|Just to make my own point absolutely clear, I do not think Ayn Rand was a putz nor was she a fraud. The only way to get to those conclusions is to accept the premise that Nathaniel was all bad, for ever and ever amen, with no redeeming value whatsoever, pure bastard through and through and a despicable dirty rotten scoundrel to the core ever since he was born.|
IF THAT WERE TRUE and Ayn Rand loved him for years, hmmmmm... well - she's gotta be a world-class putz or fraud then.
But here is what I really believe. I believe that she fell in love with a very great young man named Nathaniel Branden. His later achievements prove this to be true. I also believe that he reacted piss-poorly to the situation - made some terrible choices. But who hasn't with possessive people? He was young and inexperienced with this side of human nature. She appeared to be naive about these things too. Talking and writing about it is one thing. Living it is another. They both screwed up big time. That's what I believe.
Anyone now want to say that Ayn Rand was never possessive, never jealous, never petty, never unduly mean and sarcastic, never grumpy, never anything demeaning at all - ever - not once - not even for one second in her entire life? Gimme a break!
She was greater than that. She rose above her social environment and her own mood changes and human condition enough to create the magnificent works she did. And she did the business end well enough to let her works have a shot at becoming bestsellers - which they did, thus help transform the world. That is her greatness. Not the "perfect" 24/7 robot thing.
I find that "perfect" 24/7 robot view of her - propounded by Valliant and others, to be disgusting and such a serious breach of reality as to make me 100% sure that their motives are anything but understanding truth. They are spiritual midgets to me. Cattle. Fanatics. Losers cashing in on a great author and philosopher.
That is what particularly galls me about Valliant's book. He uses Rand's previously unpublished work and turned it into a fiasco in every sense possible. Her work is used to make Nazi-type propaganda against the Brandens, propound that Ayn Rand was a type of robotic human being who had no human nature, thus demean her actual achievement in life, insinuate that Rand was a putz or a fraud (if his premise is taken to its logical conclusion), made a publishing strategy based on ignoring the essence of Rand's previous policies (now resulting in pathetic sales), ergggggghhh...
I could go on. But the worst thing of all is that he has involved Ayn Rand's name in a blatant case of breaking the law. In my view he has committed libel and this should be corrected as soon as possible. Objectivism and Ayn Rand have always been honorable - now they are being turned into grist for a propaganda mill and breaking the law. (And laying an egg in public publishing-wise.) A terrible precedent has been established here.
Note to Barbara - See what happens when you can't resist bait? The issue you mention gets completely sidestepped and then you are attacked. Don't bother. There are those who love you, who admire your integrity and know you have a magnificent soul out here. We most definitely can take care of the small fry.