Customer Reviews

The Ayn Rand Cult

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(18)
3 star:		(17)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(15)

 

 

I have very mixed feelings about this book. On the positive side, the book contains a tremendous amount of interesting historical information about Ayn Rand and the Objectivist movement. The author quite successfully makes his point that Objectivism was/is a cult; though this is hardly an original claim, it has never been so thoroughly supported as it is here. However, the book is so negative and biased that it undercuts the arguments Walker is trying to make. Walker doesn't even try to be objective; I challenge you to find a single positive thing said about Rand or the Objectivist movement in the book's 300+ pages. I think Satan comes across better in the Bible than Rand does here. Most of the evidence given is through quotes, generally from former Objectivists. That's fine, but there is also a tremendous amount of unsupported (and nasty) editorializing, e.g. "By all accounts, the young Alissa [Rand] was not a particularly lovable child." Also, Walker often goes to great lengths to discredit certain people (notably Nathaniel Branden), and then uses quotes from them to support later arguments. If they aren't credible, why should we give their opinions any credence? Also, Walker accuses Branden of being responsible for his second wife's death and subtly implies that Leonard Peikoff is a homosexual. I could go on and on, but the point I'm trying to make is that Walker has a tremendous axe to grind, and much of the book appears to be a smear campaign for its own sake. Furthermore, Walker never makes it clear exactly why he hates Rand and Objectivism so much, aside from the fact that Peikoff threatened to sue him once regarding a radio program on Rand that Walker wrote. The last section of the last chapter is telling: it's about "the Ayn Rand that might have been", wherein Walker re-writes history to show how Ayn Rand, if she had had fewer psychological problems, might have actually attained some degree of respectability. This leads me to think that Walker is a disillusioned ex-Objectivist who was personally burned by the movement. "The Ayn Rand Cult", although well worth reading, would have been a much better book if Walker had made his own biases clear right from the start. As it is, I look forward to a more objective book on the Rand/Objectivist saga.

After re-reading THE AYN RAND CULT (this time with the aid of an index, bibliography, and citations for each quote), I would be remiss in not correcting my 1-star review, dated 2/19/99. In fairness, however, and for educational purposes, I hope the earlier review remains posted.

As I write this, 16 of 43 reader-reviews carry only 1 or 2 stars. Most negative reviews read like cases of 'kill the messenger,' and many were clearly submitted by ardent Rand fans. In the investment world, one can often take analyses of "experts" as contrarian indicators; so, too, with book and movie reviews and, frequently opinions of others. [Of course, this caveat might also apply to me. You decide.]

I ceased to be a 'Rand fan' in 1980, after increasingly serious doubts that first began to surface in 1969. Because I personally knew 13 of the 29 people Mr. Walker interviewed, in addition to Ayn Rand and Frank O'Connor, I can confirm much of Walker's book from a first-hand perspective, beginning in 1964 at Denver University.

Walker's thesis is that "certain philosophies, by their nature, are conducive to a cult mentality," and that Objectivism is such a doctrine. His Introduction is the best summation of the "Objectivist Movement" I can remember reading during the past 20 years. The entirety of Chapter 2 is devoted to discussing cults in general, destructive cults, and the many ways in which Objectivism qualifies in virtually all aspects. The balance of the book, except for the 'might have been' alternative biography at the end, explores in detail each of those aspects, and much more.

His account covers vast territory in plain, non-jargonized English. Walker is not writing for the Objectivist choir, for academia, nor for Rand's remote followers, critics, or currently active proponents. Rather, his aim is to reach a general audience. Hence, his book can be read and evaluated by any intelligent layman, which is, by itself, a refreshing and enormous plus. Although this book requires thoughtful reading, it is not, as several Amazon.com reader-reviewers claim, a cheap smear job: one can hardly smear people who have already smeared themselves. If readers should encounter one or more unfamiliar quoted sources, they have only to use their favorite web search engine.

Apart from a few dubious, minor inferences drawn from "suspicious," if not actually tainted sources, Walker thoroughly makes his case. He has done his homework -- in spades -- which results in a litany of persuasive evidence: a history of 'the movement;' details of Rand's professional and personal lives; opinions of those in a position to know both the woman and her 'ideas' better than anyone else; comparisons with other, well- and lesser-known cults; the pro-business popular literature of 1920s America; persuasive lists of both obvious and highly probable sources of influence for Rand's novels; and the methodology of moralistic propaganda she explicitly employed in her writing and public appearances.

