This book is an excellent collection of essays about very relevant topics. Most people think business and philosophy are two opposite ends of a spectrum. That idea - the false dichotomy between the theoretical and the practical - is one of the most destructive 'ideas' of our time. This book does much to combat that view, but on a case-by-case basis. For wider-ranging analysis, one should read "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand.

Isn't it interesting that traditional ethicists, such as reviewer Mordecai ben-Ami below, assume that immorality (such as cheating) epitomizes self-benefiting action? So does every crook. God save us from the godly.

(To be fair, that assumption is often caused less by personal meanness than by devout belief in altruism's equation of self and evil. As Ayn Rand explained, the corollary of selfish = evil is evil = selfish. Both sides of that equation are of course false, and its source is religion - which is one reason why _no one_ needs religion.)

As to the statement "no 'Objectivist' has ever given a remotely plausible reason why a businessman should not cut corners even when there is little risk of getting caught," this is just ignorance. For example, see _Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand_ by Dr. Leonard Peikoff, pp. 270-274 and _passim_.

If you think that the statement "man's life on earth has scientific requirements extending to his chosen behavior" is not remotely plausible (and that the supernatural is plausible), then avoid _Why Businessmen Need Philosophy_; you would consider your time better spent agitating for the display of the Ten Commandments in schools. If, however, you are a common-sensical and rational person operating in the real world of business, you will find in _Why Businessmen Need Philosophy_ a solid defense of independent thinking and personal wealth-creation as highly moral. You will see that the noblest and most selfishly profitable activities in the short- and long-term are those guided and informed by the moral virtues defined in this book: independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, and _pride_ (or earned self-esteem). Pride is the crown of the virtues, as Aristotle said. But this is something that the miserable "self = evil" people will never find plausible.

Business people find themselves under continual assault from government regulations, threats of lawsuits and under-appreciation of their positive role. The media, activists, politicians and even many religious officials cling to the cliché of business people as greedy, selfish or operating at the expense of others. The positive virtues of business people-self-sufficiency, responsibility and investment in the future--often are ignored by those who see business people as exploiters, cash cows for the government, or guinea pigs for government social policies.

Those suffering under the weight of such attacks will find encouragement and articulate arguments on their behalf in Why Businessmen Need Philosophy, a book-collection of essays that champions the free market and individual rights. Published by the Ayn Rand Institute, a free market and individualism advocacy group, the book lays a solid foundation of reasoned argument of how business people in a free economy exemplify the positive principles on which this country was founded.

"Some critics point to the homeless and blame their poverty on greedy private businessmen who exploit the public. Others, such as [economist] John Kenneth Galbraith, say that American are too affluent and too materialistic, and blame greedy private businessmen...," says philosopher and commentator Leonard Peikoff, who forcefully argues against this negative attitude. "Who are the most denounced and vilified men in the country? You are-you, the businessmen."

The book is an exuberant, enthusiastic reaffirmation of the business person as providing the moral and economic foundation to the country. It provides a spirited defense of small and large business, argues the necessity of a foundation of honesty and fair dealing as growing from a free market economy and states the philosophical basis of why no one has a right to take the earnings of another.

The book argues against the welfare state that relies on the false premise that the desire for another's property creates a right to take it. "The (American) system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want-not to be given it without effort by somebody else," Peikoff says. "We are seeing a total abandonment by the intellectuals and the politicians of the moral principles on which the U.S. was founded. The rule now is for politicians to ignore and violate men's actual rights, while arguing about a whole list of rights never dreamed of in this country's founding documents-rights...."

For those weary of overflowing government regulations and laws dictating their professional lives and businesses, and for those working people who need reaffirmation of their vital role in society, this book serves them well.

This collection of essays, an expanded edition of The New Left, was compiled by Peter Schwartz, founding editor of The Intellectual Activist magazine.  In addition to Rand's 12 essays, Schwartz has added three of his own to tackle modern issues from an Objectivist world-view: "Gender Tribalism," "The Philosophy of Privation," and "Multicultural Nihilism."   These works approach the issues much as I suspect Ayn Rand would have done, and they are interesting additions to the book. 

"Collectivism," writes Rand, "has lost the battle for men's minds; its advocates know it; their last chance consists of the fact that no one else knows it."   The essays in this collection are part of Rand's efforts to make it known. Although I find Rand's Objectivist philosophy at times execessively severe and ulitmately incorrect with regard to its athiestic core, her reasoning is sound when it comes to her criticisms of the "new left."  The struggle between the forces of individualism and collectivism (in Rand's view, between rationality and irrationality) is perhaps not quite the epic battle she depicts, but it is a serious contest, and if the individualists lose, that loss will have lasting negative effects on human freedom and progress.    

