3 ms·

She certainly didn't waste much time rejecting Hickman's violence there. This is getting a bit silly, I mean, why would she? It's her private diary which she's

by Tycho 16y ago

She certainly didn't waste much time rejecting Hickman's violence there. This is getting a bit silly, I mean, why would she? It's her private diary which she's using to plan works of fiction. She doesn't need to explain to herself that she doesn't condone violence. Secondly, the contention is that Rand thought most people had 'worse sins' than child murder. One could conceivably interpret her sentence to mean that, but I think the only reason anyone has is because Michael Prescott ellipted the quotation in his article. It is vastly more likey that Rand was still speaking generally, and it reads that way more naturally. Thirdly, she does indeed have many (other) negative things to say about the mob in this specific instance, but they are reasonable criticisms. For instance the enthusiasm of the newstand boys crying 'they're going to hang him!' It's when mass-approval crosses the line into unhealthy mass-relishment of a situation. And people coming out of the woodwork to associate themselves with the moral highground. Basically she saw this case, saw the public reaction, and detected something in that reaction which wasn't motivated merely by the crime itself, but the criminal's open defiance of the social order. It inspired her to write a story about someone who also cared nothing for the social order, who wanted his own success above all alse, but was not a phoney or a hypocrit in any way, or a danger to others, and committed a crime for which he was widely hated: not because of the crime itself, but because he refused to acknowledge its wrongfulness. The initial story was never written but you can see the same pattern in The Fountainhead when Roark blows up the housing complex then goes on trial. Rand was not interested in Hickman, but in a parallel to the Hickman story that shared some of the same elements. There were, of course, many, many other murders which Rand wasn't interested in whatsoever.

gnosis 16y ago
"She doesn't need to explain to herself that she doesn't condone violence." Then why did she explain to herself that she condemned the "mob" who was outraged by Hickman's murder? "Secondly, the contention is that Rand thought most people had 'worse sins' than child murder. One could conceivably interpret her sentence to mean that, but I think the only reason anyone has is because Michael Prescott ellipted the quotation in his article. It is vastly more likey that Rand was still speaking generally, and it reads that way more naturally." Even if we take her statement to apply more generally towards "a mob in any great public feeling of a large number of humans" is it really any more excusable? She'd presumably feel the same contempt not only towards those people who expressed outrage at Hickman's murder, but at similar outrage expressed against any murder. "It's when mass-approval crosses the line into unhealthy mass-relishment of a situation. And people coming out of the woodwork to associate themselves with the moral highground." And that "unhealthy mass-relishment" is more worthy of contempt and reproach than Hickman's own crime?
- Tycho 16y ago
  Then why did she explain to herself that she condemned the "mob" who was outraged by Hickman's murder? The outrage of the mob was what she was studying to write her fiction. She is detailing the characteristics and behaviours which she wants to portray - violence/murder was not going to be a part of her story, so she didn't write about it. She'd presumably feel the same contempt not only towards those people who expressed outrage at Hickman's murder, but at similar outrage expressed against any murder. She's not alluding to other murders, but to lesser 'crimes' that provoke a more hypocritical mass-response. Here the public response to Hickman wasn't hypocritical (except for his wife-murdering cellmate), but there were other things she didn't like about it. Let's note that most murders actually don't provoke a mass outrage - people are just quietly glad when the murderer is caught/sentenced. Mind you, Rand's early years probably weren't that far removed from the groutesque spectacle of public executions in front of actual mobs, which I suspect most people now find despicable. And that "unhealthy mass-relishment" is more worthy of contempt and reproach than Hickman's own crime? Again you are forgetting this is a private diary for planning fiction, not an newspaper editorial on a public affair. 'Worthy' has got nothing to do with it. Murders happen all the time. Many books are written about them already. It's not like this would be the first murder ever and that was Rand's response to it. This was a murder case with a difference, and Rand wanted to explore that difference. The question is not 'what is just and fair in this story,' but 'what is interesting in this story?'
  - gnosis 16y ago
    "The outrage of the mob was what she was studying to write her fiction. She is detailing the characteristics and behaviours which she wants to portray - violence/murder was not going to be a part of her story, so she didn't write about it." True. But you can see she had a strong emotional response to the circumstances of the Hickman case. She was really outraged, and ranted about her outrage for pages upon pages upon pages. But her outrage was focused not on Hickman or on the murder he committed, but on those people who were outraged at what Hickman had done. That's what's strange about her reaction. She doesn't seem to be concerned in the least by what Hickman had done. In fact, she idolizes him, and even writes a story in which she turns him in to a hero. And it's not like there weren't plenty of cases of miscarriages of justice in the 20's that she could have been outraged at. Plenty of cases where she could have chosen to idolize and emulate someone who really was heroic. Instead in her journal entry she writes of a child murderer being a hero. You don't find her choice of heroes to be even a bit strange? "She's not alluding to other murders, but to lesser 'crimes' that provoke a more hypocritical mass-response." What makes you think that? By her own words, she's referring to: "a mob in any great public feeling of a large number of humans" That includes public outrage at murders, mass murders, torture, etc. The fact that she alluded to such mobs in relation to the Hickman case proves that she wasn't talking about mobs that form only in response to "lesser" crimes, but rather those of which the public outrage caused by the Hickman case is an example (ie. murder cases). "Rand's early years probably weren't that far removed from the groutesque spectacle of public executions in front of actual mobs, which I suspect most people now find despicable." If she had written about her outrage at the lynching of an innocent black man, I think most people today would agree with her and indeed find such an event despicable. But Hickman was not lynched by a mob (he even got what appears to be a pretty fair trial, especially by the standards of the day), he was not innocent, and he wasn't a member of any persecuted minority. Furthermore, his crime was itself of a particularly despicable sort. The only way Rand could have chosen a worse person to idolize was if she'd chosen a mass murderer or serial killer. In fact, Hickman wasn't really all that far from a serial killer, as there are some indications he'd killed before. "It's not like this would be the first murder ever and that was Rand's response to it." But it was a particularly gruesome murder of a child. You'd think that Rand herself would have been outraged by it. Instead she idolized the perpetrator and had nothing but contempt for those that would dare disparage him.