Through detail after detail, Walker leads us to a mental picture of Rand's bizarrely consistent attitude toward her own real-life heroes, historical culprits, and closest admirers. By focusing on her methods and contrasting her public and private behavior, Walker shows us a cult guru with ugly, utter contempt for the common man. THE AYN RAND CULT is about real people who did, and/or still do, claim to live according to Rand's 'system' of ideas; who wear blinders and view the world through Objectivist lenses (see especially pages 180 and 186).

Throughout his book, Walker presents answers to the puzzle of how supposedly intelligent, well-educated people could be taken in by what was "a cult from top to bottom." (pg. 48-49). The reader will find, time and again, that Ayn Rand intentionally capitalized on [pun intended] her admirers' ignorance -- on their lack of education, inexperienced enthusiasm, and their youthful, but understandable desire to be "rational." I cannot resist giving two of my favorite examples:

Leonard Peikoff: "... If you took the total of my mind, [quotes Walker] whatever rational knowledge I have is 98 percent from her [meaning Rand], and one or two percent of simply historical data from 14 years of universities." (page 180)

Branden: "How I treasured that sentence." This refers to a line from THE FOUNTAINHEAD, "A leash is only a rope with a noose at both ends." [spoken by Gail Wynand] Walker notes that Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, "If you put a chain around the neck of a slave, the other end fastens around your own." (page 316) [Now, check the title essay in PHILOSOPHY: WHO NEEDS IT? You will find this, "...'consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.' You got it from a very little mind, Emerson." Dear reader, I typed that line from Rand's original hand-written manuscript for a speech she delivered at West Point. At the time, I asked about it because I thought it was wrong, which it is -- some four months before I was fired from The Ayn Rand Letter.]

The people Walker quotes no doubt believe their own statements (or have an agenda of their own), though I cannot agree with his every interpretation. Some claims by his sources are actually false or, at best, questionable; e.g., Alan Greenspan's PhD is genuine and NYU has not lost his dissertation. As a student of Peikoff's at Denver University, I observed nothing to suggest he was on "probation" nor temporarily ex-communicated. There is, however, evidence of Branden's jealousy of Peikoff. And while perhaps not written, there is ample evidence showing that Rand expected Peikoff to dawn her philosophical mantle and to "write the definitive version of the philosophy of Objectivism" as early as summer, 1969.

In my opinion, Rand, her ideas, and her (more, or less) adoring disciples richly deserve Walker's book. I believe he intended it, not to convert, but to forewarn. He sets the record very nearly straight. More important, still, he provides much-needed ammunition for self-preservation to the impressionable and vulnerable

Jeff Walker's book, "The Cult of Ayn Rand", is a mixed bag. The writing style ranges from erratic to concise and cogent, however his obvious disdain for Rand and the members of her circle intrudes on his analysis and places his own objectivity at question (pun unintended). On the other hand, anyone interested in understanding Rand and her followers ought to read the book in spite of its imperfections. The first clue as to the tone of the book is the cover. Rand (never what many would call a beautiful woman) appears as a caricature. This, when coupled with the garish yellow on red layout immediately tells the reader that what is inside is not likely to be either pretty or particularly refined. In this case it is easy to judge the book from its cover.

The book is fairly well documented from both existing sources along with his own interviews. Walker begins with a history of the inner workings of Objectivism as a cult followed by several brief discussions of key players-Nathaniel Brandon, Leonard Peikoff, and Alan Greenspan. The portraits are not flattering. Unfortunately, in the case of Greenspan, inasmuch as he was not a key player in either the formation or evolution of the "cult," Walker has to spend his time criticizing Greenspan's handling of Federal Reserve monetary policy. In Walker's estimation, the Fed Chairman's job performance has been and continues to be marginal at best. In the author's opinion, Greenspan is indirectly responsible for the Savings and Loan debacle, and directly responsible for, among other things, "Black Monday" and George Bush's reelection failure. Walker attempts to explain Greenspan's Federal Reserve policy actions as a function of the influence of Rand's zero inflationist and gold standard views. On the other hand, he is forced to recognize that in light of Greenspan's actual work at the Fed any direct philosophical link to Rand is tenuous at best. Also, the reader begins to understand (or at least suspect) the basis for Walker's own economic leanings since Lester Thurow is, apparently, the source for many of his economic views.

