The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism, Part IV


Neil Parille

Recommended Posts

The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism, Part IV

by Neil Parille

In Chapter five of The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics (“PARC”), James Valliant discusses Frank O’Connor, Ayn Rand’s marriage with O’Connor, and the effect of the affair with Nathaniel Branden on O’Connor. Valliant takes aim at the most controversial claim in The Passion of Ayn Rand (“PAR”) -- Barbara Branden’s contention that Rand’s affair with Branden led O’Connor to consume alcohol excessively.

Mistakes Big and Small

This chapter contains more of what we’ve come to expect from Valliant’s work: numerous misrepresentations of the Brandens’ books. For example, on page 138 Valliant implies that attendees at the NBI lectures guessed there was an affair. But in the page quoted in Judgment Day (“JD”), Branden says “[o]ur students would listen as if we were discussing life on another planet, and I wondered . . . they don’t hear . . .?” (JD, p. 345.) Branden is saying the opposite. On page 139 Valliant quotes Nathaniel Branden on Rand, “she was still reticent about the resurrection of the affair” as proof that he was making sexual advances to Rand in 1967 and 1968. I don’t get that impression from the context. It concerns Rand’s attitude, not Branden’s.

Another misrepresentation concerns the question of whether Rand could accept that her age was a barrier to a resumption of the affair in 1968. As Valliant tells us, Rand was sincere about Branden’s concern about the “age issue” and gave him a number of “outs” about it. According to Valliant, Branden refused, at most giving “’non-verbal’ signals” to Rand “which . . . he does not specify.” (PARC, p. 140.) (Incidentally, in the pages cited by Valliant, the words “non-verbal” and “signal” do not appear.)

Perhaps it is best to quote what Branden says in full, and underline the sections that Valliant quotes in his book (the italics are in the original Judgment Day).

“Tell me what’s wrong. If I ask, you say you love me, and sometimes you act like a man in love, but there’s no consistency to anything you do. If our romance is over, say so.” When I made the most tentative moves in that direction, she would immediately respond with an explosion of wrath her would last for hours.

During calmer times she would say, “Is it my age? I could accept that.”

No, you couldn’t. I tried to tell you more than once, and even the hint sent you through the roof. How can I say to you, “Yes, you’re too old for me. I can’t go to bed with you anymore”? “It’s more exact to say that I would like the chance to build a life with someone who is a contemporary and with whom I could have a complete relationship.”

“Where will you find a contemporary who is my equal?”

“You have no equals at any age.” Is love only a contest of philosophical grandeur? (JD, p. 371; PARC, p. 140.)

Contrary to the impression created by Valliant, Nathaniel Branden thought he made it sufficiently clear to Rand that her age was a barrier to a continued relationship.

Valliant quotes Barbara Branden, “Ms. Branden even tells us that she asked Branden at the time of the break what he did not take advantage, over the years, of the ‘outs’ Ayn offered you about the issue of her age.” (PARC, p. 140.) However, read in context, Barbara Branden seems to agree with Nathaniel Branden that Rand’s protestations that age was a legitimate barrier to a continued sexual relationship were not sincere. (PAR, pp. 340-41.)

In a later chapter, Valliant makes much of the claim that Rand allegedly writes in her journal that she would not object to Branden ending their relationship because of her age. (PARC, pp. 194-98.) A review of these passages indicates that they are substantially more ambiguous than Valliant makes them out to be. In any event, when Branden did send Rand a letter explaining in detail how the difference in age made it impossible for him to continue with a sexual relationship, Rand spent significant time in her journal discussing it (PARC, pp. 311-49) and, of course, denounced the letter viciously in “To Whom It May Concern.”

Into the Void

Early in this chapter Valliant states that, according to the Brandens, “O’Connor was a void of a human being—a void into which he poured alcohol and grief.” (PARC, p. 147.) Putting aside the question of Frank’s consumption of alcohol (which I will discuss later), it is certainly unfair to claim that the Brandens describe him as a “void of a human being.” Their discussion of O’Connor is quite favorable. Indeed, most of the positive things Valliant relates about O’Connor come from the Brandens’ books.

Rand’s Marriage a Fraud?

