Wagons Being Circled

[Jonathan]

But did he say to Ayn, when she put out feelers about resuming the affair, words to the effect, "Ayn, I no longer feel sexual desire for you. Also, I'm having an affair with Patrecia"?

My understanding is that Branden did cautiously approached those subjects. He floated trial balloons, and Rand shot them down. She turned them into issues of harsh moral judgment -- what type of evil person he would have to be in order to prefer Patrecia to her, or even to need a relationship with Patrecia in addition to her.

He could have told her the truth about his diminished attraction and sought therapy on that basis instead of denying his diminished attraction and seeking therapy on other bases.

While being told by his "therapist" that his diminishing attraction to her, and his increasing attraction for another woman, would make him evil in her judgment?

Where do you find his seeking her advice trying to "find a cure for his diminishing appetite for her [Rand]"? At the start he told her other stuff, and then said that he had a sexual dysfunction problem.

You didn't get the impression that Branden's purpose of agreeing to "therapy" with Rand was to present reality as if it were a hypothetical, in order to test the waters and see what Rand's response would be, and then, once it was clear that Rand would judge his choices and appetites as proof of his evil, to explore what was wrong with him according to Rand's theories on sex that he had absorbed, and to help him return to the "rational" mindset of needing only Rand, the Ideal Woman? You didn't get the impression that to a large degree he shared her opinion that he should have been romantically serious about only her if he were truly the Real-life Objectivist Hero that he was supposed to be?

J

[Jonathan]

So, here's the picture:

Nathaniel Branden was keeping information from his therapist, who was also his lover, business partner, and his superior in the movement, and lying to her.

He was using the "therapy" to stall and stave off the inevitable disclosure of his relationship with Patrecia Scott and the consequences that were bound to be attendant on that.

Let's not forget that the consequences had already been spelled out by Rand. During Branden's "therapy" sessions with Rand, trial balloons had been floated, and Rand had made very angry judgments of Patrecia. Patrecia was verboten. She was filth. And Branden would be judged to have turned his back on rationality, integrity and all other Objectivist virtues and values if he ended up having a relationship with a lowly "shop-girl/advertising model" rather than being totally fulfilled by Rand, the Ideal Woman.

Is it common for a therapist to make such judgments about herself and a patient's potential or hypothetical romantic partner? Rand was anything but rational or objective on the subject.

Also, Rand was highly hypocritical when judging Branden and Patrecia. If Patrecia was a "shop-girl" type, then Frank O'Connor was even more so (Patrecia was at the beginning of her adult life, and was pursuing her passions, where Frank had largely abandoned his; Patrecia eventually went on to be more successful at acting than Frank had been at anything, despite her early death). If Branden was evil for wanting a romantic relationship with "shop-girl" Patrecia when he already had the Ideal Woman, then Rand should have been judged as evil for having married so far beneath herself, and for wanting to remain married to "shop-boy" Frank after she had established a romantic relationship with True Objectivist Hero Branden.

The Queen, and "therapist," reserved for herself what was forbidden to her concubine.

I think Branden probably believed a lot of the crap that Rand was dishing up. I think anyone in his position would be very confused by the inappropriate judgments that his mentor/lover was making. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that a person might lie about, or not disclose, many things when facing someone who was a prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one.

J

[Robert Campbell]

The Queen, and "therapist," reserved for herself what was forbidden to her concubine.

Which is why Ms. Stuttle thinks it was perfectly OK for Ayn Rand to serve as therapist to her lover, business partner, and disciple.

Meanwhile, Ms. Stuttle has posted no corrections to Roderick Fitts' online review of the Valiiant opus.

Will we see them before hell freezes over?

Robert Campbell

[kiaer.ts]

But did he say to Ayn, when she put out feelers about resuming the affair, words to the effect, "Ayn, I no longer feel sexual desire for you. Also, I'm having an affair with Patrecia"?

My understanding is that Branden did cautiously approached those subjects. He floated trial balloons, and Rand shot them down. She turned them into issues of harsh moral judgment -- what type of evil person he would have to be in order to prefer Patrecia to her, or even to need a relationship with Patrecia in addition to her.

He could have told her the truth about his diminished attraction and sought therapy on that basis instead of denying his diminished attraction and seeking therapy on other bases.

While being told by his "therapist" that his diminishing attraction to her, and his increasing attraction for another woman, would make him evil in her judgment?