Walker does a better job in his discussions of Brandon and Peikoff. The former is viewed as an unethical opportunist at best and an intellectual fraud at worse. Interestingly, when criticizing Brandon's peculiar pop psychology Walker uses as a standard the work of Albert Ellis. In an ironic twist, Walker is scandalized when Peikoff unabashedly tells an Objectivist lecture audience that, before her death, Rand recommended that all Objectivist students purchase his (Peikoff's) recently published essay, "...a brilliant book." Yet, after leaning on the anti-Rand Ellis, is it a coincidence to find on the book's back cover a glowing recommendation from, you guessed it, Ellis himself, wherein the psychologist calls Walker's new book, "a brilliant, scholarly, and comprehensive critique..."?

Walker's book is OK, for what it is, but is neither brilliant nor really scholarly. Many of Walker's statements appear less than profound and some range from the petty to the grotesque. The worst is his insinuation that Nathaniel Brandon was, through negligence, somehow responsible for the death of his second wife. The lack of scholarship shows in his frequent use of blanket statements such as, "Psychologists hold that membership in a group is all the more highly valued when one has to go through hell to obtain it." Does he mean "all psychologists"? Or is it only "some?" Is it just Ellis? This statement is really not much different than explaining that people value what they work for--certainly not a brilliant revelation and definitely not one that requires a psychological consultation in order to understand. Also, some of Walker's comments on his own writing seem rather gratuitous and patronizing. For instance, after an in depth discussion of the bitter antagonisms between Peikoff and his relative, Barbara Brandon, Walker glibly tells us that the two are "obviously" not kissing cousins.

Walker next discusses specific aspects of Rand's philosophy in spite of his statement in the introduction that it is not his intention to examine doctrinal aspects of Objectivism. In the sections, "An Ignorant Oracle" and "The Banality of Ayn Rand's Thought" Walker makes a good case for Rand's lack of experience (understanding) and hostility towards both contemporary popular culture and established high culture. He then gives a very brief outline of others criticisms of Rand's philosophy. Again, it is unfortunate that Walker has decided to forgo any in-depth discussion of Rand's alleged philosophical mistakes since the uninitiated reader must take at face value the goodness of the arguments presented against Rand without the benefit of a presentation of specific points of contention. For instance, when discussing Rand's ethics (the section "The Virtue of Selfishness") Walker introduces reasonable questions concerning Rand's non-violence dictum vis-à-vis her valuation of individual rights, however he fails to offer obvious and competing answers to his own questions regarding how an Objectivist might handle conflicts of interests. On the other hand, Walker's three page discussion of Rand and Kant is quite cogent and, to my mind, quite succinctly underscores the Rand cult's misinterpretation and distortion of the critical philosophy

It is unfortunate that Walker missed a chance to conduct a more serious study with a more serious tone. There is no question that the cult of Rand deserves a scholarly analysis, however Walker's book leaves the reader wanting. It is as if the author could not decide whether he wanted to attempt a rigorous analysis or just limit himself to anecdotal pop journalism. To my mind, the latter won out. The author evidently writes for television. This might explain the book's sometimes superficial and "in your face" tone.. It is almost the printed equivalent of something you might see on 60 Minutes or 20/20 without the rakishness of either. The book can be recommended for the casual reader who wants an introduction to the bizarre world of Ayn Rand. For the serious student of Objectivism, the reader would do well to explore the comprehensive bibliography Walker provides

In the wake of Ayn Rand's death, two of her former acolytes, Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, authored separate accounts detailing the effects of Rand's severe moralism and hypocrisy on their lives.

"Too little, too late" is the verdict that Jeff Walker renders on those books, and with his book "The Ayn Rand Cult" he exposes Ayn Rand and her legacy, "Objectivism" as it should have been exposed long ago.

Walker did extensive interviews with former Objectivists in order to present a comprehensive critique of Rand and her thought. He shows that Objectivism, like the subsequent Scientology and est, was authoritarian at the core, and fed on fear and the threat of excommunication.

Walker points out the obvious paradoxes in Rand's life and writing, most notably that her hackneyed fiction's heroes were stilted and similar in style to the chiseled products of Soviet Socialist Realism. which she supposedly abhorred.

