A plus. It doesn't get any better than this. In 100 pages, Dr. Gotthelf draws on everything known about Ayn Rand, from her novels, books, articles, journals, even spoken lectures and interviews, and gives the correct essentials. The emphasis is on her underlying philosophy, Objectivism, 'the philosophy for living on earth.' The politics of capitalism are only briefly sketched in. He clearly explains Ayn Rand's most complex innovation, her theory of concepts. Under ethics, he covers the 6 most important virtues. He opens and closes with Ayn Rand's benevolent universe premise and heroic view of mankind. He concludes with a passage from John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged.'Fight for the value of your person. Fight for the virtue of your pride.... Fight with the radiant certainty and absolute of knowing that yours is the Morality of Life and that yours is the battle for any achievement, any value, any grandeur, any goodness, any joy that has ever existed on this earth.'

Allan Gotthelf succeeds at condensing Ayn Rand's entire integrated philosophy of Objectivism into a short (97 pp.), easy to read introductory book. Most of the book is devoted to presenting the core of the philosophical system -- metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics -- but there is a glance at politics and esthetics, and two chapters are devoted to a biography of Ayn Rand.

Gotthelf argues that philosophy is not an esoteric game, but a practical tool none of us can do without. He shows how one's ability to make decisions and one's ethical and political views stem from the metaphysical and epistemological premises one accepts. Ultimately philosophy moves the world. *On Ayn Rand* argues that Objectivism is practical: a guide to living one's life, which, when correctly understood and acted upon, will enable its practitioner to achieve happiness.

*On Ayn Rand* introduces all the main ideas of Objectivism in a clear manner, easy for the beginner to grasp. For example, Gotthelf explains that three metaphysical axioms, which are perceptually self-evident, underlie all our thinking and are properly the starting point of philosophy: that something exists, that the act of grasping this implies that one is conscious, and that everything that exists has an identity. Using simple examples he shows how even if one tries to deny these axioms one affirms them.

*On Ayn Rand* is not written in a detached manner, so common to textbooks. Its author had been a student of Ayn Rand and knows his subject. His presentation is both factual and passionate. Convinced of the practicality of ideas and of their power to change the world, Allan Gotthelf has written a clear and enjoyable introduction to a revolutionary philosophy.

A plus. It doesn't get any better than this. In 100 pages, Dr. Gotthelf draws on everything known about Ayn Rand, from her novels, books, articles, journals, even spoken lectures and interviews, and gives the correct essentials. The emphasis is on her underlying philosophy, Objectivism, 'the philosophy for living on earth.' The politics of capitalism are only briefly sketched in. He clearly explains Ayn Rand's most complex innovation, her theory of concepts. Under ethics, he covers the 6 most important virtues. He opens and closes with Ayn Rand's benevolent universe premise and heroic view of mankind. He concludes with a passage from John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged. 'Fight for the value of your person. Fight for the virtue of your pride.... Fight with the radiant certainty and absolute of knowing that yours is the Morality of Life and that yours is the battle for any achievement, any value, any grandeur, any goodness, any joy that has ever existed on this earth.'

I found this book a very pleasant surprise, a serious and largely successful attempt to separate the philosophical system of Ayn Rand from her personality and from the cultishness often accurately attributed to many of her proponents. Sciabarra finds some depth to Objectivism as a serious defense of "libertarian" ideals, worthy of more consideration than has typically been afforded the popular novellist and political theorist.

Sciabarra has to work hard to accomplish this task, and in the process resorts self-consciously to describing Rand's work in terms very different than she or most of her proponents would use. The author clearly recognizes that this will quite predictably alienate Rand fans. The book isn't neccessarily written, or most useful, for them.

By opening up the terminology a bit, and finding reasonably hypothesized general influences on Rand's life and thought, Sciabarra is able to reveal aspects of Objectivist reasoning and assumptions that those more familiar with other philosophers can now appreciate. This is not a small matter, because the ideas are potentially very profound.

With Sciabarra's efforts, Objectivist ideas may begin to be placed more realistically in an intellectual and historical context, rather than being treated as an isolated phenomenon that began and ended with Ayn Rand. Her work can be appreciated for its good ideas, as well as criticized for its potential mistakes.

