Ayn Rand Smeared Again

MSK: ahem... Speaking of other principals, given the nature of your book, I can see why you did not interview Barbara or Nathaniel in your research for it. That would be a bit sticky.

Did you interview any of the members still living of the Collective?

I do not believe it would have been at all sticky to interview NB. I don't believe I am talking out of school when I say that, some time ago, I wrote Dr. Branden and asked him if he would have accepted a request to be interviewed, seeing as he is one of the existing principals. He said he most certainly would have. He also indicated that he had not received such a request.

That much, I know for sure. I asked many times for an answer as to why the request was not made. If objectivity was important, then it seems like a no brainer that that would have been done.

best,
rde

(Edited by Rich Engle on 9/22, 7:48am)

Post 401

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 8:04am

I see that Nathaniel Branden has now shamelessly put his "In Answer to Ayn Rand" statement back on his website. To anyone who has read PARC, this will no doubt cause a gag reflex. (Get me a bucket.)

Post 402

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 8:18am

Following up on Engle, #400: A few years ago Branden mentioned being interviewed for an oral history project at ARI. If this interview came off, did Valliant listen to it?

Peter

Post 403

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 8:42am

James,

Ah, the "flaw" thing. It seems that we must very carefully justify our "good faith" in asking questions by announcing that we "have never held Rand to be without flaw."

If this were a simple matter of pock marks on her skin, or a crooked nose, or that she occasionally wore a slip that showed below her hemline, we would not be making such statements.

If it were merely a matter of something that annoys us, like our wives interrupting or our husband's bad manners at table or the tone of righteous indignation that we could possibly like Beethoven or Bach, we would no more consider them worthy of public discussion than we do, hopefully, of any of the other people we love. All of these are, with Rand as well as those close to us, matters best left to the "exception - making" mentioned in The Fountainhead. If we love someone, they hardly count as "flaws."

If it is a matter of a person jumping to conclusions, getting angry at perceived attacks, or pointing out that possibly the questioner doesn't know the full implications of her question, or maybe hasn't read your book, we count this as a "flaw" worthy of comment and means of justification for the good faith of our questions. Why? I have yet to find a rational, objective, let alone Objectivist answer to that question. In my judgment they are matters of style, not substance. A person's style is their style and if they are otherwise worthy on substantive grounds, one can, in most cases, deal with it, or remove oneself from its proximity, without getting into the flaw-mongering business.

The same can be said for the over-bearing, dictatorial, opinionated and generally unskilled people that inhabit the planet. I am thinking, for example, of Jim from last night's Apprentice with Martha Stewart. What an ass. Is this what we mean by "flaw?" And is it alleged that Rand displayed this sort of hubristic nonsense?

What then are substantive flaws, flaws worthy of condemnation, flaws that stand the test of an Objectivist standard? I have spent in the past, but won't in the future, a great deal of time and thought trying to come to terms with that question on this site.My conclusion is that none of these substantive flaws -- evasion, lack of integrity, dishonesty, lack of productiveness, humility, second-handedness, injustice -- were part of Ayn Rand's character. Indeed, so lacking in them was she that her consistent application of them sometimes annoyed her detractors. She was so just that she saw through inappropriate questions, so honest that she openly asked for the consent of the interested parties to an affair, so integrated that she refused to accept unearned guilt.

Is this the kind of flaw you "have never held Rand to be without?" I don't think so, quite honestly. So why do you feel compelled to justify your questions in this way?

And if you do think she is flawed in a substantive way, which? Since I count you among the rational I know you won't just make a claim without explanation.

Thanks for any time you want to take.

Tom

Post 404

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 8:58am

Readers of my book know that there is more than enough evidence to support my conclusions about the Brandens' credibility already available from merely reading their own books. And, with that lack of credibility so well established, it made little sense to go back over material already repeatedly covered by individuals with their demonstrated agendas.

The Brandens' books have been out for many years. They have both been interviewed extensively about them. Mr. Branden has even provided us with a revised edition of his memoir. It was not a lack of clarity or any open questions with which I was dealing, but material gone over for the umpeenth time.

I have enjoyed numerous conversations about Rand with many who knew her well over the years, from Martin Anderson to Murray Rothbard. This has dramatically supplemented my own knowledge of Rand --and the same can be said of the many published and unpublished interviews of those who knew Rand conducted by others which are also now available. I have also been fascinated by the Rand biographical interviews that the Brandens recorded in the early '60s. I have also seen material at the Ayn Rand Archive that could supply juice for books to come. I have also been refused interviews, only one of which I mentioned in the footnotes.

But the reason that all of this material went entirely unused or mentioned in the book is, once again, at the risk of being repetitive, that this is not a biography of Rand or anyone else.

To come to conclusions about the life of Rand would require the coordination of evidence from many, many sources. My goal was much simpler: an evaluation of the credibility of the Brandens' biographical works.

