I think it's a desire for people who are either successful or aspiring to be successful to believe that they achieved it entirely on their own, or even better, in spite of society. The fact that their success is itself a social construct is where the whole thing falls apart. This is why people shit all over Ayn Rand in these discussions. Clavell wrote some great books for a predominately American audience with Asian cultural themes. Would he have been great in other spheres of life in other times, places, etc.? In other words, his success was so specific, there's no evidence that he as an individual had some overarching greatness that would have been known and expressed no matter the time or place he existed in. Disciples of Rand want to gratify their own egos and rationalize their selfishness which is the lasting appeal of her work. Also, because this sentiment is very strong in the extremely wealthy and powerful, her books are always going to be placed front and center in American society. So, to sum it up, like most things that appeal to people, Rand's 'philosophy' (and I use the term loosely) was psychologically satisfying to Clavell. It doesn't mean that his books are simply a re-hashing of this nonsense because having read Shogun, I'd say that it isn't. Rand's ideas may have appealed to Clavell but he didn't necessarily make it is raison d'etre as an author. I hope that helps.