Rand's essays are well-reasoned if a bit emotional, but perhaps a little passion is what this debate really needs.  Thinkers on the left have normally resorted to the kind of dramatic language Rand employs;  perhaps it is time for thinkers on the right to take it up as well, without, at the same time, abandoning focus on rational argumentation, as the left has done.  One flaw in the essays is that they are repetitive; though the points the author makes may be valid, she begins to sound too much like a preacher repeating the same truism multiple times in only slightly different ways.  Schwartz in his essays exhibits the same lack of consciseness, but to an even greater degree.  Nevertheless, I think Rand addresses better than any other writer I have read the problem with collectivist thinking, and she brilliantly exposes the collectivist basis of modern politcally-correct idealogy.

I wish I had discovered Rand in my high school and univeristy days; her writings may have given me some comfort in an enviornment where diversity of thought was not much tolerated. I recommend this collection as a must read for anyone who wishes to expand his intellectual repitoire, whether on the left or the right.

If you are are serious about ideas and sympathetic to today's fashionable causes, such as feminism, environmentalism and multi-culturalism, this book will make you think again.

Ayn Rand's essays are clear, incisive and compelling. Peter Schwartz's contributions are equally lucid. He has the remarkable ability to cut through the rationalizations and smokescreens thereby exposing the essence of an ideology. His attention to detail is astonshing. Ever considered why environmentalists use the term "environment" rather than "nature"? Schwartz has.

Peter Schwartz has taken on a tough assignment; few question the validity of the causes he has in his sights. His is an unpopular position, but after reading this book you might wonder why.

If you really want to understand today's trends, Ayn Rand and Peter Schwartz offer a clear and cogent analysis unlike any other I have read.

If you are are serious about ideas and sympathetic to today's fashionable causes, such as feminism, environmentalism and multi-culturalism, this book will make you think again.

Ayn Rand's essays are clear, incisive and compelling. Peter Schwartz's contributions are equally lucid. He has the remarkable ability to cut through the rationalizations and smokescreens thereby exposing the essence of an ideology. His attention to detail is astonshing. Ever considered why environmentalists use the term "environment" rather than "nature"? Schwartz has.

Peter Schwartz has taken on a tough assignment; few question the validity of the causes he has in his sights. His is an unpopular position, but after reading this book you might wonder why.

If you really want to understand today's trends, Ayn Rand and Peter Schwartz offer a clear and cogent analysis unlike any other I have read.

I would give Anthem 3 out of 5 stars. It was a very interesting and powerful book. The main character's name is Equality 7-2521. He is a very intelligent street sweeper wanting to be a scholar in an intellectually repressed society. This book most likely takes place in the future after a worldwide disaster. This man enjoys experimenting (illegally) with lightbulbs which haven't been "invented" yet. After showing the "light box" to the council of scholars, he is heavily repremanded. Equality 7-2521 then escapes into the uncharted forest where he discovers many things with his companion Liberty 5-3000. Their most important discovery is the discovery of the forbidden word ego. This book's theme is human individualality. People in this society do not have any individualality. They are assigned strange names, do not have any family, and are not allowed to talk to the opposite sex. Probably the most strange and confusing part of the book Anthem is its use of the word we. For a large portion of the book we is used instead of I becausre of the society's beliefs. 3 out of 5 stars.

Narrated by Equality 7-2521, Ayn Rand's pithy Anthem contains enough egali-TERROR to ignite an abundance of thoughts in any cognizant reader, despite its repetition (scarcely permissible by its brevity) of many of the same ideas. Certainly, one can compare its communal society with Soviet Russia, Democratic Kampuchea, People's Republic of China, and so forth, but it is also shockingly easy to find relevance to modern America. As you read, beware; this is what the liberal elite is planning for us! One cannot read Anthem's description of education (pronounce "indoctrination") system and not consider America's public schools--dominated by such asinine "reforms" as OBE, School-to-Work, dumb-down-the-curriculum-to-raise-up-self-esteem, and, of course, cooperative learning. (Oh yeah, just for the record--in case any of pythia's teachers see this--not *all* educators are evil. . .)

