The Passion of James Valliant’s Criticism, Part II

[John Dailey]

~ Rand gave an 'explanation' about why such was the last issue which I regard as equivalent to Presidential candidates who've announced that they have stopped running.

~ Anyone expect them to 'discuss' why they did? Many, for whichever candidates, sure will wonder about the 'reasons' given in the short "I quit" statement/'reasons,' yes; but, who d-e-m-a-n-d-s more from them? --- Why demand more from Rand? Oh, well, she was, well...'Rand.' M-O-R-E is 'expected' from her, obviously.

~ In announcing her ending of The Objectivist, she was 'expected' (and such was NOT MORALLY obligational to readers, hello?) to give some rationale; she did; such was not praiseworthy of N. Branden, granted. Yet, who (apart from NB, who yet hasn't...) can say it was false, wrong, or irrelevent?

~ Indeed, who has the moral 'right' to innuend that this was even a subject to...'discuss'?

LLAP

J:D

Edited February 9, 2008 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

ADDENDUM:

~ I will admit that I was a bit non-plussed re Rand's ref to Barbara in that last issue. I do find this as...unnecessarily irrelevent (if that's not redundant) to all else argued therein; clearly, Rand was a bit 'piqued' at the whole situation re all concerned. Just as clearly, Barbara has less prob with this than her 'supporters.'

~ As an aside to others 'to-whom-my-response-may-concern', yes, I have read Rand's "To Whom It May Concern"...more than once; just not in the last 3 yrs, ok? Get as picayunish as you wish with Rand, or me; just be aware you are really advertising that you are doing so.

LLAP

J:D

Edited February 9, 2008 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

ADDENDUM II:

~ Hello.

~ I'm John Dailey.

~ I'm an addict.

~ I love coffee when I get up. I love Seltzer-water-with-lime. I smoke, too. I've lately taken to Ibuprofen for varied 'aches-and-pains.' Then there's Irish Mist, Drambuie, Black-Velvet as of late also. --- Oh, man, I'm a worse mess than Rand ever thought of being.

~ Oh, I'm also lost in LOST, FRASIER (re-runs), HOUSE and 24 (not to mention the HISTORY and SCI-FI CHANNELs); uh-h, and responding on cyber-'forums' as well. --- I need help.

LLAP

J:D

PS: I love my wife and kids too.

PPS: I'm not sure if I should mention my 'movie-watching'...

Edited February 9, 2008 by John Dailey

[Robert Campbell]

John,

"To Whom It May Concern" is not an announcement that the Objectivist was being wrapped up. It was published in 1968. The magazine would in fact continue for another 3 years, under Ayn Rand's sole ownership.

Rather, the piece is an announcement that Nathaniel Branden is no longer on board (and that the Nathaniel Branden Institute is therefore history). Had she left the matter there, in one paragraph, with no elaboration, then no one would have imagined that she was discussing the issue.

Instead, she reeled off a long string of charges against Nathaniel Branden, many of them pertaining to grave moral faults--without ever coming out and saying what he had actually done. Some of the charges that she did specify (such as purportedly spending too much of his time on a dramatic production) were picayune, to use one of your words.

Since she never mentioned or alluded to her affair with NB, or cited his two-timing her as a reason for not wanting to have anything further to do with him, yeah, I'd say there were more than a few half-truths in that piece.

And she demanded that her readers join her in denouncing and shunning the aforesaid miscreant. Either she thought she had provided adequate discussion--or she expected her followers to join her without any discussion, that is, without knowing her reasons for breaking with NB. The latter is a demand for acceptance on faith--from Rand's point of view, one of the worst things that anyone can ever do.

Oh, and she appended a group denunciation of Nathaniel Branden, signed by four of her remaining associates. The implication was that any right-thinking Randian would do as they did, or else...

Robert Campbell

[Neil Parille]

As I said before, I don't think it was fair of Rand to ask others to denounce the Brandens w/o telling them the full scoop.

Edited February 9, 2008 by Neil Parille

[Chris Grieb]

Robert; You are correct that the Objectivist went on for three years after TWIMC.

Did the other lecturers know what had occured? I believe Greenspan has spoke to Barbara and Nathaniel but that Alan Blumenthal has spoken to Barbara but not to Nathaniel. Leonard Peikoff and Mary Ann Sures have not spoken to either.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Robert; You are correct that the Objectivist went on for three years after TWIMC.

