The Ayn Rand Cult (Paperback)

~ (Author) "Nearly always, new converts to Objectivism are young..." (more)
Key Phrases: mysterious valley, destructive cult, full context, Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, Nathaniel Branden (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

According to this devastating and often heavy-handed critique, Ayn Rand, whose novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged exposed millions to her philosophy of virtuous self-centeredness and capitalist freedom, was an oppressive personality whose Objectivist movement demonstrated all the classic elements of a destructive cult (its messianic leader and its separation of group members from family and friends). Walker presents his subject as an arrogant, dogmatic bully who brooked no criticism and as a repressed narcissist who feared her own emotions and hid behind a glorification of reason. He concludes that Rand was no more than a third-rate pop-novelist of propaganda fiction and that her "vulgar Nietzschean" philosophy's obsessive concern with the overachiever?who requires protection via absolutized individual rights?contributed to the movement's cultish aspects. Walker also savages self-esteem guru Nathaniel Branden, who was Rand's protege and extramarital lover; their explosive breakup in 1968 pulverized the Objectivist movement, whose contemporary schisms and crosscurrents he ploddingly tracks. In a vitriolic chapter on Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan?a one-time member of Rand's inner circle?Walker unpersuasively contends that this banker's "inflation-obsessed" policies grew out of Rand's theories. Those who find Rand's self-styled philosophy outre may not find much of interest in this scathing, albeit clumsy, expose. Others will find it a useful corrective to the Rand mystique. (Feb.) FYI: Branden's tell-all account of his affair with Rand and his role in the Objectivist movement is being reissued in a new edition in March as My Years with Ayn Rand: The Truth Behind the Myth (Jossey-Bass, $19 480p ISBN 0-7879-4513-7). While he does criticize Rand personally, his treatment differs from Walker's in that he still reveres her as a philosopher.
Copyright 1999 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal

Ayn Rand's novels and philosophy have been the object of widespread popular interest since the 1950s. After her death in 1982, there was a spate of biographical and critical interest; her popularity continues with a U.S. postage stamp and a television documentary, both scheduled for this spring. These two books offer divergent perspectives on Rand, her followers, and the Objectivist movement. Branden (The Art of Living Consciously, LJ 3/1/97) offers a revised version of his 1989 memoir. A personal account of his intellectual and romantic relationship with Rand and their famous break, it is useful for its insider's view of the Objectivist movement and may appeal to those interested in gossipy details of the protagonists' lives. While objectivity isn't expected in an insider's account, this memoir nonetheless lacks critical distance, even after nearly 50 years, and is marred by plodding narrative and wooden dialog. Canadian journalist Walker makes a more valuable and original contribution to Rand studies. He analyzes the Objectivist movement, Rand's leadership role, and the politics of her inner circle in terms of the cult dynamic. This analytical perspective avoids the common extremes of hagiography and vilification that mark many accounts of Rand's schismatic movement. Walker also does a credible job of placing Rand's ideas in the context of philosophies that preceded and followed her, and it offers insightful chapters on three of her major followers: Branden, Leonard Peikoff, and Alan Greenspan. His account is well researched and clearly written, though it is sometimes weighed down by an unsynthesized accumulation of detail. A solid contribution to 20th-century intellectual history.AJulia Burch, MIT Media Lab, Cambridge, MA
Copyright 1999 Reed Business Information, Inc.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 350 pages
• Publisher: Open Court (December 30, 1998)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0812693906
• ISBN-13: 978-0812693904
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 3.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (68 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #691,533 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in this category: (What's this?)

  #22 in

  Books > Biographies & Memoirs > People, A-Z > ( R ) > Rand, Ayn

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

97 of 109 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Who is Jeff Walker?, November 6, 2000

By	Michael Vanier (Pasadena, CA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

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.

42 of 48 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars An OK book, but not scholarly or profound,, March 20, 1999

By	[e-mail] (Florida) - See all my reviews

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

58 of 73 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Ludicrous Parallels, June 11, 2000

By	T. V. Robertson "discot" (Concord, MA United States) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

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.