As is characteristic of any dystopia, Anthem relates the struggle of an individual against the juggernaut called society and exposes the dehumanizing effect of egalitarianism. Of all I've read, Ayn Rand's depiction of the future is nearest an ideal utopia, with total abolition of private property and with perfect equality in the absence of class distinctions or authoritative figures. True, occupational statuses differ, but, as in Ira Levin's This Perfect Day (I strongly recommend this novel as well; why is it out of print?), all are equal. When I read Anthem, it gave me the sense that its society, in the latest evolutionary stage of egalitarianism, has existed for a longer time than those of similar novels. Of course, they're all just fictional. . .right?! When compared to most of its genre, Anthem's most salient difference is its technological primitivity. I find this depiction of the future a fascinating and refreshing diversion from typical portrayals--as well as being, according to my own vaticination (keep in mind that I do call myself "pythia"), much more accurate. To maintain its stability, the communal society requires its members to abide with minimal comfort while engaging in continuous drudgery. Additionally, once the society has been established, its members are utterly incapable of producing technological advancement, perhaps even incapable of realizing the need. (On a similar note, check out Kurt Vonnegut's story "Harrison Bergeron," also revealing the stifling consequences of equality.) Tempting as it is to continue elaborate upon this topic, I dare not write more lest I reveal too much--that is, more than the too much I've already written. (Mea culpa for partially spoiling the analysis your own mind ought to initiate.) I'll conclude this segment with three words: House of Scholars!

Anthem's only major shortcoming is its ending. After the story's resolution (which is by no means the most emphatic), there follows two chapters (a relatively large chunk of this short work) didactically exalting the Objectivist philosophy of egotism. . .er, I guess that's egoism. . .oops. Because everything stated therein is a clear conclusion clear from the preceding chapters, these chapters are superfluous, serving only to lessen the impact of what the reader would otherwise cogitate himself. (Hypocritical pythia. . .you're one to talk.)

In part because of the former, I do not rank Anthem at the top of its genre in strictly literary terms. Moreover, character and plot development are minimal and vague, as a direct result of the work's brevity, and the rhetorical style is simplistic. However, this cannot be held against the novella; rather, it is integral to the protagonist's character. As unadorned as the writing is, Rand actually took artistic liberties with Equality's rhetoric; a novel truly commensurate with what his education level must have been would be illegibly poor! Furthermore, the terse, simple sentences render the theme as powerfully and emphatically as complex, adorned language could have, probably more so.

You have nothing to lose by reading Anthem. Although you can finish the novella in one evening, you will keep it in your thoughts long afterwards. . .but pray that in thoughts alone will it remain a reality. . .

Alexis de Tocqueville once said that if even people were to attain equality, inequality of minds would still remain. Equality 7-2521 proves this point. Try as they might, no one can completely steal the mind--thus, is it not cruel and inhumane to force it into a state of conformity and mediocrity?! Listen, never believe anyone who tells you that equality is a good thing. Do you want to live in Anthem-land?? Egad! Long live Capitalism!! Long live freedom!! Long live inequality!!!

~pythia~

I first read this book way back in high school, 9th grade to be exact. I HATED it at the time. I agreed heartily with its point and purpose, but thought it was far too simplistic and obvious to promote any serious thought. Then, about 6 years later, I began reading Rand's other works. After reading Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, Anthem made more sense. It wsn't as simple as it appeared to be. I read it again and enjoyed it. People tend to read Anthem at the age that I did, because of school curriculum, and it is their first exposure to Rand. This is likely done because Anthem is her shortest work of fiction. But I think that is a grave mistake, because Anthem is best read after reading her longer works. This approach has probably turned potential readers away from Rand. Recently, I read her letters in their published form, and in them she refers to Anthem as a poem. Armed with this knowledge, as well as with the knowledge of her other works, Anthem is a much better reading experience than it was when I was a 14 year old with no idea who Ayn Rand was.