Did the other lecturers know what had occured? I believe Greenspan has spoke to Barbara and Nathaniel but that Alan Blumenthal has spoken to Barbara but not to Nathaniel. Leonard Peikoff and Mary Ann Sures have not spoken to either.

Allan Blumenthal knew; the others didn't. You're correct about which of them has subsequently spoken to whom. ;-)

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Well-done summary in post #129, Robert.

During the long wakeful night which followed the day when I read the statement in galleys, I didn't know which I found more shocking: her foolishness in announcing to the world what she seemed to me to be trying to hide (I thought that "hell hath no fury" was an obvious subtext which would scream out at anyone); or her apparent expectation -- given the way she just announced supposed facts without providing substantiating details -- that readers would believe it all happened as she said.

My next great shock, a couple months later when I began to meet O'ists, was discovering the number of people who did take it at face value on her say so. I'd glimmered the cult-of-personality dynamics from afar. Still, seeing the extent to which she was idolatrized by some of the NY O'ists, I found (then) amazing.

Ellen

___

[Chris Grieb]

Ellen;

There was a split among students of Obj. in the DC area. The split became more pronounced after the Branden's reply. The DC Ayn Rand Society disloved because of a rule that everyone in the Society had to support Ayn Rand.

I have been told the group in San Francisco took a neutral position.

[emb021]

"To Whom It May Concern" is not an announcement that the Objectivist was being wrapped up. It was published in 1968. The magazine would in fact continue for another 3 years, under Ayn Rand's sole ownership.

Rather, the piece is an announcement that Nathaniel Branden is no longer on board (and that the Nathaniel Branden Institute is therefore history). Had she left the matter there, in one paragraph, with no elaboration, then no one would have imagined that she was discussing the issue.

Instead, she reeled off a long string of charges against Nathaniel Branden, many of them pertaining to grave moral faults--without ever coming out and saying what he had actually done. Some of the charges that she did specify (such as purportedly spending too much of his time on a dramatic production) were picayune, to use one of your words.

I also recall the TWIMC also got in to claims of financial inpropriety, which I believe where shown to be incorrect. Either Rand misconstried what were normal financial transaction, or made claims out of whole cloth.

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

The claims of financial impropriety are repeated in Mr. Valliant's book. But he brings no new evidence to bear on them. To make the claims stick, Ayn Rand would have had to establish that there were rules and procedures in place, at The Objectivist and perhaps also at NBI, that Nathaniel Branden was violating. She wasn't forthcoming in that regard, and Mr. Valliant provides no further information.

One of course wonders whether the charge of financial impropriety would have been made, had AR not broken with NB for other reasons.

In fact, her claim kind of resembles Lindsay Perigo's charge that Joe Rowlands defrauded him by making the Rebirth of Reason interface look similar to the old SOLOHQ interface, keeping all of the old membership accounts, and retaining all of the old SOLOHQ articles in the RoR archives.

I recently reread Mr. Valliant's treatment of "To Whom It May Concern" (presently excerpted over at SOLOP) and was struck by his fierce determination to support every charge that Rand made in that article, no matter how picayune. Hence he makes a big fuss over NB's spending time on a theatrical production (of The Fountainhead!); over NB's supposed failure to provide articles for The Objectivist (Fred Seddon has run the numbers and shown that NB was actually pulling his weight during the 1965 to 1968 period); and over NB's supposed demands on AR's time, for counseling (as though AR would have looked favorably on NB declining her counseling).

I guess that's what you've saddled yourself with, when you've convinced yourself that Ayn Rand was perfect.

Robert Campbell

[Chris Grieb]

One quick point to add was while Miss Rand was able to bring the Objectivist up to date a few people I know thought the quality of the magazine went down. It is interesting the Miss Rand was not able to keep the Ayn Rand Letter on schedule which was one of the big charges against Mr. Branden. The magazine was several months behind when TWIMC was published but one has to wonder how much the turmoil may have effected the schedule.

Edited February 11, 2008 by Chris Grieb

[Neil Parille]

Unless one can view the relevant documents, it appears that it is pretty much a he said/she said controversy. (Although, as Dr. Campbell notes, Fred Seddon has run the numbers on one aspect of the controversy and it doesn't come out in Rand's favor.)

In addition, Valliant says that Rand never saw Barbara Branden again (p. 94). Yet, Branden says she did meet Rand again (pp. 397-99.) Valliant doesn't even have the integrity to mention what Barbara claims. I have no reason to doubt this meeting took place. If Valliant thinks she is lying, then he ought to say so.

