The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism

[Ellen Stuttle]

I was attending lectures and other events at the Nathaniel Branden Institute in a sub-level of the Empire State Building in 1968 when the Rand-Branden matter "blew up.' Most regular attendees were left utterly ignorant of the reasons behind the conflict. I recall receiving the statements from both Ayn Rand and the Brandens about why it was all over, and of the two statements - even though the concrete particulars of Nathaniel Branden's offenses especially were unfathomable to me and would remain so for years - I gave Rand the benefit of the doubt and granted her statement sole veracity, simply on the basis of her literary and philosophical achievements.

Not the first time I've read somebody denigrating NBI or Ayn Rand or Objectivism because NBI resided "unglamorously in the basement" or in a "sub-level" of the Empire State Building.

Where do you get any indication he's "denigrating" NBI because of stating -- accurately -- that it was in a sub-level? He didn't say anything about "unglamorously."

The line of reasoning he indicates about his acceptance of Rand's account of the break --

I gave Rand the benefit of the doubt and granted her statement sole veracity, simply on the basis of her literary and philosophical achievements.

--

is one a lot of O'ists I met employed. I felt astounded that people would be so ignorant of psychology as to reason like that.

Ellen

___

[Chris Grieb]

Ayn Rand and the other Objectivists were very proud that NBI was in the Empire State Building. The Empire State Building was the tallest building in the world with all the symbolism that statement implied. There was also the added benefit of having all operations in one place including the lecture hall. It was a great step of moving Objectivism from the cult status. There were no complaints about being in the sub-basement in 1967.

Edited March 23, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Robert Campbell]

I wouldn't conclude that everyone who has been taken in by Jim Valliant's book is a fool. But I do think that there are some smart people who, for reasons of their own, feel a deep need to demonize Nathaniel Branden and/or deify Ayn Rand.

Those who are inclined to believe that the conclusions of Mr. Valliant's book are correct, or that the rationale for them is sound, should read everything that he, Mrs. Valliant, and Mr. Fahy have put online in defense of the purportedly magnum opus. Would Mr. Valliant and the other members of his cheering section have responded to their critics as they have done, if they had anything approaching a genuine regard for evidence or argument where Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden are concerned?

Meanwhile, Mr. Cline's review should be required reading...

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

I wouldn't conclude that everyone who has been taken in by Jim Valliant's book is a fool. But I do think that there are some smart people who, for reasons of their own, feel a deep need to demonize Nathaniel Branden and/or deify Ayn Rand.

Those who are inclined to believe that the conclusions of Mr. Valliant's book are correct, or that the rationale for them is sound, should read everything that he, Mrs. Valliant, and Mr. Fahy have put online in defense of the purportedly magnum opus. Would Mr. Valliant and the other members of his cheering section have responded to their critics as they have done, if they had anything approaching a genuine regard for evidence or argument where Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden are concerned?

Meanwhile, Mr. Cline's review should be required reading...

Robert Campbell

Typical cultist review. Ayn Rand without the brains. It does illustrate the context that AR inhabited and which eventually alienated so many of her admirers. One had to leave that context in order to find oneself. The Brandens were blown out of it. Also, people need to understand that coincidentally the year 1968 was a transitional year for the entire American culture caused by the Vietnam War. Just as Objectivists (or "students of Objectivism") had to face their Objectivist calamity and make some hard choices, so too Americans had to reexamine their personal, psychological relationship to the government and the governing elite. Watergate subsequently came along reinforcing this.

--Brant

[emb021]

Ayn Rand and the other Objectivists were very proud that NBI was in the Empire State Building. The Empire State Building was the tallest building in the world with all the symbolism that statement implied. There was also the added benefit of having all operations in one place including the lecture hall. It was a great step of moving Objectivism from the cult status. There were no complaints about being in the sub-basement in 1967.

FWIW.

When I first got into Rand back when I went to college in the early 1980s (but missed the denouncement et all of the Brandens, thus I had no problems getting their works), I had little idea at the time of what NBI was.