Walker also shows that in the context of the times and the literature she grew up with, Rand did not produce anything significantly original, and that she only grudgingly credited her influences. She referred to Nietzsche as "a gifted poet", as if he was only John the Baptist to her Messianic status. It shouldn't be hard for anybody doing a comparative reading of Nietzsche and Rand to figure out who was the real genius.

Full examination is given to the culture of 1920's Business Theory, and the traditions of Jewish culture which were a large part of Rand's influences as well as foundations of the Objectivist movement--- never, of course, fully acknowledged.

Walker's prescription for people who are beguiled by Rand is that they should investigate the classical liberals, like Fredrich Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises, as well as the models that Rand used for her fiction, like Frank Lloyd Wright--people that all had real genius. That is the "trail's end" where disenchanted followers of Rand usually wind up.

Jeff Walker's book is most notable for its thoroughness in putting Ayn Rand and the proto-cult of Objectivism in context. It's a laundry list of reasons for individuals to resist the path of the true believer.

While reading this book, I began to wonder if it was an ambitious satire written by a sympathizer of Objectivism. It parodies itself by offering up a patchwork of referenced quotes (e.g., "Acccording to a source Robert Bidinotto deems reliable ...." who the heck is Robert Bidinotto? ) that inherits the validity of the original sources about as much as one of those detective story ransom notes made of cut-up letters from various magazines. The author's use of out-of-context quotes as fact, his out-of-focus, double-vision perspective (sometimes taking both sides of the same issue in different parts of the book, claiming both are bad), and his truly puzzling leaps of implication (I was going to say "logic", but Walker usually avoids making his points directly, nudge-nudge-wink-wink), seems almost a compliment to Objectivism, a telling example of what a mess you get when you ignore things like logic, context, and consistency.

He implies Rand was unoriginal because Jews believe in sanctity of individual rights and because H.G. Wells wrote about men of the mind going on strike. He implies that because Karl Jaspers warned that "... searching for one key to resolve all perplexities can yield only ideological madness .." , that Rand's quest for an integrated view of reality is crazy (Duh! Isn't that what philosophers do?). His take on psychology is interesting, too: he implies that since the drug Prozac can be effective, "... rooting out self-defeating cognitive content and replacing it with with life affirming content..." is not effective, and that too much self-esteem can be bad because "...there must surely be optimal levels for any biologically-based value, and even glowing health, happiness, and well-being may be inappropriate...."! He criticizes Leonard Peikoff both for being a blind Rand follower, and for not sharing Rand's taste in TV and music. He implies that Atlas Shrugged is poorly written because the 1200 page book contains 241 instances of the word "laugh" and 174 instances of "anger"!

I think the lives of Ayn Rand and her inner circle tell us important things about dangers in the quest for wisdom. We want truth so badly that when we think we're getting close, it can make us a bit crazy. You can find cult-like behavior in any big-idea movement, whether you revere the big idea or think it's wacky, whether it's religious or secular. This appearance of cults doesn't, in itself, invalidate a particular movement or truth-questing in general. I think Walker's analysis of "The Ayn Rand Cult" would have been much more illuminating if he hadn't attempted to discredit Rand, her ideas, her books, and her associates in a way that mainly illuminates his contempt for the human capacity to seek truth.

Jeff Walker's book - which purports to be an exposé of Ayn Rand - is a brilliantly written and hugely enjoyable work of fiction. It contains much that is interesting or amusing, but little that is accurate. A few examples will illustrate the point.

Walker claims that Rand founded a cult which "took on characteristics of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union" (p26) and whose members "would do credit to the Spanish Inquisition" (p55). Presumably he does not believe that Rand was a ruthless dictator who murdered tens of millions of people or that she had her enemies burned at the stake. So what is he suggesting? Does he mean that she disparaged the use of reason, that she employed coercive recruitment methods, that she engaged in financial deception or that her supporters were sexually exploited? Does he mean that she claimed supernatural or divine powers, that she predicted apocalyptic events such as the end of the world or that she urged her followers to commit mass suicide? Evidently Rand was guilty of none of these crimes, yet the author makes the case nonetheless. His evidence is less than impressive: she denounced Marxism as inherently evil, as it plainly is (p57), she reduced complex problems to questions of right or wrong (p61), etc. Moreover: "The excited young reader of any Rand book finds a card inside ready for mailing to Objectivist headquarters" (p62). Are there no limits to wickedness?