Most importantly, what is capable of being corroborated (one way or another) in the material which is distinctive to the Brandens' accounts already has been, and there was little that was in need of corroboration (again, one way or another) from their books-- except the material that cannot be corroborated due to their use of unnamed sources, or because they involve very private conversations with Rand which no one else could be in position to corroborate in any event.

Post 405

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 9:48am

James,

I merely asked the following question:

Did you interview any of the members still living of the Collective?

Non-answer again.

Michael

Post 406

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 10:03am

Tom,

I think your post is a very important one. The straw man most often used by the Branden supporters is that Rand was not "perfect" or a "goddess," hence the view that she was without flaw, of the substantive kind to which you refer, suddenly becomes a claim that she was "perfect" or a "goddess." I think she was without the kind of substantive "flaw" you correctly define, and I think the rhetorical trap of having to admit she was not "perfect" on some god-like standard unfairly forces the position of "not without flaw" in a way that does not apply to mortals in general. In one sense the standard of "perfection" held up by the Branden supporters is inhuman to begin with (god-like) and thus unfair to hold up to ANY human being. By that standard we are all "flawed." But it is a sick standard that is, at root, anti-human, and demands that all humans be considered "flawed" no matter how morally scrupulous they may be. I think you are dead right to point this out. Thanks.

Post 407

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 10:49am

That�s all fine as presented, guys. So don�t jump through mental hoops to deny small flaws. Jim, in our email exchange, did exactly that in order to avoid the plain conclusion to be drawn from her �No one helped me� statement. He defined help upwards so that all the things we normally call help no longer are help and her statement preserved without implication of flaw.

A few posts ago Jim insisted that text has plain meaning and it�s fraud to reinterpret it. Yet reinterpret is what he did to her words in our exchange. He literally rewrote her words in �About the Author�, to explain to me what she *really* meant. But we can just read it and see what she *really wrote*. And what she really wrote indicates some conceit.

Make the important/unimportant flaw distinction all you wish. What I observe is that Jim will do anything, including rewriting Rand�s words so I understand what she really meant to write, in order to preserve Rand�s flawlessness, even in silly cases. This betrays a bias and indicates an agenda that damages his credibility with me. Any fantasy about paint in bottles to avoid that Frank emptied some bottles. And it *is* total fantasy. The maid didn�t find bottles with something in them, she found *empty* bottles. And he has the gall to say in another post that he never entertains any speculation absent evidence! And of course, the opposite MO applies to the Brandens. Zero speculation into alternative explanations for their errors, contradictions�just straight away to dishonesty and malice.

Jon

Post 408

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 11:02am

Michael,

James is fully capable of answering your post, but on my reading, he said

"NO, because..." and gave very detailed list of interviews personally made, listened to and accessed plus, much more importantly to whatever the hell your agenda is, some very valid reasons for questioning the importance of your question to the content or conclusions of his book.

You seem to be a collector of trivial complaints. And that is a trivial pursuit.

So, the answer is no (I think). SO?

Tom

Post 409

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 11:08am

Jon,

There is a whole section in PARC devoted to the point you're trying to make. It is an ABSURD distortion (another one by the Brandens) that Rand was claiming to have had no help in the sense Branden asserts. Valliant exhaustively catalogs all of the public expressions of gratitude for help Rand explicitly made during her lifetime. In the context of the book that statement was written in, it is OBVIOUS that the "help" she is referring to is the altruistic kind of help that is the topic of Rand's novel. The Branden's take this statement out of the important context to make a point about Rand that is contradicted by Rand to such a degree that she makes most people look like ingrates by comparison. She COULD NOT have meant "help" in the sense the Brandens are implying. This is another example of the Brandens twisting the truth to find a flaw in Rand that simply did not exist. Read PARC -- there are plenty of used copies available if you don't want Mr. Valliant to make any money.

Post 410

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 5:30am

Ciro, that you read the book makes this even worse. I guess you better not believe anything a friend, lover or business associate tells you because if they're lying that will prove they are smarter than you are. Eh?

Dear Casey, if they are able to do that for eighteen years, then yes! they are smarter than me.

Post 411

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 11:26am

And how many �About the Author� pieces have you read that are in the first person? She wrote her own �About the Author�! Conceit.

Casey, I also reject the altruistic help assertion. For example, her relatives in Chicago. Sounds like she was a real pain in the ass for them, actually. She had to have known that the net benefit was to her, not to them. They did it out of duty, and she had to know that or she could have been with any family, showering them with the net benefit or having her mouth around to feed. She acknowledged as much when she promised a fancy automobile for them once she was rich.

I have the book, but can�t say I�ve �read it�, as I�ve read only sections. I will read it start to end, but I doubt that will change my views. Of course, if it does, I�ll say so then.

Jon

Post 412

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 11:28am

That�s a great point, Ciro. Acceptance that N. Branden is half the creature he is painted to be, we are forced to conclude that Rand, after more than a decade, must have been some kind of moron.

Jon

Post 413

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 9:55am

Well I'm glad Michael Kelly has come around to the idea that Barbara makes things up. James your writing a book on the Brandens books, you have to interview her so you can get the latest version of the facts in her book, maybe some more unnamed dead sources have come forward.