It only be fairly recently (within the last year) that I've learned what NBI was, and even more recently where it was. I think I read a few comments about NBI's location in the ESB that seem to give an impression of a put down that it was in a sub-basement. Sorry, can't cite that. But obviously, this was from post-split, anti-Branden attitudes.

Edited March 26, 2007 by Michael Brown

[ginny]

Here is a fresh assault from the orthodoxy:

Dissemblers Unmasked

by Edward Cline

I read this thing, but I couldn't stop laughing. Seriously. Just about every mark of the true-believer is embedded in this article. At least Edward Cline did not sneak in this view. He started with a bang right from the beginning.

I was attending lectures and other events at the Nathaniel Branden Institute in a sub-level of the Empire State Building in 1968 when the Rand-Branden matter "blew up.' Most regular attendees were left utterly ignorant of the reasons behind the conflict. I recall receiving the statements from both Ayn Rand and the Brandens about why it was all over, and of the two statements - even though the concrete particulars of Nathaniel Branden's offenses especially were unfathomable to me and would remain so for years - I gave Rand the benefit of the doubt and granted her statement sole veracity, simply on the basis of her literary and philosophical achievements.

He granted Rand's version sole veracity back then without even looking?

Heh.

Incidentally, Cline is a guest writer for ARI. He is not listed as one of the writers, but his name appears as author and co-author on some works presented on the website.

There is another small matter. I received an email addressed to me and a bunch of others from a young man. If he wants to be identified, I will gladly do it. It mentioned another quote from the article:

I have always characterized libertarians as 'ventriloquists' for liberty.

Then the young man pointed out that Cline wrote dozens of articles for Reason magazine all during the late 1980s. Peter Schwartz's essay, "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty," came out in The Intellectual Activist in May-June and December 1985. This young man also claimed that Schwartz denounced Reason Magazine in addition to libertarianism, but I have been unable to find any comment online. If Schwartz denounced libertarianism and recognized Reason Magazine as a libertarian periodical, he obviously had to include it. At any rate, the young man asked the following question about Cline's dozens of articles in Reason: "Wouldn't this then make HIM a "ventriloquist for liberty"?

I was highly interested in reading Cline's Revolutionary War novels, the Sparrowhawk series. Most fiction written by Objectivists I have read is not too good, so I had hopes for this. I just looked briefly at the Amazon customer review section for the first book. There are several strong ARI supporters I recognized. In the sixth book of the series, there is only one review all total (by a rabid Randroid). This makes me wonder about Cline's actual public acceptance.

Just because a person has written and published 15 novels does not mean that he has written 15 good novels. I ignore raving from ARI people for one of their own.

I know this is only an indication and does not replace actually reading his work. But if the general quality of Cline's writing is the same as it was for this caricature-like ARI-lockstep review of PARC, his novels just dropped some notches on my list of reading priorities.

Michael

Michael, you are usually smarter than that. I happen to know Cline. Just because he's written 15 books doesn't mean he's published 15 books.

Get it?

Amazing how easy it is to exaggerate, isn't it?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, you are usually smarter than that. I happen to know Cline. Just because he's written 15 books doesn't mean he's published 15 books.

Get it?

Amazing how easy it is to exaggerate, isn't it?

Ginny,

LOLOLOLOL... I stand corrected.

Are the Sparrowhawk novels worth reading? Say on a scale of 1 to 10.

btw - I fixed your post.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Michael and Ginny; My next project is to read the Sparrowhawk novels. I have read one of Cline's other novels the name of which slips my mind. I will let you know what I think.

[ginny]

Michael - are the Sparrowhead worth reading? Not on a bet. But I'm prejudice. Used to date the guy.

Ginny

[emb021]

Funny.

Valliant is crowing over on SOLO that Cline (author of the Sparrowhawk books, which, btw, LFB sells) has read PARC and pretty much as accepted it as the 'true story'.