Before buying this book, I actually read all of the reader reviews, not a standard practice for me. With a couple of exceptions, I suspected the reviews revolved around what the writers thought of Ayn Rand. If they thought pearls fell from her very lips, they gave it a five; if not, well, they did the opposite. And she isn't even the author, having written only a three page introduction. Dr. Peikoff's premise is that the rise of Nazism was facilitated by the philosophical content of mainstream German culture, and that the basic anti-individualist, anti-reason orientations of this culture are also apparent in modern American culture (hence the "Ominous Parallels"). This basic argument is sound and well-presented, especially the first part of it (dealing with Germany). If he obviously hates Plato and Kant, so do I, and with much the same analysis. (And yes, I have read them, exhaustively). His arguments more than justify the existence of the book. There is much wishful thinking which chooses to regard the Fascist (and I mean Red Fascists as well) experience as an inexplicable abberation. I agree with Dr. Peikoff in arguing that making it inexplicable makes it impossible to prevent the next time. The initial chapters, and those on Weimar politics and the concentration camps are especially powerful. If I have a problem with his analysis, it is that he seems to argue that philosophy is a sufficient cause for Nazism, but his argument only seems to establish that it is a necessary cause. He praises logic, but is sloppy with it. However (a very BIG however) the book has serious flaws. It is poorly footnoted (although, as someone else pointed out, the existence of footnotes makes it better than Rand herself). I find it impossible to verify some statements of fact from source material. It is repetitious, and sometimes tedious. It becomes shrill in parts, and worse than shrill, it becomes irrational. The attack on particle physics is simple cant. Admittedly, there are some very bad attempts out there to establish that modern physics is synonymous with eastern mysticism, but to identify impirical science therefore with mysticism is unreason (since the world is not as his philosophy predicts, it must be wrong). More importantly, since Dr. Peikoff, as his last chapter demonstrates, is of the "pearls from lips" school of Rand criticism, his alternative to collectivism has a mystical flavor to it. His justifiable revulsion at Nazis burning a pile of babies does not square with his equation of "anti-abortion" as totalitarian. Apparently piles of dead babies are relative. (The argument seems to stem from his belief that there is no conscious existence before birth, and therefore no implicit Objectivist rights. This view, however, is contrary to modern pre-natal science.) Definitely read this one, but be careful of it. (For your reference, I define myself philosophically as an individualist, religiously as an atheist, politically as not quite an anarchist. I regard Rand's work as flashes of blinding insight wrapped in sludge.)

If you are an admirer of Ayn Rand's works or interested in the root causes of history, you should enjoy this book. Dr. Peikoff makes Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, clearly understood by contrasting it to altruism, mysticism and Kantianism, the three philosophies which gave rise to National Socialism and the atrocities committed by the Nazis before and during World War II. Through Dr. Peikoff's clearly written work one can easily see how history was and is caused by philosophy. There is an excellent chapter on the uniqueness of the American Founding Fathers, best characterized by one of them, Elihu Palmer: "At last men have grasped the unlimited power of human reason....Reason which is the glory of our nature." Dr. Peikoff gives us a timely warning of the"Ominous Parallels" between pre-war Germany's intellectual culture and contemporary America's, and that the philosophies which gave rise to both, are the same.

In his book, Dr. Peikoff rips away the gauzy veil of contradictory thought in today's America and takes a close look at the FACTS that only a logical, clear thinker such as he can perceive. His premise? Our freedom is slowly slipping into a fetid pool of irrational thought and aimless, altrusitic action, all while the strength of the individual is lost, and our minds are numbed by the wasteland of today's modern rhetoric. He takes two seemingly unrelated subjects (the United States and Weimar Germany) and interweaves them with his fact-based hypothesis, that our country is slowly moving towards a Nazi-like dictatorship while turning its back on our Founding Father's ideals steeped in Aristotlean logic. Dr. Peikoff's analysis follows this hypothesis action by action, from the Enlightenment, to Romanticism to Nazism and all points in between while comparing it with America's timeline from yesterday's founding to today's floundering. If you thought Stephen King was scary, this book will frighten the hell out of you! Read it with an open mind, and a logical point of view, and it can only make sense! Read it now!

I first read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" when I was 16. It had a profound influence on me and I went on to read all of her published works. In one essay, Rand wrote a brief "P.S." at the end, stating that Nathaniel Branden was no longer assoctiated with her or her philosophy. Given that she had proclaimed Nathaniel her closest associate in the Objectivism movement, it was all the more puzzling that she never explained why the break. This books explains why. It details some of the dark side of Rand's philosophy - the rationalizations of Rand, the unquestioning (read, unthinking) loyalty of some of her followers, but much of it praises Rand's philosophy and sense of life.

