>Any sex in the book?
Huh? The whole book is rape of the reader's every rational sensibility.
>One rebuttal would be nice.
Rowland wants me to note any lie, any lie at all, by Valliant; and then "rebut" it. To note is to rebut. But this request is disingenuous, since he suggests he has read my column and then my posts here.
What about the lie that the disagreement over how Rand picked the name "Rand" is ominously indicative of a larger malevolence on Barbara Branden's part? What about Scott Schiff's observation that per Valliant, if the Brandens disagree about anything in their accounts of Ayn Rand, that proves they're dishonest; and if they agree about anything, that proves they're dishonest? A lie. What about Valliant's claim, noted in my column, that it is highly impossible that Rand's husband, O'Connor, could have been deeply distressed by the affair, even if at times he was able to put it out of his mind? Is Valliant claiming that O'Connor is an alien from outer space? What about all Valliant's lies of commission and omission vis-à-vis Rand's own culpability in the matter? What about Valliant's crediting of the Brandens whenever they report something that supports his own preordained conclusions, and attributing to them the cognitive status of talking parrots whenever they report something that clashes with his preordained conclusions? You've read the book, Rowland. You list the lies yourself. Do I have to do everything?
Look, let's short-circuit all this. You have a copy of the thing. Open it. Let your finger drop at random. Read that sentence. If it's by Valliant, it's a lie, including the words "and" and "the." Figure it out.