Its also interesting that they again point out the silence of the Brandens on PARC (sort of 'they must be guilty because they haven't responded' kind of thing). They point out a couple of responses, including Neil's 'nitpicking', as if they can just ignore his points.

[John Dailey]

~ I have no need to advertise a 'taking of sides' re Valiant/PARC regarding his arguments and/or others' contra ones.

~ But, to complain that he shouldn't have brought up something which is literally over and done with near a 1/2 century ago is akin to the arguments re T. Jefferson and S. Hemmings even longer ago. For the varied books about the latter, even on C-SPAN, no one's moaned the fact "Hey, that's over with, whatever happened, right? Can we just drop it and move on? What's the bug up your...bonnet?"

~ Whatever Valiant's actual agenda in getting going on this subject, clearly its been one bothering many (as those about TJ and SH.) Criticize him as due (and, I have mine, but see little point in jumping into that cesspool too many keep alive) re his *arguments*, but think twice about ascribing malicious intent. Remember: Dagny was out to kill Galt; did this make her 'malicious', or, merely 'ignorantly righteous'?

LLAP

J:D

[Greybird]

I've stood outside all this mishigass over Valliant's book, not having read it or, for that matter, even heard of it until about six months ago. It would take far more substance than I've seen quoted or analyzed thus far to get me to wade through any such "more royalist than the Queen" tome.

What strikes me yet again, though, is the validity of an assessment made by an Objectivist friend at college, over 25 years ago: "Rand's life and work won't even begin to be approached rationally, on all sides, until she and everyone who knew her personally has died."

Not that many worthy works haven't done so already. But the general tenor of all such discussions about those works has been given a spin by so many having a furious urge to "defend" the woman they knew, or knowing someone well who felt such a "defense" was necessary. Rand's life and work are sturdy enough to not need such defense. Some of her friends, though, are loath to admit that.

I'm the last to say that such commitment has to be irrational ... but it doesn't promote detachment, either, and that works against objectivity. Some biographies by truly detached writers are, apparently, finally in the works. I didn't expect them any sooner than this, quite frankly.

[Philip Coates]

> an assessment made by an Objectivist friend at college, over 25 years ago: "Rand's life and work won't even begin to be approached rationally, on all sides, until she and everyone who knew her personally has died."

Steve, I don't know if I'd fully agree with that. But there is a germ of truth there, and it suggests to me a wider point:

Objectivity, clarity, wisdom are often best achieved - particularly in complex or emotional matters - by "stepping back" from them some distance in time or in regard to gaining the ability to see it in context. Either to let something 'cool' or simply letting the "digestive process" - time and fresh consideration and fresh perspective - bring forth other factors or relationships one hasn't considered (even if its a cerebral matter where emotions are not an issue.)

I find when I am trying to work through a problem, either an emotional and personal one or an abstract or theoretical one, taking multiple 'cuts' at it - considering it afresh at different times and in different ways brings fresh insight. And sometimes looking at it -multiple- ways ... i) highly emotionally, ii) 'intuitively', iii) with clinical detachment and almost with a logical 'flowchart' .... provides the broadest perspectives.

Which then have to be fully integrated if they conflict. Another difficult step, and one which most people were never well-trained in school or life to do.

Rand's life and work is difficult for -both- reasons I mentioned in the first paragraph: emotion-provoking -and- intellectually complex. So these considerations apply especially in those areas.

It's one reason why I tend to cut people slack when they make errors in evaluating this: It is possible for Leonard Peikoff, for Barbara Branden, for Jim Valliant, for various Oists posting conclusions on websites to make mistakes in this area without them being dishonest.

What is much more foolish than any mistakes about Rand's life or work is not seeing the difficulty in this area and assuming that anyone who reads the data incorrectly or (more precisely) doesn't agree with *you* is evil or dishonest or an evader or a hater of the good for being the good - or any of the other psychologizing accusations people are so quick to lob into the unknown distance like high-arcing mortar shells.