Post 414

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 11:05am

Mr. Valliant I am sorry if I do not answer you questions any sooner, the reason is that I am still under moderation. I really do not understand why people are put under moderation.
Wouldn't it be much easier to say Hey dude! We do not want you to defend here on solo, those who are not welcome anymore. I personally never indented to offend any one by defending Barbara. If I did offend Linz, I would like to know how, and when.
I personally think that it is an injustice keeping me still under moderation.

Anyhow, to return to what we were discussing this is my answer to why Ayn Rand contradicted romantic love, and integrity.

No man is inherently great. It is the exercise of those powers, which are his, that makes him so. Ayn Rand had those powers, she is the creator of objectivism, but in this particular case with the Brandens, look how she applied her powers. She made the mistake to see things outside their true relationship. This is one of the principal human faults, which paves the road to evil. If happiness is a state of mind which proceeds after achieving a value, that implies also that we must be responsible and have an obligation to preserve that which we value, right? Well, I don't think Ayn Rand gave a damn about preserving her top value "Frank."
Or did she not consider him to be her top value any more?

She turned her attention instead on a young man 25 years her junior poisoning his mind by calling him a genius before she could take him in bed.? Do you call this integrity? I call it insanity!
And in addition to that she was careless of Barbara's feelings. She used her powers to justify her evilness by alleviating Barbara�s pain by telling her that lesser people
would not accept such an affair between her and Nathaniel. But they were not lesser people she says. B.S. For her to call others lesser people did not justify her depravation.
The entire affair was a mental sexual orgy, imposed on the participants by manipulating
their mind.
Is this what you call romantic love Mr. Valliant?

(

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 9/22, 12:06pm)

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 9/22, 12:07pm)

Post 415

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 11:32am

MSK,

The answer was there, as Tom could see, but, since you seem to require greater simplicity: no, I did not re-interview the Brandens for my book. It would have been utterly senseless and repetitive. And, once again, there are very few conclusions drawn about Ayn Rand at all in my book. My conclusions are about the Brandens' books on Ayn Rand. This involves an entirely different kind of research.

Jon,

You were so turned-off by the project, you will recall, that when I expressed a desire to incorporate your suggestions (a couple of which I did anyway), you refused any credit and expressed a desire to provide me no further assistance. You also expressed such a negative view of the project, I concluded that further discussion would be equally senseless.

Did I get the wrong impression?

Post 416

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 11:51am

Casey,

You read me exactly. Thank you for your kind words.

Jon,

I've forgotten the source of the "Nobody helped me" so I can't comment on its context. But I do read it in the same way I read "I have no hobbies" in her "A Letter from Ayn Rand to the Readers of The Fountainhead" (1945), reprinted as an appendix to the Letters. Later, of course, she wrote about collecting stamps.

I also read it in the context of this acknowledgement from The Fountainhead

"I offer my profound gratitude to..the architects who gave me their generous assistance."

And in the context of the many letters of thanks she wrote to her family in Chicago and her efforts to return their help.

I also read "justifiable pride" where you read "conceit" and others might read "arrogance" or "hubristic nonsense." If these be flaws in any substantive sense -- in any sense that matters -- make the most of it. If not, I question the very idea that they are flaws.

Tom

Post 417

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 11:58am

Ciro,

Since you have read my book, there is nothing more that I can say that will prevent your continued uncritical reliance on the Brandens' self-serving accounts -- even regarding private events that cannot be corroborated. You also make assumptions about "top values" that are neither part of Objectivism nor, in my view, part of the truth, e.g., that in every human context there can be only one "top romantic value," or that this must necessarily lead to terrible pain.

I have demonstrated that the Brandens' empty and contradictory portraits on these very matters cannot be accepted at face value.

Whatever the truth of the "pain" caused by this situation -- and the "evidence" provided by the Brandens themselves is hardly as simple as you seem to suppose -- Ms. Branden and O'Connor were treated honestly by Rand. They had feet able to walk out the door at any time. We are all responsible for our own happiness. The manipulation of Mr. Branden's multi-year deceptions, however, belongs in another category altogether, for it was a form of coercion, as Branden himself long understood, depriving the other adults in the situation that same choice.

And, Jon, you might be surprised at how many authors write their own "About the Author." I cannot claim to be the sole author of mine, but I did insist on including the names of my two small dogs. Rand's "conceit," in that sense, was a form of honesty, and one her publisher joined.

(Edited by James S. Valliant
on 9/22, 12:07pm)

Post 418

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 12:08pm

Casey,

You responded to a simple question about legitimate, responsible criticisms of Ayn Rand's ideas with a counterquestion--does the questioner think that ad hominem criticism is OK?

The implications of that kind of move are clear.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier, and more effective in this kind of discussion, to identify an example of a legitimate or responsible criticism of Rand? (It does not have to be a criticism that you agree with--just one that you believe is the product of an honest effort to understand and evaluate her ideas.)

Robert Campbell

Post 419

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 12:19pm