Where do you find his seeking her advice trying to "find a cure for his diminishing appetite for her [Rand]"? At the start he told her other stuff, and then said that he had a sexual dysfunction problem.

You didn't get the impression that Branden's purpose of agreeing to "therapy" with Rand was to present reality as if it were a hypothetical, in order to test the waters and see what Rand's response would be, and then, once it was clear that Rand would judge his choices and appetites as proof of his evil, to explore what was wrong with him according to Rand's theories on sex that he had absorbed, and to help him return to the "rational" mindset of needing only Rand, the Ideal Woman? You didn't get the impression that to a large degree he shared her opinion that he should have been romantically serious about only her if he were truly the Real-life Objectivist Hero that he was supposed to be?

J

So, here's the picture:

Nathaniel Branden was keeping information from his therapist, who was also his lover, business partner, and his superior in the movement, and lying to her.

He was using the "therapy" to stall and stave off the inevitable disclosure of his relationship with Patrecia Scott and the consequences that were bound to be attendant on that.

Let's not forget that the consequences had already been spelled out by Rand. During Branden's "therapy" sessions with Rand, trial balloons had been floated, and Rand had made very angry judgments of Patrecia. Patrecia was verboten. She was filth. And Branden would be judged to have turned his back on rationality, integrity and all other Objectivist virtues and values if he ended up having a relationship with a lowly "shop-girl/advertising model" rather than being totally fulfilled by Rand, the Ideal Woman.

Is it common for a therapist to make such judgments about herself and a patient's potential or hypothetical romantic partner? Rand was anything but rational or objective on the subject.

Also, Rand was highly hypocritical when judging Branden and Patrecia. If Patrecia was a "shop-girl" type, then Frank O'Connor was even more so (Patrecia was at the beginning of her adult life, and was pursuing her passions, where Frank had largely abandoned his; Patrecia eventually went on to be more successful at acting than Frank had been at anything, despite her early death). If Branden was evil for wanting a romantic relationship with "shop-girl" Patrecia when he already had the Ideal Woman, then Rand should have been judged as evil for having married so far beneath herself, and for wanting to remain married to "shop-boy" Frank after she had established a romantic relationship with True Objectivist Hero Branden.

The Queen, and "therapist," reserved for herself what was forbidden to her concubine.

I think Branden probably believed a lot of the crap that Rand was dishing up. I think anyone in his position would be very confused by the inappropriate judgments that his mentor/lover was making. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that a person might lie about, or not disclose, many things when facing someone who was a prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one.

J

The above is 100% spot on. The problem for many is that they cannot accept its truth without also coming to the conclusion that it makes Rand (or somebody!) into a monster. It doesn't. Rand was a shy girl who lived in her head and who, had she been a bit prettier and more outgoing might have made better choices as a middle aged woman than she did. She ended up making mistakes in her very late 40's that more outgoing people experience and move past in their early twenties.

Edited September 19, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Robert Campbell]

Rand was a shy girl who lived in her head and who, had she been a bit prettier and more outgoing might have made better choices as a middle aged woman than she did. She ended up making mistakes in her very late 40's that more outgoing people experience and move past in their early twenties.

Ted,

Exactly.

But the language you've used is not, and cannot be, the language of idolatry.

Robert Campbell

[Philip Coates]

Subject: what constitutes proof or hard evidence

> During Branden's "therapy" sessions with Rand, trial balloons had been floated, and Rand had made very angry judgments of Patrecia. Patrecia was verboten. She was filth. And Branden would be judged to have turned his back on rationality, integrity and all other Objectivist virtues and values if he ended up having a relationship with a lowly "shop-girl/advertising model" rather than being totally fulfilled by Rand, the Ideal Woman.

You state this as if you were a bug on the wall listening, as if it were fact.

Not merely someone's claim. Or the way they remembered it.

[kiaer.ts]

Subject: what constitutes proof or hard evidence

> During Branden's "therapy" sessions with Rand, trial balloons had been floated, and Rand had made very angry judgments of Patrecia. Patrecia was verboten. She was filth. And Branden would be judged to have turned his back on rationality, integrity and all other Objectivist virtues and values if he ended up having a relationship with a lowly "shop-girl/advertising model" rather than being totally fulfilled by Rand, the Ideal Woman.