In his crusade against her movement, Walker purveys some extraordinary claims, such as the idea that Rand was barred from her own lectures because "after having this spate of venom turned upon them, most people simply left and never came back" (p31). He revives the discredited fiction that she spurned Murray Rothbard's wife for being a Christian and that she despised him for not smoking (p33). He dismisses Barbara Branden's point that former Objectivists rarely joined cults with the observation that "subsequent cult-shyness after leaving a true cult is probably even more common than jumping into another one" (p37). Yet only a few pages later, he quotes Joan Kennedy Taylor's claim that former Objectivists frequently joined cults, thus defending his view that "Rand's was a cult for the younger crowd" (p48). An accurate source would point out that Rand neither created an organisation nor solicited donations, limiting her activities to a newsletter and some lecture courses. It would note that, in her efforts to avoid leader worship, she refused to apply her own name to her own theory, which she instead labelled Objectivism. It would cite her view that this was an intellectual movement - "a trend among independent individuals who share the same ideas" - not an organised movement (Harry Binswanger, ed. "The Ayn Rand Lexicon," p345). And it would hesitate before equating her group with ersatz religions such as Scientology or the Unification Church (p68).

Nonetheless, Walker proceeds to vilify every aspect of Rand's life and character. Her worldview, reminiscent of Marxism-Leninism, is "implicitly totalitarian" (p108). Her depiction of love combines "a Harlequin Romance view of male sexuality" (p110) with heroines who are all "sexually submissive borderline masochists" (p115). Her theory of art not only bears comparison to the socialist realism of the Stalinist era but is "scarcely distinguishable" from that of the Nazis (pp123-4). Her philosophy of life requires "massive emotional repression" (p133), while her views on psychotherapy resemble "New Age fare" (p139). Even these verdicts pale into insignificance, however, before the many personal cruelties in the book. Nathaniel Branden was negligent in the accidental drowning of his second wife, or so we are told, without a particle of evidence (p154). Leonard Peikoff, devoid of "masculine" or "virile" qualities, is lambasted for his alleged fear of spiders and for his marital breakdowns (p185-6). As for Frank O'Connor, were he not excused for being her husband, "Randians would write him off as an unambitious, undertalented, out-of-focus, drunken moocher" (p264). Is there no room for decency even in a hatchet job?

Walker's use of evidence is quite remarkable. In support of the claim that Rand was addicted to diet pills, he quotes from Karen Reedstrom's interview with Jack Wheeler, who never met her but was a friend of Nathaniel Branden; then he cites his own interview with Roy Childs, who also never met her but recycles gossip from an anonymous secretary who worked for her at an unspecified time; then he refers to Nathaniel Branden himself, hardly the most impartial source (pp267-8). He does not document his claim that "Ayn" was a "Hebrew pet-name" given to her by her father, but he does reject "the flimsy legend that the name 'Ayn' came from 'a Finnish writer,'" (p278) missing Rand's own confirmation of the "flimsy legend" (Michael S. Berliner, ed., "Letters of Ayn Rand," p40). He lists allegedly "Jewish" cultural traits embodied in Objectivism - including fear of government intrusion and opposition to welfare handouts - only to add that American Jewish intellectuals are generally left-wing (pp279-285). Stranger still is his suggestion that Rand sought to hide the intellectual antecedents of her philosophy (pp288-93): the bibliography in her "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" contains references to Frédéric Bastiat, Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk, Henry Hazlitt, Isabel Paterson and Ludwig von Mises. How many cults are so open-minded?

There are several reliable works on this subject. Anyone impressed by this book should turn to Jim Peron's online paper, "Is Objectivism a Cult?"