This book is most fascinating for its unique and accessible description of the currents of often difficult Russian philosophy, its exposition of dialectic method, and its potential to translate Rand's own idiom into a form that can be compared with other philosophers in a clarifying way. It is also, as far as I can tell, quite true to what I have always felt was the "spirit" of Objectivist thinking, the passionate and broadly inclusive defense of the individual mind.

At the same time, Sciabarra almost manages the extraordinarily difficult task of separating out Objectivism from the foundationalist tendency it instills in its most passionate adherents to certify itself as infallibly true. Without that aura of insufferably dogmatic adherence, the ideas take on a new life.

One of the things that has traditionally left Rand scholarship out in the cold has been its isolationism from academic philosophy, an attitude that seems to be mutual. Sciabarra makes a serious effort to bring Rand scholarship into academic respectability, and to me he does a very credible job.

This book has three sections dealing with (1) historical context in Russian and European philosophy showing what aspects of her Russian heritage she absorbed and what she vehemently rejected and giving some possible insight into why, (2) the structure and content of Objectivism in terms of realism, individualism, and libertarianism combined with a radical dialectical method, and (3) Rand's approach to social criticism, Rand as a "Russian radical for capitalism."

I think it could easily be argued by both Rand critics and Rand proponents that this book is reading far more into Objectivism than it actually contains, but to me that is what made it so interesting. It deals with the implications of the ideas themselves rather than the individuals involved and their own personal interpretations, and that is what makes for lasting philosophical significance.

I'd characterize this book as a thorough non-critical analysis by someone not specifically part of Objectivist thinking but interested in its potential value. It serves as a very good translation guide to understanding Rand's ideas and their implications, but in many places it does not examine them quite as critically as I personally would have preferred.

In my opinion, the other reviewers have neglected to mention the chief virtue of this work: its recontextualization of Rand's thought. I use this word, "recontextualization," not as a synonym for any of the species of vicious post-structuralist truth-twisting, but in its literal sense. Sciabarra shows that Rand should not be understood - historically, at least - as the woman who came to fix the systems of Locke and Bacon, the woman who came to answer Hume and Kant. Instead, she should be understood as a thinker at the intersection of two traditions: Russian literary-philosophy as practiced in the 'kruzhoks' of the late 19th Century, and American (emigre) libertarian thought of the early 20th Century. The method and content of Rand's philosophical work has much more in common with Tolstoy and Chernychevskij, Nock and Paterson, than it does with the various Greek and enlightenment thinkers who she so admired. I recommend this book to anyone interested in cultural history, Russian Studies, or the formal features of Rand's own system of philosophical analysis.

First let me say that this book is a difficult read. Having said that, it is a must read for any serious student of Ayn Rand's "project."

Chris Sciabarra makes a strong case for the dialectical nature of Rand's philosophy. He looks at how her work might have been informed by her Russian roots and the early experiences of her life and how she developed a philosophy that attempted to integrate all aspects of Objective Reality. Objective Reality as Rand saw it is not inherently fragmented. A philosophy based on Objective Reality would of necessity integrate all aspects into a cohesive whole.

Apparently, some who regard Rand as a mystical goddess, take offense at the sharp focus that Sciabarra puts on her work. This seems odd, given that this book demonstrates a profound respect for her intellectual accomplishments.

Rand often said in her own writing that each person had a right to act in his own rational self-interest, and with that right came a moral obligation to actively seek the truth (Objective Reality) as a prerequisite of rational choice. In essense, Sciabarra has used Rand's most fundamental principles to attempt an objective analysis of her analysis. This makes his effort a moral one. Yet to some he has committed the original sin by eating from the tree of knowledge and must be cast out of the Garden of Eden for it.

My only criticism was that this book does not critique her failures or attempt to explain her tyranny toward those closest to her. But that subject has been covered in other books by those who knew her personally and is well beyond the scope of this book.

Sciabarra's thoroughly researched RUSSIAN RADICAL will remain an important contribution to Rand scholarship for many years to come.