[John Dailey]

~ Dittoing Phil, maybe a more concise way of putting our concerns is, especially in this forum, to not let negative-oriented personal evaluations knee-jerkedly be the prime carrier wave of our real criticisms of what others have said and/or written. Neil's opening essay is a fairly good example. Criticize points and even question motivations; think twice about bringing in moral evaluations though.

~ One "O-ist" forum which caters to (even fickle) wolf-packism against disagreers is more than enough for O-ism to endure within its ranks.

LLAP

J:D

Edited April 1, 2007 by John Dailey

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rand's life and work is difficult for -both- reasons I mentioned in the first paragraph: emotion-provoking -and- intellectually complex. So these considerations apply especially in those areas.

It's one reason why I tend to cut people slack when they make errors in evaluating this: It is possible for Leonard Peikoff, for Barbara Branden, for Jim Valliant, for various Oists posting conclusions on websites to make mistakes in this area without them being dishonest.

Phil,

With all due respect, there is a HUGE problem with this comparison. Agree or disagree with Peikoff and Barbara, they were intimates of Rand. Valliant is another animal altogether. This is like comparing Rex Grossman, Peyton Manning and a cheerleader for the local high-school football team who Grossman slept with once.

I have taken PARC apart and put it back together. The results will be presented in due time (I have very good reasons for waiting). What was an initial dislike has turned into a full-fledged contempt. And the accusation is dishonesty, manipulation, incompetence and spite. What Valliant did is far worse than it appears. It is an embarrassment as an act of reason. Neil's article is an appetizer.

I know you won't agree until you read the different works and what will be presented (and I fully agree that you can't and be rational), but I want to be on record as clearly as possible.

Michael

[Neil Parille]

Phil,

I would echo what MSK said. Peikoff or Barbara Branden might, for the sake of argument, be skewed in what they report given their personal feelings. But Valliant is accusing Barbara Branden of flat out making stuff up. That's a different kettle of fish.

And Valliant's claim is not that Branden is wrong because he was there and knows better, but that if you look at Branden's book at page x and compare it to Walker's book at y, you realize that Branden is dishonest. Since that's his "case" he ought to be accurate in what he reports, and he isn't.

[Robert Campbell]

Phil,

I agree wholeheartedly with Michael and with Neil on this one.

Jim Valliant could honestly have written a book that puts a different interpretation on Ayn Rand's journal entries than nearly any other informed reader would. He could honestly have written a book that practically shoves this interpretation down the reader's throat. Many poor quality books are written honestly.

But could he honestly have misquoted or twisted passages from "the Brandens'" books as often as he has? Could he, in all honesty, have repeatedly refused to recognize other evidence about Ayn Rand's character and conduct, from sources not reliant on "the Brandens"? Could he have repeatedly claimed extensive and intensive knowledge of Rand's ideas, when his technical command of her philosophy is so obviously deficient? Could he have repeatedly claimed to understand Ayn Rand's feelings, when he never knew her, made absolutely no effort to understand her life in historical context, and has never once acknowledged her widely published ideas on sexual psychology? Could he honestly have turned against everyone who did not praise his book to the skies, and even jettisoned some who did?

After stepping back from exchanges with Mr. Valliant and his allies (I'm relieved to say it's been 6 months since I posted on SOLOP for the last time), I have not come around to thinking better of him and his book. Instead, my estimates have trended in the opposite direction. The more one knows of Mr. Valliant and his book, the worse they both look.

Some of Leonard Peikoff's conduct has been reprehensible. Some of his philosophical ideas are wrong, some constitute questionable interpretations of Rand's legacy--for that matter, some can be criticized on both grounds. All the same, there is a lot to be learned from Dr. Peikoff. There is nothing to be learned from Mr. Valliant--unless one is seeking instruction in how not to write, how not to treat ideas, and how not to conduct oneself amidst intellectual controversy.

