayn Rand” in full, the Rand “novice” would come away with a rudimentary, patchwork feel for her ideas at best, so I cannot recommend this book unless you have already read “The Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged” at the very least.