In PARC, Valliant claims that “If we are to take the Brandens’ word for it, the O’Connors’ marriage was an empty fraud. For Rand, it was maintained by her fantasy-like projection of O’Connor. For O’Connor, this supposed financial dependence serves to explain what is otherwise inexplicable to the Brandens—O’Connor’s staying by Rand’s side.” (PARC, p. 152.) On SoloPassion on July 10, 2008, Valliant claimed that Barbara Branden describes the O’Connors’ marriage as “something of a fraud . . . .”

As Ms. Branden describes it, Mr. [William] Scherk, the O'Connor marriage was something of a fraud from the start -- built as it was on Rand's fantasy-like projection of a hero who embodied her distinctive values, not the reality of O'Connor, if we are to believe her. By the 1940s, it is suggested that the fraud was wearing thin -- Rand was allegedly becoming frustrated with a lack of intellectual communication. Of course, there is evidence which contradicts this portrait of a troubled marriage in the 1940s or a lack of intellectual communication -- as PARC notes. In any case, when did Ms. Branden ever say that the marriage become honest or solid thereafter? She implies that the friction had settled -- but does she ever suggest that the O'Connor marriage "got real"? (As PARC also makes quite clear, the nature of the relationship between the O'Connors carried a element of mystery for the Brandens -- note the title of the chapter.)

However, neither of the Brandens describes Rand’s marriage as a “fraud” or anything like it. It is true that the Brandens contend that Rand projected certain qualities on O’Connor that he didn’t possess (and they seem accurate in this conclusion). But this is a far cry from claiming that their marriage was “built . . . on” (much less sustained for fifty years by) Rand’s projection. Both mention the sincere love and affection that existed between the two. Like most marriages, the O’Connors’ had its up and downs. Rand probably wouldn’t have embarked on the affair with Branden if she was completely satisfied with Frank as a husband. It is not hard to believe that in such an unusual marriage one or both of the parties would consider divorce. Even Valliant concedes, "[w]hether they were always truly happy together, especially in light of Rand's affair, can be questioned . . . ." (PARC, p. 157.)

Turning to Valliant’s recent claim that Barbara Branden never describes the O’Connor’s marriage as “becom[ing] honest or solid thereafter [e.g., after the 1940s],” this begs the question of whether Valliant’s description of PAR is correct. In any event, it is rather incredible that Valliant missed this moving description of their marriage post-1968:

Ayn had turned once more to Frank, seeking the special comfort that he alone could give her. He was the one man who had never betrayed her, who had always stood by her, who was her ally and her support through all the triumphs and traumas of her life. It appears that now, at last, she began to truly love the man she had married—or perhaps, to accept the fact that she always had loved him, loved him as he was and as he had been . . . . Without the words to name it, he [Frank] had always accepted and revered her as no one else had ever done, and the personal rejections of a lifetime made his understanding and acceptance more valuable to her than they had ever been before. She clung to him, hating to have him out of her sight . . . . It was the relationship that was the most purely emotional of her life which gave her, in the end, the most satisfaction. (PAR, pp. 364-65.)

As to Valliant’s final contention that “[f]or O’Connor, this supposed financial dependence serves to explain what is otherwise inexplicable to the Brandens—O’Connor’s staying by Rand’s side . . . .,” this is another misrepresentation.

First, only Barbara Branden mentions the possible financial reason Frank had for remaining with Rand. As is typical, Valliant has attributed something to both Brandens which is stated only by one.

Second, Barbara Branden does not say that financial concerns were the reason why O’Connor stayed with Rand for fifty years. Branden says that Frank once told her that he wanted to leave Rand, "'But where would I go? . . . What would I do? . . .'" Branden interprets this as, in part at least, a concern for how Frank would support himself after a divorce. (PAR, p. 263.) She does not claim that this was the determining factor in Frank’s remaining with Rand for the entire length of the marriage.

Third, while the Brandens do find a certain “mystery” in Rand’s and O’Connor’s love for each other, it is a stretch to say that they found Frank’s staying with Rand for fifty years “inexplicable.”

Troubles in the Forties

Barbara Branden reports that the O’Connors’ marriage was in such trouble in the forties due to the lack of intellectual communication that Rand considered divorce. Contrary to Valliant, there is little evidence that undercuts this. Valliant does not cite a single report of any “intellectual communication” between Rand and O’Connor, or between O’Connor and someone else. When asked post-PARC about the opinion that members of Rand’s inner circle had of Frank’s intellectual abilities, the most Valliant was willing to report is a claim by Leonard Peikoff that O’Connor was “no dummy.” Branden’s contention that the O’Connors’ marriage was troubled due to a lack of intellectual communication is believable.