[Alfonso Jones]

Michael,

The claims of financial impropriety are repeated in Mr. Valliant's book. But he brings no new evidence to bear on them. To make the claims stick, Ayn Rand would have had to establish that there were rules and procedures in place, at The Objectivist and perhaps also at NBI, that Nathaniel Branden was violating. She wasn't forthcoming in that regard, and Mr. Valliant provides no further information.

One of course wonders whether the charge of financial impropriety would have been made, had AR not broken with NB for other reasons.

In fact, her claim kind of resembles Lindsay Perigo's charge that Joe Rowlands defrauded him by making the Rebirth of Reason interface look similar to the old SOLOHQ interface, keeping all of the old membership accounts, and retaining all of the old SOLOHQ articles in the RoR archives.

I recently reread Mr. Valliant's treatment of "To Whom It May Concern" (presently excerpted over at SOLOP) and was struck by his fierce determination to support every charge that Rand made in that article, no matter how picayune. Hence he makes a big fuss over NB's spending time on a theatrical production (of The Fountainhead!); over NB's supposed failure to provide articles for The Objectivist (Fred Seddon has run the numbers and shown that NB was actually pulling his weight during the 1965 to 1968 period); and over NB's supposed demands on AR's time, for counseling (as though AR would have looked favorably on NB declining her counseling).

I guess that's what you've saddled yourself with, when you've convinced yourself that Ayn Rand was perfect.

Robert Campbell

Some may question arguments from silence, but I think they are telling here. If there had been any actual evidence of financial impropriety on the part of Nathaniel Branden, would it not have been brought out and publicized by the group surrounding Rand after the schism? Given the stories which were fabricated out of whole cloth, if there were any improprieties (beyond the very non-financial ones Branden discusses in his memoirs) is it credible to assume that those surrounding Rand just chose to suppress them?

I recently reread my original copies of TWIMC, and the answers by the Brandens. It is clear to me who had the better arguments, and better facts, in that exchange.

Bill

[Ellen Stuttle]

One quick point to add was while Miss Rand was able to bring the Objectivist up to date a few people I know thought the quality of the magazine went down.

I think the quality certainly changed post-split when she became the sole source of fire and originality. Most of the articles not by her had a "filler"-piece nature, some of them helped by her with the writing in order to provide enough "punch" for her tastes. It probably became a nuisance for her, scrounging to find additional pieces to fill the pages.

Despite the loss of spark in the post-split magazine, I was glad to see an end of Nathaniel's articles on psychology. Ever since I'd subscribed to the Newsletter in Spring '63 and acquired all the back copies, I'd all along objected to the tone of his psychology articles and their inclusion of assertions about what "a rational person" -- alternately, "an irrational person" -- would/wouldn't do. There was a degree of scaring-into-line employed in his presentations (in hers, too, of course, but I think this is a worse negative coming from someone writing as a professional clinical psychologist).

(The ironic thing is that I did not like Nathaniel pre-split; I thought he was a bad influence; I was glad to hear she'd split with him.... And then I read her statement, and felt horrified by her. No happy choice of sides in that situation.)

Ellen

___

Edited February 12, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

Here's a detail I happened to notice in looking through our binder set of The Objectivist. I was searching to see if there was a reference to the "May 1968" issue being mailed in October. There isn't that I could find; the only indications of the date of the issue not being correct are the "September 15, 1968" following her statement and the "September, 1968" for "For the Record." Subsequent issues through December, by which time publication had caught up to schedule, have a notice at the bottom of the first page, e.g., for the "June 1968" issue: "(This issue is being published in October 1968.)"

In the Objectivist Calendar for the April 1968 issue is this announcement:

Beginning Thursday, August 8, in New York City, Nathaniel Branden will give readings of three plays by Ayn Rand. August 8: Night of January 16th. August 15th: Ideal. August 22nd: Think Twice. Time: 7:30 p.m. Place: NBI Auditorium, Empire State Bldg. [information about ticket purchases follows.]

According to Barbara's biography, August 23rd was Final Explosion Day. I wonder what happened with the scheduled play readings, especially the one scheduled for the 22nd. Did that occur? (I don't find any mention of the readings one way or the other in a quick check of Passion, but I might have missed a reference.)

Ellen

___

[emb021]

LFB is offering for sale a unique letter from Ayn Rand that is pre-split that does make mention of the split.

You can read about it on their blog here: http://laissezfairebooks.blogspot.com/2008...e-for-sale.html

But some facts.