Ayn Rand's play "Night of January 16th" is a courtroom drama. A young woman, secretary and mistress of a famous, wealthy businessman, is accused of the murder of her employer, whilst trying to make it look like suicide. Although the question wether or not she is guilty is what is to be decided by the trial, the focus of the play is on the souls of the main characters: the businessman, his mistress, his wife, the wife's father and a few others.

The conclusion of the play is the verdict by the jury. The main gimmick of the play is that the members of the jury are drawn from the audience, and so the play can end in either a guilty or a not guilty verdict.

Like all of Ayn Rand's works, the play opposes individualists and originators against second-handers. As the preface states, the idea was that the jury should not decide on the grounds of the evidence, since that could go either way, but wether they would feel more drawn towards the character of the mistress (the individualist) than of the wife (the second-hander), or vice versa.

As it stands, I don't think Rand succeeded. If this would happen in a real court, the story presented in defense of the mistress would be considered preposterous, and she should be either pronounced guilty on the basis of the facts, or not guilty because there is not enough evidence. Wether or not her character appeals to the jury shouldn't matter for the verdict, and I don't think it matters in the play.

The conclusion of one of Ayn Rand's masterpieces, "The Fountainhead", is also a courtroom scene. In this scene, the jury is effectively asked to choose in favor of or against the soul of the protagonist, since the nature of his soul and the way society treats such a soul is his only defense. Something like that is what Ayn Rand probably meant but failed to do with "The Night of January 16th".

However, it is certainly a captivating story with a few surprises, and I would very much like to see it performed. Of Ayn Rand's works it is probably the least interesting.

Ayn Rand's philosophy is brilliant; anyone who fails to understand her deep love for the individual is a brute, no better than Pol Pot and Adolph Hitler. Ayn Rand herself said there is no greater minority than the individual. Anyone who opposes indiviudal rights cannot call himself a "humanitarian." Rand's play is a representation of such keen realism, or "Objectivism" as she termed it. When the play opened on Broadway 60 years ago it was a hit. The fast-paced court room drama captivated audiences. The play pits the individual against society, a new theme in literature that emerged with the onslaught of the 20th century in the United States. Rand runs with it. "Night of January 16th" is a short drama, a mere 60 minutes long, with dynamic, effusive characters, ranging from downtrodden individualists to arrogant collectivists. The play is a favorite for beginner actors for it gives them a range of emotions to exhibit. I highy recommend this play for high school or even community theater. Unfortunately, the topic of Objectivism may not be considered "politically correct" by many school districts throughout the United States these days. Individualism has become a "four letter word" in the mind's of the socialist elite which, sadly, make up a large part of America's academic infrastructure. It's just not "warm and fuzzy" enough for them. And there's a gun used in the play! Banish the thought! Oprah may not put Rand's "Night" on her book list, but that in itself if good enough reason to give it a try.

First off I would like to state that I have not read the original Night of January 16. You see, my highschool (UG Wisconsin) performed this play just a few nights ago. I LOVED it! I played the part of Mr. Whitfield, the powerful father-in-law of the late Bjorn Faulkner. I felt that the way the jury is drawn from the audience, and the whole play is done within a courtroom brings excitement to the stage. The witnesses all add a piece to the puzzle, and in the end it is up to those viewing (or reading) to decide the outcome of the trial. It was one of the best experiences of my life, and I don't think I will ever forget it. I STRONGLY advise this script for performance, AND though I haven't read the original I DEFINATELY intend to.

I am beginning to wonder of ANY of these people have read a single Objectivist book. I cannot vouch for Rand as the most sane person (I would think she was most likely a mild schizophreniac), but her philosophy is far from mad. Another thing, there is no such thing as selfishness harming others--harming people is not good for anyone, even you people know what, and is most certainly not selfish.

In 1971, professor of philosophy William O'Neill published the first book-length critique of Ayn Rand's philosophy, known as Objectivism. (Albert Ellis's 1968, IS OBJECTIVISM A RELIGION?, was a discussion of Rand and psychology, from what I recall.) This book isn't bad, but it has been superseded as a critique of Objectivism by Robbins's work (ANSWER TO AYN RAND, which has been updated as WITHOUT A PRAYER) and Scott Ryan's recently released OBJECTIVISM AND THE CORRUPTION OF RATIONALITY.