The once piece of evidence which Valliant can point to support a contrary inference is a letter from Rand to Archibald Ogden in 1949 in which Rand wrote that O'Connor was a "severe critic" and that he "refused to see that it [Atlas Shrugged] was bigger in scope and scale than The Fountainhead." (PARC, p. 161.) The former is rather nebulous and it's hard to see what to make of it unless we are given some examples. The latter is not evidence, knowing Rand's frustration that people were slow to understand her ideas.

There is evidence which rebuts Valliant’s claim that there was sufficient intellectual communication between Rand and O’Connor. The first piece of evidence is the affair with Nathaniel Branden. Part of the reason for the affair was likely Rand's belief that Nathaniel provided her with an intellectual relationship that was lacking. Leonard Peikoff says in the Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life documentary that Rand embarked on the affair with Branden because she needed more than Frank could offer intellectually. I don't find it hard to believe that if Rand embarked an extra-marital affair for such a reason, she might also have considered divorce for the same reason.

The second piece of evidence is the following account from PAR itself, which indicates that Rand turned to Frank’s brother Nick for intellectual “feedback”:

Ayn's two mainstays during that hectic year [1942] were Frank and Nick [Frank's brother] . . . Nick, because she could discuss the book with him, know[ing] that she was understood. . . . As always, Ayn first read her longhand drafts [of The Fountainhead] aloud to Frank, then edited and typed it, it was Nick to whom she showed it for his criticism or approval.

"I'd be dozing on and off, late at night," Mimi [sutton] recalled, "and Nick would come in. She'd read to him, and they would talk for hours. . . .” (PAR, p. 172.)

Mimi Sutton was Frank's niece. She was never part of Rand's inner circle and never had a falling out with her. (In fact, she spoke to Rand shortly before her death.)

Frank O’Connor’s Consumption of Alcohol

The most sensational charge in The Passion of Ayn Rand was Barbara Branden’s claim that the affair led to Frank consuming excessive quantities of alcohol. As Branden tells it:

Frank had always enjoyed a drink or two in the evening—his powerful martinis were guaranteed to elicit gaps as the first sip by an unsuspecting guest—but now his drinking began to be a way of life, an escape from an intolerable reality.

A friend of Frank’s—now a recovered alcoholic—who sometimes joined him for the drink or two which became three and four and five and more, was convinced that Frank was an alcoholic. None of the friends Frank shared with Ayn were aware, during these years, that he drank to excess. But much later, his drinking was to become a painful and explosive source of friction between Ayn and Frank. (PARC, pp. 272-73.)

This “recovered alcoholic” was identified by Barbara Branden in 2006 as Don Ventura, a sculptor. According to Branden, she has a letter containing Ventura’s statement. I have not seen this letter, so I can’t comment on the substance of it, but I find no reason to doubt that Ventura was an acquaintance of O’Connor’s and knew him well enough to comment on his drinking habits. Valliant’s surmise that that such a witness didn’t exist (PARC, pp. 142-43) is without merit.

Concerning O’Connor’s drinking in later years, this appears well-documented. Branden has the statements of Elayne Kalberman, Barbara Weiss and Eloise Huggins. Kalberman and Weiss report that O’Connor drank excessively. Huggins was Rand’s housekeeper who in PAR is reported to have found empty bottles “each week” in O’Connor’s studio. (PAR, p. 366.) Valliant argues that Rand’s housekeeper was unhappy with what Branden reported about her. Valliant’s only evidence for this is a statement by Leonard Peikoff reporting that Huggins allegedly took issue with Branden’s characterization of her statement. (PARC, p. 144.) It is also the case that in his later years O’Connor suffered from senility and that this may have caused or exacerbated any excessive consumption of alcohol. One can only hope that all parties will release, to the extent confidentiality requirements permit, witness statements and interviews. My tentative conclusion is that O’Connor did consume alcohol excessively in his later years, and probably earlier.