The letter is dated September 27, 1968. The letter is on Objectivist stationary, but the Empire State Building address is X'ed out and her home address typed in.

As to the split, she speaks of an 'unfortunate experience with NBI', and that more can be read about it in the forthcoming Objectivist. (obviously the TWIMC article coming out in October).

[Ellen Stuttle]

LFB is offering for sale a unique letter from Ayn Rand that is pre-split that does make mention of the split.

Cross-posting from a thread where that sale was announced (original post here).

==

Rare Ayn Rand collecitible for sale

Monday, February 11, 2008

[....]

Of course, others close to Rand, knew of the split earlier. Was the October, 1968 article the first acknowledgement of the split that made it into print? Not quite. What we have for sale is a very unique letter written by Rand on September 27, 1968 which actually hints, in very strong terms, at the split.

[....]

Here is the first (to our knowledge) written statement by Rand acknowledging the split with the Brandens, written prior to the release of her "To Whom It May Concern" public statement.

[....]

Replacing the The Objectivist address at the Empire State Building with her home address, along with her statement that she had an "unfortunate experience with NBI) which will be explained in the next issue of her newsletter is a very strong indication that she and the Brandens had split -- and this prior to any public announcement. To our knowledge no other letter of a similar nature exists.

The wording above is within the bounds of strict accuracy but is somewhat misleading nonetheless. Rand's statement in The Objectivist is dated September 15, 1968. It had been penned and printed prior to September 27, even if the issue of the magazine wasn't mailed until early October. Likewise the "For the Record" addendum is dated "September, 1968."

Also, it wasn't just "others close to Rand [who] knew of the split earlier." New York NBI students had been told that there would be no Fall NBI courses because Rand and Branden had split. I was told this myself -- a stranger newly arrived in town -- when I went to the offices at the Empire State Building to inquire what courses would be given in the fall. So it wasn't being kept a secret until the print announcement in The Objectivist. No explanation was given -- just that the issue was a personal one -- but the fact of the split was known to significantly more people that those "close to Rand."

Ellen

___

==

[Mike Hardy]

Despite the loss of spark in the post-split magazine, I was glad to see an end of Nathaniel's articles on psychology. Ever since I'd subscribed to the Newsletter in Spring '63 and acquired all the back copies, I'd all along objected to the tone of his psychology articles and their inclusion of assertions about what "a rational person" -- alternately, "an irrational person" -- would/wouldn't do. There was a degree of scaring-into-line employed in his presentations (in hers, too, of course, but I think this is a worse negative coming from someone writing as a professional clinical psychologist).

(The ironic thing is that I did not like Nathaniel pre-split; I thought he was a bad influence; I was glad to hear she'd split with him.... And then I read her statement, and felt horrified by her. No happy choice of sides in that situation.)

Ellen

___

When I read _To_Whom_It_May_Concern_ (years after the event), I also felt she was wrong to ask people to condemn someone without being sufficiently specific, as if she's saying "Judge him as immoral because I say so." She says he lied, but doesn't give specifics. She mentions some allegedly immoral behavior without saying what it was. Consequently I didn't believe her.

Could a rational person read between the lines enough to realize he had deceived her about a relationship with another woman, and that that's why she didn't want to be explicit, and take _that_ to be enough specificity to form a judgement?

It was from Nathaniel Branden's own writing, in _Judgment_Day_, conjoined with Barbara Branden's _Liberty_ interview, that the picture formed in my mind of NB as "scaring people into line". He wrote that he loved having his students feel fear and awe of him. He also wrote that when AR was angry at people, he took her side and attacked the object of her anger. As a psychologist he must have known exactly what he was doing. In her case, on the other hand, it would appear that her anger was just emotion, rather than calculated to manipulate. Her attention must have been on the issues she was arguing about, rather than on the dynamics of power. Those issues were obviously what she cared about. Picture the situation: she's angry at someone; NB leaps in to attack that person and does so with great skill; the person then remembers that it was AR who attacked him, and NB who merely was a cheerleader; this makes _her_ look like the one maintaining power over people and trying to scare them into line. It's in _Judgment_Day_, but not very explicit. -- Mike Hardy

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike,

That is an interesting viewpoint and I sense truth in it. But do you think it is the whole story?

Did the power dynamics around Rand simply disappear after the break? From the accounts I have read (non-Branden accounts), the structure simply got smaller, but a power structure with Rand ruling in the middle still stayed in place. It was much smaller, less aggressive toward outsiders who did not follow the behavior expected of insiders, but it was still there.