In the very beginning of his book, Jeff Walker aptly points out that people either heavily get into Ayn Rand in their teens -- or not at all. I first read FOUNTAINHEAD and ATLAS SHRUGGED at 31 and, while seriously impressed by her political and economic clairvoyance, was puzzled by her bizzarre view of humans and human nature and her desire, demonstrated in both novels, to steamroll over anybody who didn't fit her definition of a hero. Besides, I never understood how could a philosopher who preached individualism and self-reliance attract tens of thousands of adoring followers. Ayn Rand's ideal was not a follower, therefore, the followers could not, by definition, live up to her ideals or have her respect (which they didn't). Jeff Walker does a very thorough job of answering just that question. Yes, his theory may be considered debatable. It's an opinion, and he argues it convincingly and with style. He even preempts the insults, such as you may find below, by pointing out that when people identify too closely with their system of beliefs, they have no choice but defend them tooth and nail from any hint of cognitive dissonance. The politically correct, who wear their bleeding hearts on their sleeves, react just as hysterically to any fact they find uncomfortable. It's a fanatic's way. Walker's book is written with humor and decency, it's an easy and enjoyable read (and I don't read much nonfiction), and it has guts. The more you know about Ayn Rand from objective sources, the more sense Walker's book makes.

I am certainly no "Objectivist" and have many personal and political disagreements with Ayn Rand's philosophy and behavior. However, the author of this book completely misunderstands the issue of Ms. Rand's appeal to modern youth. People like to read her works because (despite all of her flaws and errors) she affirms the basic worth of the self and argues that personal happiness, autonomy and integrity are the highest values. In a world that tramples on our souls and crushes individuality, this is a message that we need to hear. I view Rand like she viewd Aquinas--one of the flawed but brilliant thinkers who points the way to the Truth without finding the ultimate destination herself.

On the whole this is a fairly informative overview of the odd "personality cult" that grew up around Ayn Rand. All the familiar details are here: Rand's megalomaniacal rationalizations of her own whims and tastes, her shameful treatment of personal friends and acquaintances, her affair with Nathaniel Branden and the subsequent schism in the Objectivist movement, her refusal to retract her public statements endorsing smoking even as she was dying of lung cancer, the ousting of "heretics" from the "orthodox" Objectivism currently defended by Leonard Peikoff and the second-rate hangers-on at the Ayn Rand Institute.

But be careful to take it with several grains of salt; Walker sometimes goes over the top in his personal opinions, without always identifying them as such. (One egregious example: in his chapter on Nathaniel Branden, he as much as blames Branden for causing the death of Branden's second wife Patrecia, who died tragically owing to a failure to take her epilepsy medication. Walker's grounds for this horrible accusation consist of nothing more than his own assertions about what Branden "should have known.")

This book leaves the impression that it was patched together without much attention to detail; for example, here and there, out of the blue, we are given a quote from "Smith" with no indication _which_ of the book's three major Smiths (Kay Nolte Smith, Phil Smith, and George H. Smith) is being quoted. (This information is available in the book's endnotes, but its absence in the text seems to indicate that the book was pieced together from shorter snatches with no eye toward continuity.) Numerous interviewees are "introduced" more than once (sometimes only a few pages apart), and several stories are repeated needlessly. There is no doubt that the phenomenon Walker is trying to document was and is quite real, but this would have been a better book if he had taken the trouble to edit it more thoroughly (including editing _out_ some of his own opinions).

Kudos to Walker, though, for the work's final section: a fictional "biographical sketch" of an Ayn Rand that could have been. As Walker effectively shows through his imaginative reconstruction, had Rand been a little less paranoid and a little more willing to seek professional help for her depression and other psychological disorders, her personal life and influence might well have measured up more closely to her public persona.

Clearly anyone who belonged to any sort of fanatical following to Ayn Rand, as the author suggests, never did understand the tenants of her philosophical system in the first place. Perhaps, as a regular human being, she did not live up to the incredible standards that her novel's heroes did, but she left behind an incredible amount of passion in her belief in the individual and the self. One could nitpick the books all day long, and her life, and her style, but i found the Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged refreshing. They are some of the only individualist propoganda in existence, and I got a hearty laugh every time (and i'm sure it was about 1000 times) in Atlas Shrugged, that she referred to the government, or the "liberals" as looters and moochers. Our culture is inundated with demands for obligations in all directions, from the burden of taxes, to the guilt factor of volunteerism and charity. Guilt is, a tenent of our culture, and a rather unhealthy one. These novels are a scream against compulsion. I love America and freedom, and i despise the thought of giving away any freedom to the government. Hold individuals, not society responsible for their actions. More than anything else, be proud, hold your achievements first, and create. Let humans achieve their potential, without a law library of stifling regulation. Or as her most notorious character put it, "Get the Hell out of my way!"