Frank O’Connor the Hero

Both Nathaniel and Barbara Branden write that Rand praised O’Connor’s abilities beyond what they were in reality. Valliant’s response to such claims is that Rand, in praising O’Connor as a “hero,” was only praising his values and not implying that he had the intelligence, abilities and ambition of Randian heroes such as Howard Roark and John Galt. He says:

Ms. Branden writes, " . . . the man [Rand] spoke of in such extravagant terms had little to do with the real human being who was Frank." Ms. Branden does not tell us exactly what those "extravagant terms" were apart from the following, solitary example: "I could only love a hero," because "[f]emininity is hero-worship." (PARC, pp. 157-58.)

This is another misrepresentation of what Barbara Branden says. She says:

Yet the friends who knew them most intimately were to agree that the man Ayn spoke of in such extravagant terms had little to do with the real human being who was Frank. As they listened to her praise his intelligence, his insights, his philosophical and psychological perceptiveness, they were often embarrassed—as Frank, too, appeared to be—by the nature of the compliments. (PAR, p. 88.)

Branden does give more than one, solitary example. Whether Rand’s comment that “[a]ll my heroes will always be reflections of Frank” (PARC, p. 158) does not contain at least a tinge of exaggeration, I leave to others to decide.

Roll Up Your Sleeves

During our debate on some of these questions, Valliant chided me on an alleged failure to do a “roll-up-your-sleeves” type investigation which seeks out all the available evidence. Such a charge is unfair given that I am willing to travel to the Ayn Rand Archives in California to see if Valliant’s claims can be verified. Nonetheless, Valliant’s claim is odd in that, by his own admission, he had complete access to all the material in the Archives and also (by his own admission) refused to even listen to the interviews that could shed light on these and other issues. Keeping in mind that PARC was published in 2005, the following is from various newsletters of the Archives (2000 and before):

In April ARI began interviewing relatives and associates of Ayn Rand and Frank O’Connor. Ayn Rand Archives researcher Scott McConnell has interviewed seventeen people to date, including Rand’s 1946 secretary, a 1930 next-door neighbor who was the inspiration for Peter Keating and for The Fountainhead, and five of her Chicago relatives. Two of the relatives, Morton Portnoy and Fern G. Brown, a successful writer of children’s books, first met Ayn Rand in 1926, just after Rand arrived in America, and was living with her Chicago relatives for six months. Two of Frank O’Connor’s nieces, Marna (“Docky”) and Connie Papurt, have also been interviewed. The interviewees, Mr. McConnell reports, have been very cooperative and informative. “They provided extensive information on Ayn Rand’s and Frank O’Connor’s family trees and family histories. The interviewees’ anecdotes range from the amusing, such as stories about Miss Rand training her cats, to the heartwarming, particularly about the love between Ayn Rand and Frank O’Connor . . . .

When Ayn Rand and Frank O’Connor lived at their San Fernando Valley, California, ranch in the 1940s, Miss Rand employed June Kurisu (then June Kato) as her secretary from 1947 to 1949. Miss Kato got the weekend secretarial job through her parents, who lived and worked on the ranch as the O’Connor’s cook and ranch hand.

By far the largest acquisition—itself a source of further investigations—is the Archives Oral History Program. The program has interviewed 170 individuals and has captured 276 hours of audio on tape. The topics cover every known phase of Ayn Rand’s life.

Valliant’s critics cannot be blamed for not doing the necessary archival and other research when he had the opportunity to access a tremendous amount of material which could have helped (or undermined) his case, but failed to do so.

Conclusion

Having now critiqued chapter five of in-depth, our conclusion that PARC’s mistakes and distortions are so systematic as to render it seriously flawed as a critique of the Brandens’ works is further strengthened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks. Glad you liked it. With the exception of the chapter concerning the 1968 split, I think I've critiqued almost all of Valliant's book. I'm sure he would say that I've missed his point, though.

Edited by Neil Parille
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Archives are supposed to be releasing a book entitled 100 Voices, which is an oral history of Rand based on the interviews that I mentioned. Shoshana Milgram is working on an intellectual history of Rand up to '57.

Boy, these people take their time with book projects.

-NEIL

____

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil; They follow their leaders in this way. I refer to the 14 years it took Peikoff to publish Ominous Parallels. The original plan was Ominous to be out for the 1968 election

Edited by Chris Grieb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil,

Great job! There isn't a whole lot left of Mr. Valliant's opus.