Robert Campbell

[John Dailey]

~ Hey people, go for it.

~ But, I could swear that I've already seen this 'attitude-set' before...in something involving Chris Sciabarra vs...a couple others.

~ I do wish I could see more here than a Hatfield-McCoy's "payback" orientation, but...maybe if the motive was better clarified, I/others could see a worthwhile justification for re-visiting a hard focus on this subject/person...especially 'here' in THIS forum rather than where such is usually expectable, elsewhere.

LLAP

J:D

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

John,

This is a little bit different than that disgusting Sciabarra mess that Hsieh & Co. made. I don't agree with that analogy either. Unfortunately, I have to chime in with their party-line for you to get an understanding as to why otherwise intelligent and non-hostile people are so radical on this issue:

Read PARC. Then it will become clear. The book is a con job.

Here is the difference between my attitude and theirs. Valliant & Co. are trying to make a case that both Brandens, Chris, and many others are immoral and evil and are dangerous enemies of Rand, thus they should not be involved in the Objectivist movement, they should be shunned, they should be disgraced, etc.

I personally don't give two hoots about Valliant's moral status (or that of any of those other fanatics either) and I don't care who consorts with him. If you like him, go for it. Be happy. My friendship with you will not be affected in the slightest (unless you yourself start attacking me, but that would be another issue—one between you and me).

I certainly don't wish Valliant ill. On the contrary, I wish him a long life, good health and prosperity. But so long as he is the way he is, I don't want him near me. (I admit that I hope he is and stays choking on the good reputation the Brandens enjoy and will continue to enjoy throughout history, but that is specific to his work and irrational attitude.) Valliant is a religious fanatic hiding behind a mask of rationality and I have found out the hard way that religious fanatics tend to provoke conflicts all the time where nothing exists.

As far as the Objectivist movement goes, there is no real organized movement—only small efforts by a few specific organizations that don't get along with each other. So if Valliant is part of the Objectivist movement, whatever the hell that is, well, he is a part of it. Who cares? If some individuals buy into his brand of nonsense, they deserve what they get.

Distant and happy is good for me.

My beef is with what this guy produced and the vicious irrational attacks he and others make with it on people I love and admire. And I have a beef with a small gang heralding this work in public (on mostly free venues, of course) as a work of reason. It isn't.

If the attacks were backed by solid facts and sound scholarship, I would just have to swallow that. Facts are facts and they will not be denied. (The affair with Patrecia happened, NB and BB lied to Rand about it, etc.) But what Valliant did was without rational merit. On studying it closely, I became appalled by the magnitude of it and by the acceptance of Valliant's poor-quality and false reasoning by some otherwise intelligent people. (Like I said, I will be publishing literally pages and pages and pages of his errors, contradictions, double standards, rhetorical excesses, and just plain wrong things and screw-ups in due time.)

For instance, Neil pointed to one passage after another where Valliant blatantly misquoted parts from the Brandens's books, twisting their words to mean the contrary. Neil provided exact quotes, page numbers, etc., as proof. The absolute minimum one requires of an author is accurate quotes if he is condemning someone. Yet these people merely blinked and said, "So? It was different. So what? How does that affect PARC's credibility? What's your agenda?"

Wrong is wrong. Period.

You gotta have faith to blank out wrong like that when it is undeniable and put right in your face. There is no other explanation. That is the real issue. Not Valliant as a person.

I condemn his act—the work he wrote and why he wrote it (which is stated clearly therein)—as dishonest, manipulative, incompetent and spiteful. It is about as wrong as wrong can get. All I want to do is make sure PARC is discredited by exposing clearly where it is wrong. Let people come to their own conclusions after that (albeit, I do have a strong opinion and I will express it).

But PARC doesn't even deserve all this effort. The only reason it needs to be discredited in public is because it is being used as propaganda tool to dupe the true believers and keep them whipped up against the Brandens as scapegoats. That way they keep saying bad things over and over about the Brandens in public. (There are tribal reasons why constant public scapegoating is a value to the leaders and these reasons are pretty ugly, but that's been the way of mankind throughout history.) Notice that nobody else does this—only the true-believers do.