O'Neill's discussion of Rand's thought is informative and more or less accurate. On the other hand, he doesn't make enough of an effort to integrate Rand's thought into a coherent whole (granted, this isn't easy to do). So I don't think that someone new to Ayn Rand would understand why Rand has influenced so many people. Yet O'Neill does do a good job at bringing to light of some of the contradictions in Rand's work. For example, Rand preached that compromise was evil; yet she supported candidates for president who were anything but Objectivists. However, some of the alleged contradictions Prof. O'Neill finds would disappear if he had used a bit more "charity" in interpreting Rand.

If you want to read a sympathetic integration of Rand's thought, I recommend Chris Sciabarra's AYN RAND: THE RUSSIAN RADICAL.

O'Neill delivered a concise academic and philosophical critique of Objectivism and Ayn Rand's work.

His work was informed by an exhaustive survey of objectivist literature. He left no stone unturned either in giving Rand the benefit of the doubt or in pinning down the definitions Rand herself or other Objectivists gave to the terms they used.

He makes no extreme claims about objectivism. The book is an analysis, not a polemic.

Albert Ellis' book, _Is Objectivism a Religion?_ is a good companion to this book. Both books have ramifications for libertarianism and even for the somewhat reified and theological capitalism that dominates America politically. This is because the same inconsistencies and factual errors that the objectivists are guilty of permeate libertarianism and the debunked but still influential economic theories like supply-side or Austrian economics that have political power long after working economists despaired of finding any practical use for them.

This book is a pretty good book. It was based on a true unsolved case. As you find out when you read the book, Stacy Davis, a girl everyone thought was perfect, was Marty's baby-sitter. When she screamed her final words Marty thought he should have done something, instead he hid under his bed. He always thought he should have done something.
As the story progresses, Marty finds out that Stacy was into drugs. He also finds out that O.C., Stacy's boyfriend, got Stacy pregnant. For more about the book, read it yourself. If you're into sports or mystery or both, I highly recommend you read this.

...Marty was four when Stacy was kidnapped and thought to be killed and ever since then he had nightmares and felt guilty that if he would have done something it wouldn't have happen. Now that he is older and a track star at Southwestern High he wants to find out what Stacy meant when she screamed, "No!! No, Jesus!!! No!..Tsee!...Hurt!" He wants to find out who took Stacy away from him and why.

The characters in this story were all realistic, stupid, and funny. Marty was a normal teenager who was a great track runner. Stacy, later in the story you find out that she had gotten into drugs and sex. People thought of Stacy as little miss perfect but no one really knew her. Harper was one of Marty's friends and he was also a great track runner and showed some jealousies toward Marty because he always took first.
The author used daily language that made it sound like teenager were the ones talking. He used some bad words and big words which made the story flow and easy to read. The length of the story is about right not to short and not to long.
The story gives a lot key points to make you finish the story and find out what had happen what was going on with Stacy. The conflict seemed real.

This book was pretty good book. Its one of those books that you have to finish because you have to know what happen to Stacy. It was realistic and talked about real life situation and what can happen to in those situations. I recommend this book for teenagers that enjoy reading and like sports and mystery.

Marty Oliver, a runner on his high school track, has been frequented by thoughts of a tragedy that happened when he was five years old. His babysitter, Stacy Davis, was kidnapped! When he heard Stacy scream, he hid under his bed and fell asleep. When his parents came home and found him, they asked him to tell the police everything he remembered. Over the years, Marty had nightmares about what happened. His father would record everything he said on a tape recorder. When Marty listened to the tapes, memories were pulled up from the deepest place in his heart. Marty's mother had never liked the tapes, or the fact that Marty never let go of that night. Marty's coach had also been Stacy's coach, and she was the best on the team until something strange happened. So naturally, anything having to do with her disappearance was a concern of her coach. The police soon started helping Marty in finding Stacy's kidnapper. Once they gathered all their clues, they put a plan into action.