In my only incursion into that world back then, I saw a glimpse of it up close. This was the time The Ayn Rand Letter was still being written and The Night of January 16th was being put on in NY. I was a student in Boston and I went to the NY The Ayn Rand Letter office to inquire about other activities or services that they might have offered. I had no idea at the time that a break had happened. Everything was very cordial in the office until I asked about the movie that was being made of Atlas. Rand had announced it in the Letter. I mentioned that I dreamed about writing the music for it. Then I was treated to a heaping helping of some real low-down nastiness. I was already feeling bad from something I ate or a cold coming on, so all I could do was get out of there as quickly as I could. I almost threw up right there in the office from being treated that way. I was shocked and appalled. What a disappointment I felt at the time!

I went and saw the play. I was a college kid with no budget whatsoever, so this event was my big thing—my saving the pennies over months so I could do it thing. I showed up expecting to see people who were used to visiting Galt's Gultch as the audience. What I saw was a group of uptight people. For instance, I smiled at people, but they averted their eyes. All talk (what little of it happened) was in a very low voice. The impression I had was that they were afraid to talk to each other. I was a performing artist and had my contacts, so in Boston I often got complementary tickets. I was used to seeing plays. There are ways audiences normally act during intermission and before and after the presentation. I even saw this normal behavior when I went to one of Rand's speeches at the Ford Hall Forum. But I did not see it at the play. This, added to the nastiness earlier that day at the Letter office, left an impression in my mind of something seriously weird.

I am only speculating, but I believe these people were mostly intimidated. They certainly acted like they were cowed. The play was not a hit with the general public and had a short run, so it is reasonable to assume that mostly Rand fans saw it (with their friends and family tagging along). Of those Rand fans, it is also reasonable to assume that most were from New York.

All of this could have been residual from NBI days, but I don't think it would have lasted as long without a source feeding it. This happened several years after the break. Barbara mentioned in Passion that no one achieves the kind of power Rand had (guru-type power) without seeking it. I agree. But I also agree with your comments on one level and they shed a very penetrating light into crowd psychology. So here is my take.

Rand was mostly interested in ideas, but did have a small taste for power. I believe she even refined this taste by imbibing more of it at NBI than she ever did before in her life. Nathaniel let the power go to his head and valued it much more than Rand. (Power does corrupt, but it corrupts the young much easier.) As he was one of the driving forces behind the gathering of a large flock at NBI and Rand gave him her full approval, what he did could easily have become confused in people's minds with what Rand did.

Movie makers use this mechanism as a sleight-of-hand all the time. For instance, Polanski has written that one of his proudest acomplishments was a reaction to Rosemary's Baby that he prompted in people on purpose. When it came out, many moviegoers swore that he presented a filmed image of the devil in it. But he only showed people's reactions. He did not believe in Satan and could not bring himself to present an image of one even in the make-believe of a fictional story.

But this does not account for everything. It would be nice if life allowed single causes in human behavior, but that is never the case. When NBI was disbanded, I believe the power structure fell down to a size (number of people) that reflected Rand's value for these things instead of Nathaniel's. But a power structure did remain, it was rigid and Rand ruled it.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Despite the loss of spark in the post-split magazine, I was glad to see an end of Nathaniel's articles on psychology. Ever since I'd subscribed to the Newsletter in Spring '63 and acquired all the back copies, I'd all along objected to the tone of his psychology articles and their inclusion of assertions about what "a rational person" -- alternately, "an irrational person" -- would/wouldn't do. There was a degree of scaring-into-line employed in his presentations (in hers, too, of course, but I think this is a worse negative coming from someone writing as a professional clinical psychologist).

(The ironic thing is that I did not like Nathaniel pre-split; I thought he was a bad influence; I was glad to hear she'd split with him.... And then I read her statement, and felt horrified by her. No happy choice of sides in that situation.)

Ellen

___

[....]