As far as the general public is concerned, it doesn't even read PARC and never will, so that is not any real issue.

As for the rest of Valliant, I don't think about him enough to have an opinion. (Well, OK. Just a little. I hate lawyers. I just hate 'em. Also, based on the nature of Valliant's performance in PARC and his posts on Internet forums, I think he might be one of those public prosecutors concerned about his track record—one of those who intimidates and bullies someone he knows is innocent into accepting a false conviction with a lesser penalty as plea bargaining just so he doesn't have to enter a "case lost" on his record. But that is only my opinion based on his lack of respect for precision and truth.)

Michael

[John Dailey]

Mike:

~ Thanx for the...er...comprehensive and quite specific, response.

~ It was "Thought-Provoking" to say the least, which, as I long ago had e-m'd CS, was the most praise I could give to anyone's product (art or utility, explanation or 'product'.)

~ I, as I suspect many now, await *your* analysis.

LLAP

J:D

PS: I have read PARC. It, as I've alluded, was, along with its progenitors, worth reading, for those of us interested in 'Ancient History'...and its consequences. I must admit (as I suspect many interested are), that I'm of 'mixed minds' re several of the many controversied argument-points in all of PAR, JD, PARC, and all pro/con arguers following, though I've concluded some things about some points.

[Neil Parille]

Let me give an example from PARC. From pages 66-78, Valliant discusses various people that Rand "broke" with -- the Smiths, the Holzers, the Blumenthals, Murray Rothbard, John Hospers, and Edith Efron. I have discussed all of these except Edith Efron. I've shown that: (1) Valliant misrepresents the Brandens' books with respect to the various breaks; and (2) he also incorrectly claims that Barbra Branden alleges that all these involved some sort of excommunication.

Valliant's response has been that I'm ignoring his "point." But why did Valliant include this stuff if it wasn't part of his "point" and why should anyone care about his other points when they all depend on his reading of the Brandens' books, which has shown to be faulty?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis Hardin just weighed in again on PARC with an article on RoR:

Homework for Brian Doherty

This is a review of Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement by Brian Doherty (New York, Public Affairs, 2007). Here is the excerpt from the article pertinent to the accuracy of PARC:

. . . Doherty seems eager to give credence to the recent literary assault on the Brandens by James Valliant in The Passion of the Ayn Rand Critics. In a lengthy footnote (p. 678), Doherty describes Valliant’s book as “a lawyerly brief that reverses the apparent virtues of the Branden’s biographical writings on Rand.”

Doherty writes:

“Valliant’s interpretation of Branden’s affair with Patrecia Wynand and the break with Rand, backed up interestingly with Rand’s contemporaneous diaries, is that Rand was perfectly willing to accept that their sexual relationship might have to be put aside permanently, and even that Branden might want a sexual relationship with a younger woman; it was his continued lying and hiding it for years that drove her to turn on him with such rage. Branden’s keeping the secret, in Valliant’s reading, was not to protect Rand’s feelings, so delicate that she could not handle the truth; it was to protect his own position as her right hand man and the commercial life of NBI..."

“Valliant uses journal excerpts to show that Rand was aware that their romantic relationship was over before the angry break (194); that she did not believe that not being sexually attracted to her would be a moral failing on Branden’s part (196); and that she even suggested he have an affair with someone else to help solve his emotional and sexual problems (199).”

As demonstrated elsewhere by this writer and others, Valliant’s book is a masterpiece of obfuscation. With rare exceptions, he does not present Rand’s diaries in a way that allows the reader to draw his own conclusions. Instead, almost every comment by Rand is bracketed by Valliant’s dubious “interpretations” as to what she “meant.” In addition, the timelines are deliberately blurred in a way that make it virtually impossible to see the context of Rand’s thoughts with respect to the external events of their momentous relationship.