This book kept me interested and I never wanted to put it down. Sometimes I would be reading until late at night. I love mystery stories. The main reason why I liked this specific book was because the characters work together. They devised a plan and did something about a kidnapping that happened over ten years before. It took a teen-aged boy to dig up and solve a mystery that had been forgotten for years. You get to hear Marty's thoughts and that helps you determine who did what and why they did it. You can take Marty's point of view and change it around to fit the image of your mind. The Last Goodie is an excellent mystery story.

This book is an excellent celebration of Ayn Rand as a writer and a person. The author understands the kind of spirit Ayn Rand needed to write such phenomenal novels and to develop a new philosophical system. It is the trend these days to produce "debunking" biographies that sneer at genius and achievement. Lincoln is an opportunist, Columbus is a bad navigator, Jefferson is racist, Edison is an exploiter, yada yada. Those envious of great geniuses such as Rand will always resort to smear tactics, because their envy would rather believe such cynical nonsense. The author Michael Paxton didn't stoop to the cynicism and bitterness found in the tracts of Rand's enemies (whose criticisms of Rand waited until she died, if that gives you an idea of their underhandedness). Paxton gave an open, honest, and consequently admiring treatment of Ayn Rand's life and work. It was the kind of treatment that got the documentary (upon which the book was based) nominated for an Academy Award (for best documentary). Let's see the cynicism factory do that! I am a big fan of Ayn Rand's stuff, so I know what I'm talking about. If people can't get enough of her biographical details, I recommend "Letters of Ayn Rand" as a good source for what her thought and spirit were like, straight from the genius's mouth. And you're in luck, because it's available from .... Amazon Books! (unsolicited plug). I believe another biography is coming out soon, based on Rand's personal journal-writing, so we may soon have a second biography worth praising.

Many in this review section argue about whether this book is biased as it doesn't show Rand's flaws, about whether objectivism is a cult, etc.

All of this misses the point. Whether or not she was a perfect person (of course she wasn't), whether or not this book is biased (it probably is), Ayn Rand was right. Her basic philosophy was pretty much the only moral, consistent, and life affirming one ever produced (whether or not she herself applied it perfectly). This book celebrates the only person ever to figure it out, and express it eloquently. Whatever her flaws or the books flaws, the world certainly needs (not deserves!) this book more than the countless other pieces of garbage out there.

A gorgeous little book! Nice pictures, nice admiring tone for an eminently admirable person. Made me want to see the movie.

Should it be criticized for its ignoring or giving only a mere mention of Rand's faults and/or the worst moments of her life? Well, read the introduction. Paxton says right out that his purpose is not to tell all but "to express the summation of who Ayn Rand was as a person," as demonstrated by benevolent, joyful, heroic sense of life. So he has selectively focused on certain aspects of Rand's life but not others. Is this nonobjective of him? No, because every biographer must include some facts and omit others. Which facts are included depends on the author's purpose. In Paxton's case, he's wrong only if his view of the essence of Rand's life is wrong. If certain facts of Rand's life don't contribute to an understanding and appreciation of her sense of life, then, in Paxton's case, they are justifiably omitted. (It goes without saying, of course, that Paxton rejects the unbacked-by-evidence claims of Rand's ghoulishness by the Brandens, et al.)

Some people probably find fault with Paxton's purpose, but I don't know what to say to them other than that the purpose of MY life is enjoyment. I don't and shouldn't want to focus on the sad and disgusting little details when I don't have to.

Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism celebrates the underlying principles of capitalism: reason, independence and just plain selfishness. Donna Greiner and Theodore Kinni lay out the fundamentals of Objectivism and attempt to describe how you can integrate its beliefs into your life and your business. The book is written in the spirit of Rand's own outlook: It is anchored in practicality, well organized and goal-oriented. Even so, some executives might lose patience with the philosophic nature of the work. We advise such readers to move on. However, we from getAbstract recommend this book to intellectually curious readers in search of a moral, ethical, or even philosophic foundation for their business life.

When I first scanned "Ayn Rand and Business," I was a little skeptical about where this book was going and where its authors were coming from. But after reading it, I say it is stupendous.

I'd subtitle it "Applied Objectivism," in the same sense that one would speak of applied electronics where principles are applied to create all kinds of devices and equipment run by electricity. "Ayn Rand and Business" applies the principles of Objectivism to the business of marketing, capitalization, management, customer service, etc.