Ayn Rand is a brilliant and articulate spokeswoman for the rights of the individual. I find her philosophical writings inspiring, rational, and logical. Barbara Branden's book does an excellent job of telling Rand's life story, summarizing her philosophy, and at the same time illustrating that even Rand and her closest disciples had difficulty living the ideals of her philosophy.
I believe that Ms. Branden did her best to be "objective" in writing this book but I'm not sure that it's possible for the betrayed wife of Ayn Rand's young lover, Nathaniel Branden, to be totally objective. Clearly, Branden loved Rand very much and was greatly influenced by her philosophy; she also was hurt and betrayed by Rand to a greater degree than others in Rand's inner circle.
Rand's Objectivist philosophy claims that we live in a "benevolent universe" and that men are idealized heroes. Reading this story clearly indicates that there's a big difference between ideals and the real world. While preaching a gospel of individualism, Rand grew progressively more controlling in the lives of those closest to her. She lost all sense of boundaries between her ideals and the right of others to create their own rational values. She became the ultimate judge of what was rational and moral.
This book is a great read, sometimes inspiring and sometimes sad and frightening. It's essential for anybody who wants to understand that geniuses are still human beings. The "objective reality" here is that flawed, lonely people can change the world in positive ways, just as Ayn Rand did.

A better biography I can not imagine. It is clear Barbara Branden loved Ayn Rand, and still to date accepted (at least when the book was written) the many things Ayn Rand, in her writing, got right. You can recognise the Ayn Rand style in Branden's work, and how well done it is. I can say from experience that to write with the understated apparent simplicity Ayn Rand used in, say THE FOUNTAINHEAD, is not easy at all. Barbara Branden though is not merely mimicking Ayn Rand; but she made that style her own, and as a tribute.

This biography also rings true: both in being logically self-consistent, true to other accounts I've read, and consistent in many ways with Miss Rand's own works. [Whereas those Objectivists who have elevated Miss Rand to the status of a guru, and in so doing have betrayed the "moral commandment" from ATLAS SHRUGGED: Thou shalt think, for thyself.]

It is possible to separate principles from personality; if Ayn Rand did not always live up to her ideals, that is both shame on her and proof that no one is above mistakes. I am in 95% agreement with her ideas because they are true. And this book should be read, because it is clearly the truth.

Objectivists who reject this truth of their heroine, just because they would prefer to believe that she was super-human, are betraying the example of John Galt who exalted the truth. Here is a syllogism for these Objectivists: God, according to Miss Rand, does not exist; self-evidently, Miss Rand did exist; therefore, Miss Rand could not have been God.

...

You know how when you read certain books they hit this emotional chord and you think to yourself, quite irrationally: "I could have written that."? I mean, of course you couldn't, those books were written by Fitzgerald, or Salinger, and the reason they are the Great American Novel is because they engender precisely that emotion. And then, of course, there are those books you really enjoy but know you couldn't have possibly written, like Corelli's Mandolin, that come from a completely different voice than your own, but boy are they impressive in their own right?

Well this book is the one you feel, "you know, I could have written that", and I really screwed it up.

Which is to say this is written by a guy who is obviously steeped in the same postmodern tradition as most Ivy League Generation X literati; he has read Douglas Adams, and Stephenson, and Salinger, and Pynchon, and the Illuminati Trilogy, and a pile of dystopian science fiction books, and Moby Dick, and probably had a brief affair with Ayn Rand (because lets face it, she spun a good yarn) when he was a teenage Republican in the Reagan years, but rejected it later like a good Democrat at the height of the PC era at the beginning of the decade when he decided to write his second book.

This is a book about being that guy. It is more interesting for all the things that are wrong with the book, than for the read itself. If you like that whole Brechtian feeling of watching a play with the lights on, this is the book for you. The flaws make it impossible to get absorbed. The book itself is distracted.

The flaws are so constant that you spend most of your time noticing them: A purple and green submarine is not funny. It is referential, perhaps, to Robert Anton Wilson, and the Mystery Machine from Scooby Doo, and perhaps even the Beatles Yellow submarine, but it is not funny. It is zany and madcap and postmodern, I suppose.

(Brief aside: Tom Robbin's aluminum trailer made to look like a roast turkey is funny -- I don't know why, but I think you'll agree there is a difference here)

But if we are being zany and madcap, then the destruction of the black race is not really appropriate, is it? That kind of thing is more appropriate to a dystopian social satire like Brazil or Brave New World. Dark and satirical is not zany. And I would argue that dystopian fiction is, or should be, pretty much immune to parody. Here is an author who loves a bunch of different genres, and has a lot of ideas, and can't focus on any of them, so he throws them all into the pot. He dabbles with historical fiction, Sci-Fi, social satire, self-conscious postmodernism, and outright parody. If you have ever eaten lobster with chocolate and macaroni and cheese, you know how well this works out.