Apparently some readers are more than willing to simply accept Valliant’s interpretations—and Doherty is one of them. This is understandable, in a way, because the task of untangling what Rand said from what Valliant wants us to believe she “meant” is virtually impossible. In the three citations mentioned above, however, it is not difficult to cast enormous doubt on the validity of Valliant’s interpretations.

What is Valliant’s journal evidence (on page 194 of PARC) that Rand considered their romantic relationship “over” in January, 1968? Answer: a statement written by Rand in July of 1968 (just prior to their ultimate break)—a statement written in response to Branden’s letter informing her that he could not resume their romantic relationship!! There is a brief reference to a journal entry in January of that year about a potential “break” with him, apparently based on her conclusion that he “does not really love me.” But the so-called awareness that their romantic relationship was over at that time was 20-20 hindsight—and it is contradicted elsewhere. Why do you suppose Branden felt the need to write his letter if he did not feel significant sexual pressure from Rand?

Consider Rand’s journal entry (also written in July, 1968) on page 334 of PARC: She refers to a five month period between January and June of 1968 when she had suggested to him “more than once” that maybe her age was a problem for Branden. Why would her age be an issue for discussion at all if she had decided that their sexual relationship was over?

What is Valliant’s journal evidence that Rand would not consider his lack of attraction for her to be a moral failing? Again, Valliant’s interpretation is based on some journal comments in July, 1968, written after Branden gave her the infamous letter. That journal entry is published with relatively few interruptions later in Valliant’s book; I defy anyone to read it and draw any other conclusion than that she considers Branden evil for his lack of desire for her. The entire essay is an analysis of why Branden is irrational to choose Patrecia over her and how he can regain a “proper sex attitude.” (PARC, p. 348) She characterizes Branden’s sexual feelings as “moral disintegration” (p. 336) and calls the motive for his interest in her younger rival “evil” (p. 348).

Page 199 of Valliant’s book does refer to a suggestion by Rand that Branden have an affair “to help his sex problem.” Rand then adds: “provided I did not have to meet her or associate with her.” This apparent off-hand comment by Rand is made in a way that suggests that such a “triangle” might serve to resurrect their own sexual liaison. In February, 1968, Rand writes that she was “totally wrong” to have ever made that suggestion. Later, her long journal entry of July, 1968 (PARC, p. 348) includes Rand’s comments to the effect that Branden must not even have a “friendship” with Patrecia, much less a romantic relationship with her. Does one off-hand remark by Rand genuinely prove the absence of jealousy? Of course not.

Consider another comment from Rand’s notes of July, 1968, another recollection about January, 1968: “I could not break with him, as long as any hope remained…” (PARC, p. 332) Hope for what? She does not say. Could it have been a reference to “hope” for the resurrection of their romance? That interpretation is every bit as reasonable as any offered by Valliant.

Remember that, prior to their break, Rand had granted Branden equal status to her as a spokesman and representative for Objectivism. She had never given such stature to any other member of her circle. At the time of her July, 1968, statement, she had made no effort to strip Branden of this lofty status in the eyes of her followers, despite a journal entry characterizing him as “the most immoral person I have ever met.” Anyone familiar with Ayn Rand’s prior pattern of moral denunciation has to take note of the flagrant inconsistency here.

Is it possible that, even then, despite Branden’s letter of rejection, she continued to believe that there was hope for their romance? She characterizes Branden’s reference to their age difference as a “rationalization”(PARC, p. 360). If, as she continued to hope, his rational self managed to somehow prevail, would the resumption of their sexual interaction then be out of the question? Obviously not.

. . .

Valliant’s book is a disgusting display of naked vitriol masquerading as objectivity—and Doherty should have known better than to give it credibility it could never have earned from any thoughtful observer.

