5 ms·

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 writ

• 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.
  • Tycho 16y ago
    Why do you keep saying she 'idolized' him? She didn't, she idealized him, which is different. She's drawn to the case because she really liked his statement, 'I'm like the state, what's good for me is right.' From there she plans a story about a character based on his positive traits, but free from his negative ones, his 'degeneracy.' She writes about the mob because the mob will be the antagonist in her story. She doesn't think the member of the mob in this case had 'worse sins' than murder in their own lives (I mean you could interpret it that way, but it's a stretch, plus is uncharacteristically stupid, plus is something Rand would have actually explained if that's what she meant - she's always crystal clear about explaining her beliefs), but nevertheless it's the same 'mob-mentality' at work as found elsewhere. A lynch mob is different, I'm talking about the crowds of people who turned up to see public executions, basically making justice a form of entertainment masquerading as moral superiority. The worst cases would be witch-trials or execution for 'treason', or counterfeiters, or show-trials in Russia. The modern instances would probably be the Enron or Royal Bank of Scotland inquiries, where although there was guilt, one has to say 'give me a fucking break' when all these former-colleagues or regulators line up to wash their hands and denounce the scapegoat. Then you have the 'celebrity speaks out of turn' stories, where people act like nothing they ever say in private is just as bad. All cases have different details, but the argument is that the mob-mentality is somewhat consistent throughout. Once again this is a private diary for planning fiction. It's not 'Ayn Rand's Memoirs, Chapter 6: What I thought of William Hickman.' Or 'Ayn Rand: My Heroes.' Rand is in the process of forumulating a philosophy that eschews collectivism and along comes a prominent news story where she gets a chance to study the mob-mentality in reaction to someone who is not a collectivist whatsoever. Murders are very common, but ones which become huge public spectacles are not. It is not sufficient to ask 'why is the public so outraged?' The question becomes 'why is the public so outraged about this instance, but not others?'