Anyway, terrific marketing. This book was terrible, but between Amazon reviews and its credentials from Stephenson, Pynchon, et al., I bought it. I recommend you don't make the same mistake.

This book drove my ex-wife crazy. I couldn't resist describing passage after passage to her. The image of Abbie Hoffman and Ayn Rand locked in eternal dialectic embrace alone was worth the cover price.

Mostly, I was reminded of the Illuminatus! Trilogy by Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea, although Sewer, Gas and Electric is more of a 'page-turner'.

I hope my order for "Fool on the Hill" gets processed (it's out of print), I can't wait to read more by Mr. Ruff..

Istanbul!

Appluse, applause...

I just finished reading Matt Ruff's "Sewer, Gas and Electric" and I wish he were here before me so I could give him a one-man standing ovation.

I picked this book up in an airport bookstore, having looked at it several times before. This time, I was caught - I could not resist the ghost of Ayn Rand in a hurricane lamp or the mutant great white nicknamed "Meisterbrau". Five hours later I was breathlessly reading the last page.

So what's good about it? The writing is funny without being condescending or slapstick. The philosophy is interesting for those of us who walked in off the streets without having bought the "Atlas Shrugged" ticket. The characters are amazingly fleshed out, and even the villains have redeeming qualities and sympathetic motives.

I loved Kite (the immortal amputee), the secret history of Disneyland and the vain attempts to kill Meisterbrau, when every knows that the best way to kill a mutant shark is to introduce it to the workings of Ayn Rand.

If you like your humor broad, your books thoughtful and your day weird, this book ought to do the trick.

I did not expect to like this book. Rand's esthetics are the part of her philosophy I find most deplorable. And although Torres and Kamhi are not slavish admirers of Rand who follow her every word, I can't say I cared much for their dreary essentialism. Rand was part of the Aristotlean tradition in philosophy. Her philosophy is more telogically centered than the naturalism of the pre-Socratics or modern science. It also embraces a form of "methdological essentialism," as the philosopher Karl Popper dubbed it, which I find hard to take, especially in strong doses. Methodological essentialists stress the importance of "What is" questions and the definitions of words. Torres and Kamhi, like Rand herself, are uncompromising definition mongers and "what is" analyzers. But I don't think esthetic questions can be solved by answering such questions as "What is art?" or "What is literature?" or by claiming that the bad, non-representational art of modernism and post-modernism is not really art at all, but a kind of fraudulent non-art pretending to be art. Torres and Kamhi stress the importance of defining art, but I have little use for this mode of analysis. Emphasis on definitions simply leads to hopeless arguments about words. I would much rather know why some works of art are successful and some not than know how art should be defined. Art is far too complicated to be summed up in essence of some definition. What I want to know is how does this or that piece of art function aesthetically, and if it functions well or poorly, than why? Science and naturalism emphasize "why" and "how" questions. This is what I would have liked to see from Torres and Kamhi. But being from the Socratic/Aristotlean tradition in philosophy, they have a different methodological point of view on this matter, one I find hopelessly inferior to the methodological nominalism of the sciences.

Nevertheless, despite these criticisms, I urge all those who are interested in art to read the book, regardless of what they think of Rand. The book is written on a much higher level than most pro-Rand books that are published nowadays. Torres and Kamhi, unlike Rand's orthodox disciples, at least are sound scholars with an appreciation for empirical evidence and close logical analysis. They are fair to opposing viewpoints (unlike Rand herself, who treated opponents as if they were sub-human), and they provide an excellent overview of the excesses of modern and post-modern art. Merely as a phillipic against bad art (or, as the authors would insist, "non-art"), I would give this book a five star rating. But because of the methodological essentialism, I have to drop it down to four. The emphasis on definitions really can get annoying.

Torres and Kamhi provide an in-depth explanation and critical analysis of one of the most original and controversial theories of art. Today's art commentators, while claiming no definition of art is possible, vociferously condemn contemporary artists working along 'traditional' lines. How does today's art establishment explain their 'open-minded' preference for the ludicrous yet deny the possibility of any non-subjective definition? Why are we still drawn to some works of art and not others despite what the 'experts' demand of us? What ultimately is and is not art? T&K examine Rand's approach, which start with the most fundamental. Why do people need art? Is art superfluous? Is it a subjective luxury or is it human need? What are the needs fulfilled by art?