The book presents a brief biography of Ayn Rand covering her years in Russia, her coming to America, her struggles, her triumphs, the Objectivist "movement," that started with NBI (Nathaniel Branden Institute), the 1968 "break" between Branden and Rand and the ensuing excommunications, schisms and rifts that led to the sad decline in the "movement" and the quantity of her writings. 

But, more importantly, the focus of the book is on the application of Objectivist principles to business life. (And to personal life, which comes before but also runs parallel with business life.) The authors take the Objectivist values and virtues, explain them so very clearly and illustrate them with concrete examples how they apply in the business world. They use characters from Ayn Rand's novels as models, but they also use real-life business people who practice these virtues and values.

Their presentation of Objectivist principles is clear and concise. This is not a treatise, but outside of the business focus, the book could be considered an excellent introduction to Objectivism. They deal with all of the heavy philosophical subjects and issues in what we used to refer to as "layman's terms."
 
You don't have to be a philosopher to understand Ayn Rand. Her writing is crystal clear. Nonetheless, jumping into metaphysics and epistemology cold turkey may not be the best way to get an introduction to Objectivism or any other philosophy. When, as a kid, I started to read about relativity and physics, many books that put those ideas in "layman's terms" were invaluable. "Ayn Rand and Business" does this superbly. 

Fans of Ayn Rand and long time readers will find nothing new, philosophically, in the book though they should be impressed by its clarity and thoroughness in explaining Objectivism. I would particularly recommend it to people who show an interest in ideas and who might be prime candidates to become Objectivists. And because it is focused on Objectivism in business, I would highly recommend it for such prime candidates in the business world. 

It's not clear where the authors discovered Ayn Rand. The biographical information is silent on this subject. But it is obvious from the sources they cite and the bibliography that they know their subject. They quote from virtually every book, article and newsletter Ayn Rand ever wrote. They appear to have read every book by or about her and Objectivism.

The only flaws I see in the book are in editing. In several instances, needed words are missing or the wrong words are used. Additionally, there are a couple of instances where the wording of a sentence initially gives the opposite impression than that intended. And it is incorrectly stated that "The Objectivist" preceded "The Objectivist Newsletter." But the errors, except for the last one, are obvious to any reader and do nothing to detract from the content.

Overall, the book gets my highest rating. For a book written so clearly and favorably about Objectivism, by two people apparently unknown in the Ayn Rand "movement," to suddenly appear on the scene is remarkable. It's something to be celebrated and is an indication that, more than anything else I've seen, Objectivism is breaking through to and is reaching the common man who Ayn Rand correctly remarked is not so "common."

This book is an excellent introduction to Rand's philosophy examined from the point of view of its applications in business. Not a how-to, really, but a good launching point for further study and consideration. Well-written and very readable.

In recent years, we have witnessed what has aptly been called a "Renaissance" in Ayn Rand scholarship. In 1995, Chris Sciabarra came out with AYN RAND: THE RUSSIAN RADICAL which (although controversial) placed Ayn Rand in the context of the history of philosophy and filled in a few gaps in her biography as well. After that work, the Ayn Rand Institute published lengthy collections of her diaries and letters (although I'd like to see the originals). In 1999, the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies began publishing, which gives Rand's ideas serious attention. Finally, we recently saw the publication of Scott Ryan's critical OBJECTIVISM AND THE CORRUPTION OF RATIONALITY, which surpasses all previous criticism of Rand.

In light of this high quality work and the increase in primary sources available, one might expect that a scholar would come out with a concise 150-200 page book providing a solid and up-to-date overview of Rand's work, dealing with all the major areas of her thought. Unfortunately, such a book is lacking.

The above digression brings me to Ron Merrill's THE IDEAS OF AYN RAND, published in 1991 and therefore before the "Renaissance." There are some good things about this work. First, it is comprehensive. Mr. Merrill provides the reader with an overview of Rand's life, the plots of her novels, an introduction to her philosophy, and her place within the conservative and libertarian traditions. Second, there are a few interesting observations about the influence of Nietzsche on Rand and also some Jewish imagery in Rand's novels. Third, Mr. Merrill appreciates Rand and lets the reader understand why many people are so absorbed by her ideas. Fourth, the discussion of the novels is extensive. Fifth, the work includes a discussion of the Objectivist "movement."