Chris G,

I predicted over on SOLOP that Leonard Peikoff's DIM book would be published, sold, and remaindered before Diana Hsieh produced her promised in-depth critique of Chris Sciabarra's ideological errors. So I guess we can expect Ms. Hsieh's opus around 2025...

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess we can expect Peikoff's DIM book by around 2022 then.

What's this?

How long does it take to write a book anyway?

When you look at the overall output of ARI, you will realize that they have done very little. The same goes for the Atlas Society. One has to wonder why these organizations have done so little. It certainly does not help if these people are trying to make it in the "publish or perish" world of academia.

It seems that Murray Rothbard or Ludwig von Mises put out more work than all of them.

When I attended the FEE seminar back in 1994, Hans Sennholz said that they did one book a month.

Finally, I happened to meet Neal Stephenson last night. He still has a part-time job and manages to do all his writing. I'm not sure how much he works though, and he certainly doesn't need another job.

Edited by Chris Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I predicted over on SOLOP that Leonard Peikoff's DIM book would be published, sold, and remaindered before Diana Hsieh produced her promised in-depth critique of Chris Sciabarra's ideological errors. So I guess we can expect Ms. Hsieh's opus around 2025.

This is going to be the magnum opus of Diana's career?

Edited by Chris Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Campbell,

Glad you liked it.

Chris,

Some people are natural writers and others aren't. Sartre for example wrote 20 pages a day. If Peikoff had produced his lectures with an eye toward turning them into books, he would have several by now, natural writer or not.

-NEIL

____

Edited by Neil Parille
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fairness to Peikoff it is worth noticing that apparently he may have completed Parallels but Rand told him it wasn't good. There is a story that he finally put his foot down and said the book was done and published. I have commented that I can remember little new content from his lecture course in 1968.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the early 70s I wrote a short book called Capitalist Commentary. It wasn't very good, but I did precisely predict how the Vietnam War would end and why except when. It ended 3 1/2 years later. I sent it in to Leonard Peikoff in his capacity as head of that Foundation for the New Intellectual for sponsorship for publication. The foundation was extant de jure but dead de facto. Leonard sent me a letter saying the foundation couldn't do that--or something to that effect--and returned the manuscript. I am happy it was never published; I was no George H. Smith re writing a truely competent book then. Shortly thereafter Rand published an article in effect saying people like me shouldn't do what I did. I think if old people can't encourage young people they should keep their mouths shut. If there was a connection there between me, Peikoff and Rand--and I don't know that for I am describing a possible coincidence but I'd bet money it wasn't--it illustrates how much he was completely under Rand's thumb. I attended his lectures that became his first book in 1968. I read the parts published in The Objectivist when they came out, and there was no substantial difference in quality between 1968 and 1982 when The Ominous Parallels was finally published just after Ayn Rand died. My book was finished in December 1972. Took about a year.

Ayn Rand is still sitting on top of Objectivism and Objectivists squishing out hope and ambition and just plain living with her essential negativism-authoritarianism, but what a genius! You can't match that. Don't try! Instead read "The Horror File"! I can understand her post Atlas depression, but do not admire her conceit. If anything is blatantly obvious it is that in the 1960s she was not getting laid. If Nathaniel Branden had been honest with her she might have found somebody else while it was still possible for her to do so. That's my real big bitch with NB re AR, but that was their business and she got what she wanted, I guess, until he stopped lying. I'll think she wanted a liar until the day I die. That would have been heroic "exception making." Actually, my overall big bitch is the phony world of Objectivism in NYC based on students of Objectivism not understanding what was real and what was romantic. It was all romantic. That's the problem with Atlas Shrugged. Heroes who were not real heroes: the strikers. The real heroes in the novel were Dagny and Hank abandoned by the strikers. When they became strikers they stopped being heroic--at least after the rescue. Fly off to Galt's Gultch and fry eggs on an electric stove! Don't get involved with politics; "It's earlier than you think"! If you don't try to make things better intellectually/politically that leaves Rand in complete, dominating control of her little big world.

I'll say it right now: Ayn Rand did not improve The Ominous Parallels. She did significantly delay its publication for a decade. And it's not a very good book, frankly. And can one believe that Introduction she wrote: the significant achievement which wasn't hers!? At last!

That's conceit.

I submit that Ayn Rand really didn't know what a hero was while ironically being a tremendous hero herself. Her husband really was the model for John Galt, but a little more passive sexually. Remember, John Galt did not write Galt's Speech. Neither did Frank O'Connor. But they looked good. They looked the part.