The authors extract the essence of Rand's arguments and argue persuasively that Rand's contribution is unjustly overlooked. Unfortunately, many of her defenders have done her a great disservice by dogmatically defending errors and embarrassing shortcoming. The sensitivity and thoughtfulness of T&K are a welcome contrast that begins an honest and serious dialog.

One final note - the authors start with the core differences between art and non-art. This is not a diatribe on good art versus bad art that usually hides a rationalization of the authors' subjective tastes. Nor is this a book that quibbles on where to draw the boarder-line. The focus is on a main distinction and its importance.

Traditionalists who have been dismayed by contemporary trends will find this book invaluable. Torres and Kamhi present objective criteria for art based on human needs and ability. This provides the foundation needed to raise the level of discussion from a matter of tastes and preferences to one of serious philosophy. While the authors are indebted to Rand's work, they place her contribution in historical and scientific context drawing from a much wider study. The depth and breath of this book exceeds previous attempts. There are some minor mistakes and occasional wordiness. Overall - a great book.

A potentially fascinating book, spoiled by some bad editorial choices. First of all, this is really the selected letters of Ayn Rand, and some of the selections are maddening-the book contains over half a dozen letters to Leonebel Jacobs, a fairly obscure portrait artist Rand knew back in the 1940s, but only a single letter apiece to Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, two of the most central figures in her life.

There are some other questionable omissions as well. A section devoted to Rand's correspondence with philosopher John Hospers contains only Rand's half of the exchange, even though Hospers was apparently willing to allow his own letters to Rand to be published, and even though he expressed concern that "[Rand's] summary of what I said sometimes did not reproduce what I really did say." I for one would like to have seen both sides of the dialogue; it would have been a rare opportunity to observe Rand actually debating her ideas. If the problem was lack of space, I think the smart move would have been to make room for Hospers' letters by cutting out some of Rand's less essential correspondence, like her note thanking Leonebel Jacobs for "the wonderful cheese" he sent her in 1948.

Oh well. Maybe sometime in the future, after the current controllers of her estate have gone on to that great Dead Letter Office in the sky, a more complete version of Rand's correspondence will become available. Until then, the anemic "Letters of Ayn Rand" will have to do.

As one who knew Ayn Rand quite well at the end of her life, I was still amazed by this book: the unique combination of passionate valuing and ruthless logic that characterized her later years shone throughout her life--but with fascinating variations in form. Through these letters, you follow her life from age 21, when she writes back home to Russia, to Leo (the model for the hero of her first novel), to her long and brilliant philosophic correspondence with Prof. John Hospers after the publication of _Atlas Shrugged_. Also letters to H. L. Mencken, Frank Lloyd Wright, Mickey Spillaine, Barry Goldwater, Cecil B. DeMille, Bennett Cerf, Walt Disney, Alexander Kerensky, Ginger Rogers, Robert Stack, Isabel Paterson, as well as her responses to ordinary fan-letters. An intimate chronicle of the soul from which sprang Howard Roark, Francisco d'Anconia, John Galt and her other unprecedented heroes. Harry Binswanger (hb@interport.net)

Ayn Rand's personal life has been a mystery to her fans, excepting some hatchet-job memoirs. Finally, we get the REAL Ayn Rand, as she was to her friends, family, colleagues and fans. This book shows how Rand was passionate in all the areas of her life from her husband, to her publishers, to philosophical discussions with the like of John Hospers. **This book really gives one the feeling that one knows Ayn Rand privately, which is the best aim a book of private correspondence can serve.

Interested in Ayn Rand's personal life as well as her philosophy? "Journals" offers an interesting look at the famous author.

I was initially disappointed. The early pages are difficult to read and mostly seem to restate stuff that shows up in more polished form later. However, you can see the transition from quasi-Nietzschean ideals to a more mature Objectivism, and in particular the transition of the primary virtue being independence (The Fountainhead) to rationality (Atlas Shrugged). Interesting elements: Rand's notes for a movie about the invention of the atomic bomb, including what she was trying to convey and what she learned from her interviews. Her notes on books about architecture, her response to what she considers silliness, and her adaptation of what is said to characters in the book.

Most of the notes from Atlas Shrugged deal with analyzing the psychology of the "parasite." This goes on for pages and seems rather tedious since it comes across as largely speculation-no evidence is cited. More interesting are the notes from the interviews she conducted about how to depict a steel mill and other settings that occur in the book.