On the other hand, as a guide to Rand's philosophy it leaves a lot to be desired. As an example, the discussion of axioms (so central to Rand) is given 4 lines. However, the "analytic-synthetic dichotomy" is given over a page. And it is presented exclusively in the context of Peikoff's misleading article of the same name. In any event, I don't see how Mr. Merrill's pointing out that W. V. O. ("I espouse a more thorough pragmatism") Quine also objected to the "analytic-synthetic dichotomy" helps his case that this concept is flawed [p. 170, n. 8]. (For a defense of how - contrary to Peikoff - a priori knowledge provides knowledge of "facts of experience," see Brand Blanshard, REASON & ANALYSIS, pp. 249-307, esp. pp. 303-04.) While I'm in the midst of another digression, how can Objectivists reject this dichotomy when - as Mr. Merrill perceptively notes - they have not provided a criterion to determine what is "certain" versus what is "tentative"? [p. 92.] (Actually, in the same year that THE IDEAS OF AYN RAND came out, Leonard Peikoff published "OPAR" and did discuss that issue. Whether Peikoff's pragmatic "contextual certainty" is the same as "certainty" I leave to others to decide.)

The best introduction to Ayn Rand remains Tibor Machan's work, AYN RAND (1999). Although the quality of the work is higher, it is somewhat uneven in the space given to topics (too much on ethics and politics; not enough on epistemology and metaphysics; aesthetics is mostly ignored). In any event, that work should be supplemented the above-mentioned works by Scott Ryan and Chris Sciabarra.

Long before she died, Ayn Rand was praised as a goddess, and damned as a devil. In all the fuss, her actual ideas and views were generally shoved to one side, to the point where she said in her _Playboy_ interview that she could sympathize with Karl Marx(!) toward the end of his life, when he said that he was not a Marxist. The rather abrupt end of the organized Objectivist movement in 1968 was also the end of a great deal of her influence, and she became a figure more of legend than history long before her death. With this book, Merrill gives us a view of Ayn Rand's actual beliefs, as opposed to those attributed to her by the Usual Suspects, and some background as to how she came to the conclusions she did. It's disappointingly short, but Rand scholarship is evolving constantly.

Free of the subjective rehashing that tainted the summations offered by Leonard Peikoff and the Brandens, this book is a fair, albeit much too brief, representation of Ayn Rand's history, ideas, and continuing legacy. Merril, a true student of Objectivism, is fair and balanced in his book. It is a mistake to rely solely on the admittedly worthy and remarkable works of Peikoff and/or the Brandens without using this book to reconcile the arguments put forth by the three of them in their own accounts. Read this work and make up your own mind.

Nathaniel Branden writes in his review: "...this book, criticisms of Rand and all, will do more to advance the cause of Rand's work than all their (actual Objectivists) true-believer praise and idiotic adulation."

Branden should review some of his own writings about making groundless, arbitrary assertions. Just exactly why or how is such a book superior in "advancing the cause"? As AR would have said: "No answer is given".

Secondly - anyone familiar with the 'personal history' of AR and Branden should find his use of the term "idiotic adulation" to be layered with irony. You couldn't find a more idiotic way to express 'adulation' for someone who is in the role of your mentor then ...well ... you know.

Sorry about that - but it had to be said.

Sciabarra is pretty obviously not too bright, and no comparison can be made between such a so-called 'scholar' and the truly educated and intelligent "poor souls at ARI".

Just another non-intellectual book on Ayn Rand that will be forgotten by the time Objectivism really takes hold.

