Over on OL, George Smith had a post which nicely summed up Rand’s taking creative inspiration from Hickman’s demeanor after he had been caught:
http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8330&p=94754
And the rest of that thread is interesting as well. Lots of good observations.
J
I will start to take a look at that thread. What I read so far, some of it I didn’t know Rand said before, like society being the cause, and her character, Danny, being a shooter.
As far as I can tell, Rand’s fascination with Hickman had nothing to do with his “horrible crime” per se. Rather she was interested (1) in how Hickman, a boy with great potential, became the “purposeless monster” that he did; and (2) in the psychological implications of Hickman’s thumbing his nose at society after his crime.
(1) It is rather strange, given Rand’s later views, that the young Rand blamed society for transforming Hickman into a monster, but that was basically her point. She writes (38-9):
“Yes, he is a monster—now. But the worse he is, the worst must be the cause that drove him to this. Isn’t it significant that society was not able to fill the life of an exceptional, intelligent boy, to give him anything to outbalance crime in his eyes? If society is horrified at his crime, it should be horrified at the crime’s ultimate cause: itself. The worse the crime—the greater its guilt. What could society answer, if that boy were to say: “Yes, I’m a monstrous criminal, but what are you?””
Rand continues with an important comment (39), part of which I quoted in a previous post:
“This is what I think of the case. I am afraid that I idealize Hickman and that he might not be this at all. In fact, he probably isn’t. But it does not make any difference. If he isn’t, he could be, and that’s enough. The reaction of society would be the same, if not worse, toward the Hickman I have in mind. This case showed me how society can wreck an exceptional being, and then murder him for being the wreck that it itself has created. This will be the story of the boy in my book.”
(2) Rand’s exp<b></b>ressions of admiration for Hickman are confined to his behavior after he had committed his crime – something I characterized above as thumbing his nose at society. The following excerpt is typical:
“There is a lot that is purposelessly, senselessly horrible about him. But that does not interest me. I want to remember his actions and characteristics that will be useful for the boy in my story. His limitless daring and his frightful sense of humor, e.g., when he was playing the Victrola while policemen searched his apartment and he offered to help, asking if he could do anything for them. His calm, defiant attitude at the trial. His deliberate smiling when posing for photographs after the sentence. His hard, cynical attitude toward everything, as shown in the little detail that he expressed his feelings after the sentence by saying one obscene word.”
Rand was clearly abstracting specific features of Hickman’s psychology that might prove useful in developing her fictional character, Danny. And Danny, we should keep in mind, was also going to be portrayed as someone who had savagely murdered an innocent person (his pastor)in cold blood. Here is how Rand (47) sketched the murder:
“When Danny kills the pastor, he shoots him straight in the face, mad with loathing and the desire to destroy him. He then shoots the rest of the bullets into the body, in his hatred and fury to kill. After that—no regrets, no remorse whatsoever. A clever and calm scheme to escape. He is found and arrested only through the betrayal of a friend.”
Given this depiction, I think it is clear that Danny was not going to be portrayed as a heroic character. Rather, in her extraordinarily dark account of “The Little Street” – a metaphor for society at large – Rand was going to indict the mediocrities who would not tolerate the independent spirit that Danny displayed from an early age. Danny, like Hickman, was destined to be either very great or very evil, and the society he grew up in left him no realistic choice except the latter.
It seems to me that Rand’s analysis is more sociological than moral (though there is obviously a moral component). Indeed, at one point, she says something to the effect that she wants to view “The Little Street” from the outside, as a dispassionate observer. In other words, Rand was primarily interested in the sociological factors that can turn a young person with great potential into a “purposeless monster.”
Such is my take on the infamous Rand/Hickman connection
Looking at Hickmans motive which he claims was for money for Bible College, could also be perhaps as revenge against Parker for having turned him in for forging and did time for it, and/or for notoriety, as such, like a fame motive. Also, wasn’t Danny going to be a hero in her story?
To bring this back around to Casey, was it her behavior during the 31days what got to people the most when they speculated on what happened to Caylee? Isn’t Casey largely being villianized for people’s own speculations about what they feel or think happened? Her tarot, her new life, her INDEPENDENCE? Rand mentioned independence in regards to Hickman. Couldn’t that be applied to Casey?
Also they sought the death penalty, and she’s had death threats, people wanting to murder something they created in their own minds of what they think she did? Rand said “murder [her] for being the wreck that it itself has created.” They would be doing that in one sense. Rand meant it in another though.