by Tycho 16y ago

gnosis 16y ago

"She doesn't need to explain to herself that she doesn't condone violence." Then why did she explain to herself that she condemned the "mob" who was outraged by Hickman's murder? "Secondly, the contention is that Rand thought most people had 'worse sins' than child murder. One could conceivably interpret her sentence to mean that, but I think the only reason anyone has is because Michael Prescott ellipted the quotation in his article. It is vastly more likey that Rand was still speaking generally, and it reads that way more naturally." Even if we take her statement to apply more generally towards "a mob in any great public feeling of a large number of humans" is it really any more excusable? She'd presumably feel the same contempt not only towards those people who expressed outrage at Hickman's murder, but at similar outrage expressed against any murder. "It's when mass-approval crosses the line into unhealthy mass-relishment of a situation. And people coming out of the woodwork to associate themselves with the moral highground." And that "unhealthy mass-relishment" is more worthy of contempt and reproach than Hickman's own crime?

Tycho 16y ago
Then why did she explain to herself that she condemned the "mob" who was outraged by Hickman's murder? The outrage of the mob was what she was studying to write her fiction. She is detailing the characteristics and behaviours which she wants to portray - violence/murder was not going to be a part of her story, so she didn't write about it. She'd presumably feel the same contempt not only towards those people who expressed outrage at Hickman's murder, but at similar outrage expressed against any murder. She's not alluding to other murders, but to lesser 'crimes' that provoke a more hypocritical mass-response. Here the public response to Hickman wasn't hypocritical (except for his wife-murdering cellmate), but there were other things she didn't like about it. Let's note that most murders actually don't provoke a mass outrage - people are just quietly glad when the murderer is caught/sentenced. Mind you, Rand's early years probably weren't that far removed from the groutesque spectacle of public executions in front of actual mobs, which I suspect most people now find despicable. And that "unhealthy mass-relishment" is more worthy of contempt and reproach than Hickman's own crime? Again you are forgetting this is a private diary for planning fiction, not an newspaper editorial on a public affair. 'Worthy' has got nothing to do with it. Murders happen all the time. Many books are written about them already. It's not like this would be the first murder ever and that was Rand's response to it. This was a murder case with a difference, and Rand wanted to explore that difference. The question is not 'what is just and fair in this story,' but 'what is interesting in this story?'
- gnosis 16y ago
  "The outrage of the mob was what she was studying to write her fiction. She is detailing the characteristics and behaviours which she wants to portray - violence/murder was not going to be a part of her story, so she didn't write about it." True. But you can see she had a strong emotional response to the circumstances of the Hickman case. She was really outraged, and ranted about her outrage for pages upon pages upon pages. But her outrage was focused not on Hickman or on the murder he committed, but on those people who were outraged at what Hickman had done. That's what's strange about her reaction. She doesn't seem to be concerned in the least by what Hickman had done. In fact, she idolizes him, and even writes a story in which she turns him in to a hero. And it's not like there weren't plenty of cases of miscarriages of justice in the 20's that she could have been outraged at. Plenty of cases where she could have chosen to idolize and emulate someone who really was heroic. Instead in her journal entry she writes of a child murderer being a hero. You don't find her choice of heroes to be even a bit strange? "She's not alluding to other murders, but to lesser 'crimes' that provoke a more hypocritical mass-response." What makes you think that? By her own words, she's referring to: "a mob in any great public feeling of a large number of humans" That includes public outrage at murders, mass murders, torture, etc. The fact that she alluded to such mobs in relation to the Hickman case proves that she wasn't talking about mobs that form only in response to "lesser" crimes, but rather those of which the public outrage caused by the Hickman case is an example (ie. murder cases). "Rand's early years probably weren't that far removed from the groutesque spectacle of public executions in front of actual mobs, which I suspect most people now find despicable." If she had written about her outrage at the lynching of an innocent black man, I think most people today would agree with her and indeed find such an event despicable. But Hickman was not lynched by a mob (he even got what appears to be a pretty fair trial, especially by the standards of the day), he was not innocent, and he wasn't a member of any persecuted minority. Furthermore, his crime was itself of a particularly despicable sort. The only way Rand could have chosen a worse person to idolize was if she'd chosen a mass murderer or serial killer. In fact, Hickman wasn't really all that far from a serial killer, as there are some indications he'd killed before. "It's not like this would be the first murder ever and that was Rand's response to it." But it was a particularly gruesome murder of a child. You'd think that Rand herself would have been outraged by it. Instead she idolized the perpetrator and had nothing but contempt for those that would dare disparage him.