I am very heartened to see others like Dennis point to the contradictions and manipulations in PARC. Objectivism is a philosophy of reason. The appearance of realpolitik propaganda such as PARC (sanctioned and encouraged by Rand's heir) is a very dark stain on the credibility and purpose of the entire philosophy. An outsider can validly point to the way PARC is argued and say that if this what he will learn and become by studying Objectivism, he wants no part of it.

It needs to be clear to the public that PARC does not represent reason and it does not represent Objectivism. It is realpolitik propaganda pure and simple. Nothing more. The only redeeming feature—Rand's journal entries—should not have been published. But since they were, they deserve to be republished—this time in their entirety, without the manipulative pruning.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Brian Doherty is quoted as having written in his recent book Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement (New York, Public Affairs, 2007):

[Doherty] Valliant’s interpretation of Branden’s affair with Patrecia Wynand and the break with Rand, backed up interestingly with Rand’s contemporaneous diaries, is that Rand was perfectly willing to accept that their sexual relationship might have to be put aside permanently, and even that Branden might want a sexual relationship with a younger woman; it was his continued lying and hiding it for years that drove her to turn on him with such rage. Branden’s keeping the secret, in Valliant’s reading, was not to protect Rand’s feelings, so delicate that she could not handle the truth; it was to protect his own position as her right hand man and the commercial life of NBI...

That analysis doesn't make sense even on its own terms. Why would Nathaniel have felt his position under threat and in need of protecting if AR had been accepting of the idea of his and her romantic relationship being at an end? (Though it's clear, reading her journal entries in consecutive order, that she wasn't accepting of this idea, supposing for the sake of argument she had been, where would there have been a threat which Nathaniel perceived to his status?)

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am going to be naughty again, so those who don't like this sort of thing, be advised.

I cannot resist commenting on something that had me on the floor laughing. Unfortunately, I have to cite SLOP to do so since that is where Valliant posts. I also regret the fact that the poetry of Frederick Light was used (I believe his production is highly uneven, but he has some very good moments).

Sorry FWL, this was too funny to pass up, so please don't take it as an opinion about your work in general.

Valliant posted the following as a poem he admired, see here for the original post:

The post today with the poem on Lincoln deserves blue status, doesn't it?

"Lincoln, more expeditiously severe

Than Bush, allowed no traitor interfere.

"Boon hardness Lincoln could embody, fit

To match secess Achilleus, not submit.

"Lincoln, more expeditiously astute

Than Bush, would leave no traitor resolute.

"Boon hardness Lincoln would personify,

Not meek compulsions meting out thereby."

Phil Coates responded in such a manner that he deserves to be quoted in full (original post here):

Jesus, what a perfectly awful poem...where did it come from? Good poetry should use simple language, paint vivid pictures, be concrete and graphic. This is a chain of floating abstractions without concrete examples to back up the floating comparison between Lincoln and Bush.

It's over-intellectualized. As if it were writtten by an academic, as if the writer scoured the dictionary for all the complex, multi-syllable or anachronistic Bill Buckley-isms he or she could find. And then created a crossword puzzle, trying to impress us with his egghead vocabulary and confuse rather than illuminate. (The language is -unnecessarily- archaic, as if the writer were trying to write like someone long dead. Shakespeare had an excuse - he was using words quite familiar in his day.)

I'm actually thinking of using this in my composition class under how -not- to write since it commits so many bonehead errors in one place..Is this a famous writer? Shudder....

When I read that, it struck me that Valliant appreciated the poem for precisely the same reasons Phil found objectionable. All you have to do is read PARC and, with a few small modifications like substituting Shakespeare for legal jargon, etc., the attraction becomes clear. Valliant had an immediate epistemological identification.

Then I hit the floor laughing. Who said that a man's artistic tastes does not reveal his soul? Sometimes it does loud and clear!

Michael

[Laure]

I can't believe James really likes that poem. Sure he's not kidding? By the way, what's "boon hardness"? I'm not much of a poetry lover; I only go as far as Robert Frost and A.A. Milne.