It was from Nathaniel Branden's own writing, in _Judgment_Day_, conjoined with Barbara Branden's _Liberty_ interview, that the picture formed in my mind of NB as "scaring people into line". He wrote that he loved having his students feel fear and awe of him. He also wrote that when AR was angry at people, he took her side and attacked the object of her anger. As a psychologist he must have known exactly what he was doing. In her case, on the other hand, it would appear that her anger was just emotion, rather than calculated to manipulate. Her attention must have been on the issues she was arguing about, rather than on the dynamics of power. Those issues were obviously what she cared about. Picture the situation: she's angry at someone; NB leaps in to attack that person and does so with great skill; the person then remembers that it was AR who attacked him, and NB who merely was a cheerleader; this makes _her_ look like the one maintaining power over people and trying to scare them into line. It's in _Judgment_Day_, but not very explicit. -- Mike Hardy

Mike,

I agree with your description of the difference in personalities -- except for the statement "As a psychologist he must have known exactly what he was doing" [my emphasis]. Having some training in psychology is no guarantee of insight into one's own (or anyone else's) motivations. ;-)

However, the point I was making didn't pertain to their respective behavior in person but to their written articles. I was bothered more by the "how a rational/irrational person would think/feel/act" stuff in his articles (there seemed to me quite a lot of that in his writing) than I was by similar features (though in a different style) in hers.

Ellen

___

[Mike Hardy]

In my only incursion into that world back then, I saw a glimpse of it up close. This was the time The Ayn Rand Letter was still being written and The Night of January 16th was being put on in NY. I was a student in Boston and I went to the NY The Ayn Rand Letter office to inquire about other activities or services that they might have offered. I had no idea at the time that a break had happened. Everything was very cordial in the office until I asked about the movie that was being made of Atlas. Rand had announced it in the Letter. I mentioned that I dreamed about writing the music for it. Then I was treated to a heaping helping of some real low-down nastiness. I was already feeling bad from something I ate or a cold coming on, so all I could do was get out of there as quickly as I could. I almost threw up right there in the office from being treated that way. I was shocked and appalled. What a disappointment I felt at the time!

I went and saw the play. I was a college kid with no budget whatsoever, so this event was my big thing—my saving the pennies over months so I could do it thing. I showed up expecting to see people who were used to visiting Galt's Gultch as the audience. What I saw was a group of uptight people. For instance, I smiled at people, but they averted their eyes. All talk (what little of it happened) was in a very low voice. The impression I had was that they were afraid to talk to each other. I was a performing artist and had my contacts, so in Boston I often got complementary tickets. I was used to seeing plays. There are ways audiences normally act during intermission and before and after the presentation. I even saw this normal behavior when I went to one of Rand's speeches at the Ford Hall Forum. But I did not see it at the play. This, added to the nastiness earlier that day at the Letter office, left an impression in my mind of something seriously weird.

I am only speculating, but I believe these people were mostly intimidated. They certainly acted like they were cowed. The play was not a hit with the general public and had a short run, so it is reasonable to assume that mostly Rand fans saw it (with their friends and family tagging along). Of those Rand fans, it is also reasonable to assume that most were from New York.

All of this could have been residual from NBI days, but I don't think it would have lasted as long without a source feeding it.

Leonard Peikoff studies hard and is not exactly brilliant. Branden taught him how to deal with NBI students. No?

This happened several years after the break. Barbara mentioned in Passion that no one achieves the kind of power Rand had (guru-type power) without seeking it. I agree. But I also agree with your comments on one level and they shed a very penetrating light into crowd psychology. So here is my take.

In her _Liberty_ interview she said that about NB, in almost exactly those words: no one has that kind of power without seeking it. Then she explicitly said Rand did _not_ have that kind of power and NB did. Can you tell me what page of her book this is on? -- Mike Hardy

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike,

The Passion of Ayn Rand (p. 271):

No one achieves power who does not seek it; had she not insisted upon being viewed as a goddess, she would not have been so viewed.

I had forgotten about the goddess part, but should anyone think Barbara is making that up, this was an issue Rand discussed in her own words. I refer them to the "goddess premise" Rand wrote about (meaning herself as the goddess), which is presented in her journal entries in PARC. (I can find the page number or numbers if you like.)

I do want to mention that Barbara's statement is qualified by her mention of the part that the uncritical adulation Rand received from her young admireres contributed to reinforcing this.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Mike Hardy; The audience for Night of Jan. 16th came from all over the East coast. Several of us from Washington came up for opening night.

[Ellen Stuttle]

[...] this was an issue Rand discussed in her own words. I refer them to the "goddess premise" Rand wrote about (meaning herself as the goddess), which is presented in her journal entries in PARC. (I can find the page number or numbers if you like.)

She's referring to that as a premise NB brought up as a reason for his difficulties in his relationship with her, no? (If you can find the page numbers easily, please do post them. I'm too tired to look for them now.)

E-

___