Someone so consumed by her work as Ayn Rand must have been self-blinded to the human world she was living in. Other people so consumed in similar areas would have been as oblivious to her as she to them. She couldn't have found or married such a person. She did find Nathaniel Branden, who was into her ideas at least as the price of congress, but she didn't really care for his except self esteem and social metaphysics. He grew up after he was blown out. Even then, it took some time.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil; I am looking at my small book shelf and noting that there are ten books written by ARI authors. They include Robert Mayhew's three books on the early novels and Mayhew's books on Miss Rand's HUAC testimony and the movie Song of Russia. OPAR is on it. The Sure's books Facets of Ayn Rand.

Baker; Do you have a similar list? I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

I attended his lectures that became his first book in 1968. I read the parts published in The Objectivist when they came out, and there was no substantial difference in quality between 1968 and 1982 when The Ominous Parallels was finally published just after Ayn Rand died.

. . .

I can understand her post Atlas depression, but do not admire her conceit.

. . .

I'll think she wanted a liar until the day I die. That would have been heroic "exception making."

. . .

Actually, my overall big bitch is the phony world of Objectivism in NYC based on students of Objectivism not understanding what was real and what was romantic. It was all romantic.

. . .

I'll say it right now: Ayn Rand did not improve The Ominous Parallels. She did significantly delay its publication for a decade. And it's not a very good book, frankly.

. . .

And can one believe that Introduction she wrote: the significant achievement which wasn't hers!? At last!

That's conceit.

When you go on these rants, they always include some fascinating insights.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil; I am looking at my small book shelf and noting that there are ten books written by ARI authors. They include Robert Mayhew's three books on the early novels and Mayhew's books on Miss Rand's HUAC testimony and the movie Song of Russia. OPAR is on it. The Sure's books Facets of Ayn Rand.

Baker; Do you have a similar list? I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it.

As I pointed out the tread about Objectivist Secular Reader which was done by TAS. I forgot to mention that work. TAS has also brought out a book on art and literature.

I must not neglect Stephen Hick's work on post-modernism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,
I attended his lectures that became his first book in 1968. I read the parts published in The Objectivist when they came out, and there was no substantial difference in quality between 1968 and 1982 when The Ominous Parallels was finally published just after Ayn Rand died.

. . .

I can understand her post Atlas depression, but do not admire her conceit.

. . .

I'll think she wanted a liar until the day I die. That would have been heroic "exception making."

. . .

Actually, my overall big bitch is the phony world of Objectivism in NYC based on students of Objectivism not understanding what was real and what was romantic. It was all romantic.

. . .

I'll say it right now: Ayn Rand did not improve The Ominous Parallels. She did significantly delay its publication for a decade. And it's not a very good book, frankly.

. . .

And can one believe that Introduction she wrote: the significant achievement which wasn't hers!? At last!

That's conceit.

When you go on these rants, they always include some fascinating insights.

Michael

Brant; I think that Ayn Rand was desperate to prove to herself that she was right to keep Lenny around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand her post Atlas depression, but do not admire her conceit. If anything is blatantly obvious it is that in the 1960s she was not getting laid. If Nathaniel Branden had been honest with her she might have found somebody else while it was still possible for her to do so.

I was born in 1971, so I was never around NBI or anything like that. It seems that the worst mistake Rand made was taking on an entourage of admirers and discarding people who were her equals.

Up until that time, Rand had kept different company. This included people like Isabel Paterson. These people challenged her. If Ayn Rand was full of baloney, these people would say so. When the Collective arrived, the equals disappeared. They also helped drive away people like Murray Rothbard and John Hospers.

Of course, this is just a theory. Unfortunately, the people who were in the collective will never admit that they were a destructive influence on Rand. In his bio, Random House executive Bennett Cerf described them as "sycophants."

Edited by Chris Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris,

You should read Passion by Barbara if you have not done so. She stated quite clearly that the Collective was a destructive influence on Rand and in what manner. She did look at the relationship from several angles, though, so there is no broad-sweeping Angel/Devil dichotomy like what you express. She makes a breakdown: this was good and this was bad. I believe she made the most objective analysis of this matter to date.

The quote is somewhere on this forum, but I can look it up again if you like.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now