Also noted that she wants to believe in the existence of a soul (i.e., the element of a human being that thinks and is not part of conventional matter). That was rather striking!

I am inordinately proud of myself for finishing it in one day, though I wonder at the same time how much I missed. Can't see myself rereading it anytime soon, though. If I reread anything, it will probably be Atlas Shrugged or possibly The Fountainhead.

I agree with Stephen Cox, who writes on The Daily Objectivist website: "One of its best features is the large amount of plain good writing that one discovers here, much more than one might expect to find in an author's working notes. Rand does very well in the medium of brief and (as she thought) temporary comments. The volume contains many shrewd observations, vital expressions of personality, and spirited confrontations with intellectual problems." A great insight into a great mind!

Many people who are or were admirers of Ayn Rand heard about the devastating fallout of a love affair between Rand and her protege Nathaniel Branden. Rand was a mentor to the young Branden, who first contacted her while he was a teen in Ontario. She was impressed with his grasp of her philosophy Objectivism, and she, Branden, and Branden's future wife Barbara became friends, associates, and business partners.

When Rand began an affair with Branden, they both naively felt it would not affect their marriages (!) nor the functioning of the burgeoning Objectivist movement and the Nathanial Branden Institute. However, the idealism and fascination of a young man for his exciting mentor was ultimately not enough to base an emotionally satisfying relationship between a man and a woman 25 years his senior. Branden wished to withdraw; Rand felt her self worth threatened by a younger, more beautiful woman.

The resulting firestorm of recrimination by Rand against the Brandens was first rumored about, then exposed over a number of years in several books, one by Barbara Branden (The Passion of Ayn Rand) and this book by Branden. How could someone who was so passionate being coldly objective about facts AND emotions go so wildly off-course? Some of the answers, according to Branden as he saw it and experienced it, are here in this book.

What is NOT here is rather surprising from a noted psychologist, such as Branden is today. An in-depth analysis of the logic of Rand's fury is only sketchily guessed at, the logic of emotions as kind of a weather-report about the ego is not much dealt with. And Branden scarcely deals with his own duality in idealizing the woman he's with (either Rand or his wife) with the woman he truly wants (Patrecia.) Nor does he deal in much depth with Rand's monumental ability to deny reality when it pleased her or her form of intellectual bullying; shouting and cold, vindictive fury as a way to intimidate are surprising from someone who knew an ad-hominem attack from a logical argument and would not hesitate to call it out. I would have been interested in an examination of the psychology of this as Branden could have analysed it. But that isn't in this book either. However...if you want the story from Branden's viewpoint, this is a must-read.

Persons who know the facts of the Objectivist movement's history (facts primarily ignored by the Michael Paxton film) will know that it was Nathaniel Branden who was the prime architect of the movement. Through courses offered by Nathaniel Branden Lectures, later Nathaniel Branden Institute, the philosophy of Objectivism qua philosophy was first taught to the world.

Those familiar with the basic outlines of Nathaniel Branden's eventful life will also know: that he and Ayn Rand met and became friends when he was going on 20 and she was 45; that some years later they began an affair with the consent of their respective spouses; that the dramatic end of their personal and professional relationship in 1968 had explosive effects for the entire Objectivist community.

Branden has previously told the story of his life and relationship with Ayn Rand in the controversial memoir *Judgment Day* (1989). The present memoir is an extensively revised and updated version of the earlier book. Even readers who have read (and reread) *Judgment Day* will be fascinated by the new insights to be gleaned. *My Years with Ayn Rand* is as spellbindingly written as the previous work but it presents a richer, more complete account.

This is a not-to-be-missed by anyone interested in Objectivism -- or simply interested in the engrossing story of some remarkable people.

I regard this as an excellent companion to Barbara Branden's "The Passion of Ayn Rand", to be read after it once you have an overview of Ayn's life; I often found myself cross-referencing between them. This memoir sheds a brand of personal light, written from the viewpoint of the man who was perhaps closest to the writer of "Atlas Shrugged".

I found the honest tone of Mr. Branden's memoir almost painful in its quest for sincerity. His assessment of Ayn Rand as a great thinker who pointed out the right direction for a new philosophy without perfecting its details is in perfect accord with my own opinion, and his expectations for the future of Objectivism are inspiring.

This memoir makes Ayn Rand very human, neither shying away from her faults nor disguising her virtues, and portrays her philosophical movement equally well, neither pandering to its admirerers nor insulting its detractors despite his own conviction in its basic premises. Objective writing at its finest.