Why does this keep coming up as an issue? She was a vulgar, crude, ugly, grandiose and cruel person. Who she was doesn't really have much to do with what she created.
If we conservatives insisted on our artists being decent people...well, then we'd have no art at all.
“She was a vulgar, crude, ugly, grandiose and cruel person. Who she was doesn’t really have much to do with what she created.”
I too enjoyed her writing. But I don’t think her personal life is entirely irrelevant. She advocated living by a personal code that is challenging to live by at best (illustrated repeatedly in the strongly negative reactions of “everyday” people to uncompromising characters such as Galt and Roark). That she herself failed to live up to those ideals and/or that they caused great emotional anguish amongst people she viewed as her best friends is evidence that should have lead any rational Objectivist to “check their premises.”
It’s difficult to picture Galt or Roark relying on diet pills rather than self-discipline to maintain their weight (as one illustration). Likewise, it’s hard to argue the case that her affair with Nathaniel Branden—conducted (at her insistence) in full view of both of their spouses—was psychologically “healthy” or worthy of emulation. Again, had they been married, I can’t picture Galt or Roark browbeating their partners into a similar arrangement. And I have to concur with David Kelley’s view that benevolence unfortunately played too little role in the brand of Objectivism preached by Rand herself.