I'm a contributor to this anthology. This book covers a lot of new ground, bringing together people and perspectives all over the map, from different disciplines and backgrounds, and even three continents. Few things provide a more fruitful and explosive combination than Ayn Rand and feminism. While most contributors to the book are feminists, at least one, maybe two are anti-feminist (depending on how one would classify Camille Paglia). Most contributors are positive to Rand, in the sense that they/we feel that Rand contributed a lot of value (and that more value can be gained by engaging Rand and feminism with each other), but not in the sense of uncritical idolatry. Rand provokes a lot of polarized response: idolatry or condemnation. What Rand needs is a more balanced and scholarly treatment, and engagement with other thinkers and traditions in intellectual history, and this volume does provide that. Feminism has individualist and collectivist wings, and the collectivist wings have been too dominating recently; engaging with Rand can lead to a revival of individualist feminism. In my own contribution, entitled _The Female Hero: A Randian-Feminist Synthesis_, (ifi.uio.no/~thomas/po/female-hero.html) I apply and extend Rand's conception of heroism to women, leading towards a new radical individualist feminism which is interestingly also an ancient vision of female strength and power. Thus I compare and combine Rand with myths of Amazons, and writers who explore these ancient images of power, writers like Merlin Stone, Barbara Walker and Riane Eisler and scholarly accounts of ancient goddesses and heroines. I also discuss androgyny and postandrogyny, and non-patriarchal sexualities. My article is available on my web site. I would also recommend the web site of Chris Sciabarra (co-editor of the book), where you can find a subsite about the book, which includes highlights from reviews and discussions of the book, including the archives of a structured online seminar going through all the articles of the entire book.

This anthology includes a marvelous variety of perspectives on Rand's philosophy as well as her fiction; to criticize this work based on the all-or-nothing behavior of the ARI or on (mis)perceptions of Rand's "egoism" is to fail to engage the actual subjects of the articles themselves. To address some of the arguments leveled in previous reviews:

This book does not claim to "promote" Rand, nor are its articles written from the perspective of the true believer. To disagree with Rand's Objectivism does nothing to address the contents of the anthology. As a matter of fact, several of the contributors themselves strongly disagree with and/or disapprove of Rand, for various reasons.

The editors do not claim Rand was herself a feminist, although the essays provide a framework for interpreting Rand from a feminist perspective. Further, Rand's self-identification as NOT a feminist does not mean that there is nothing in her work that can be applied to feminism, or from which feminism might benefit.

And to claim that the volume is trying to "cash in" on Rand's name is to ignore the entire scope of literary, philosophical, cultural, psychoanalytic, and feminist criticism. The work of the literary critic, for example, involves interpreting a text from a new perspective in order to suggest meanings or structures, to uncover parallels or contradictions, and to struggle with conceptual knots found in the text. One reading will differ from another, opening up different aspects of the text that may or may not have anything to do with the author; once a book has been written, anyone who reads it is free to interpret it as he or she sees fit. For the most part, the contributors here provide in-depth scholarly analyses and plenty of documentation to support their theses. By placing Rand in a sealed box, refusing to allow her work to be interpreted and discovered, and refusing to allow new minds to draw new conclusions from her stated premises, her devoted followers only guarrantee the death of Rand's ideas.

For those interested in current Rand scholarship rather than the repitition of Objectivist mantras, this anthology is superb. If you can't bear to hear any new thoughts on Rand, re-read Atlas Shrugged. If you hate Ayn Rand and think her philosophy is the root of all self-serving capitalist American evil, why the heck are you reading this anthology??? Save your cult-baiting for the Down With Objectivism website.

In her work, What is Capitalism? Rand tries to pass of as "objectivist" an explanation of capitalism that has existed since 1776--in Smith's The Weath of Nations. Having been from Russia, im sure capitalism seems very new, logical and exciting to Rand--alas, her definition of capitalism is not very insightful to those who have read The Weath of Nation or have taken Econ 101. The work is merely a more sophisticated version of Rush Limbaugh's explaination of capitalism in his books: The Way Things Ought to Be, and See, I Told You So. I Suggest this book to high school students who are too busy to read The Weath of Nations, but not to those who already possess a deeper understanding of what capitalism is (you dont want to waste your time).

What distinguishes Ayn Rand from Adam Smith and other proponants of capitalism is the fact that Ayn Rand set the moral foundation that capitalism has long needed. The reason that, capitalism as a social system -has constantly lost the battle to socialism, was due to the guilt that has been so readily accepted by the producer(the movers of the world). Ayn Rand points this out and proposes a powerful solution. I strongly recommend this work to any one that would like to see the world more clearly