You state this as if you were a bug on the wall listening, as if it were fact.

Not merely someone's claim. Or the way they remembered it.

Really, Phil, this sort of thing is quite obvious. I could illustrate this with incidents from my own life if it weren't for the fact that I have remained friends with all my exes, and didn't make the mistake of repudiating them irrevocably when things didn't work out, and so am not interested in airing my laundry in public.

[Robert Campbell]

You state this as if you were a bug on the wall listening, as if it were fact.

Not merely someone's claim. Or the way they remembered it.

Phil,

Once again you're illustrating the futility of commenting on these matters when you haven't read The Passion of Ayn Rand, My Years with Ayn Rand, and PARC (not the parts by Valliant, but Rand's actual diaries).

You'd know, if you'd read them, that Ted's account is well supported by the information available to us. For example as Rand's diaries proceed, and she slowly becomes aware of the threat that Patrecia Scott actually poses, she gets more and more negative in her judgments about Patrecia.

Robert Campbell

[Philip Coates]

> as Rand's diaries proceed, and she slowly becomes aware of the threat that Patrecia Scott actually poses, she gets more and more negative in her judgments about Patrecia. [Robert]

Then you or J should present an -actual quote- that justifies the rather extreme language about the over-the-top nature of her reaction.

You do see that, epistemologically and in terms of the rules of evidence and proof, this must be a quote FROM RAND, not from anyone's biography, don't you?

[Robert Campbell]

Phil,

I wrote a whole essay for SOLOHQ about Ayn Rand's jealous feelings toward Patrecia Scott.

It's full of quotations from Rand's journals.

The point was to show the huge discrepancy between what Rand's journals said and what Jim Valliant wanted readers to believe they said.

Here 'tis:

http://rebirthofreas...d_Jealous.shtml

It's nearly 5 years old, Phil.

It might be helpful but, as I said right in the essay, it's not a substitute for reading the original sources.

No one here is obliged to compensate for your refusal to read relevant material.

If you don't want to be involved in this topic, fine, don't comment.

If you do want to contribute, then read the biographies and, of course, the diaries.

Continued uninformed comments are a complete waste of your time as well as ours.

Robert Campbell

[Philip Coates]

Subject: For a Major Topic, you must Bring the Evidence Here

Robert,

I will take a look at your link and see if the information is right there.

But there is a wider point applying to the issue of who is informed enough to participate:

1. When you make a major point on a discussion board -- one that becomes a major theme - you are writing for audiences with varying levels of knowledge or exposure.

So it is incumbent on you to *bring the evidence here*. And, if you or others are so well-versed in it, it should be easy to place the exact 'smoking gun' quotation right here in the posts. It should take minutes, where it might often take your reader many hours or even days of reading hundreds of pages.

The problem with saying 'go read several books' is that not everyone has unlimited time, especially where entire books are concerned or where there is following one link which leads to another, etc. just to verify a single point. I call that "link-chasing".

And it is legitimate to raise logical questions or to say "Ok, can you give me the smoking gun quotes or passages from the book. Obviously you have them, so just *paste the best one or two right here*.

2. Suppose for example someone said the 9-11 takedown of the World Trade Center was caused by explosives planted on the major girders and if someone was skeptical saying the evidence presented on a discussion board could be interpreted a different way? Then that person said "Well, you haven't read two three hundred page books, so an uninformed person should not be participating?"

2B. Suppose someone said, "Everyone on this list knows that Global Warming is true. Your claims that the earth is self-regulating or that cattle and trees cause most of the carbon dioxide is nonsense. Shut up with your skeptical comments on this list until you have a degree in climatology or at least have mastered the scientific literature. Come back in a year and offer your credentials."

(Do you understand the analogy with those two examples, the failure to simply summarize or cite the 'smoking gun'?)

Edited September 20, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Robert Campbell]

Well, Roderick Fitts' review of PARC is now published.

It's all of five paragraphs long, and rather bland in tone compared to his blog entry. If there were no copyright issues I could post the whole thing right inside this comment.

I shall forbear.

However, for those who have taken their anti-nausea meds, here is the conclusion:

The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics is well-researched and covers a wide range of articles, audio recordings, books, movies, and interviews with individuals who knew Rand for years, if not decades. Although the book focuses primarily on the Brandens' claims and the evidence against them, it also includes interesting details about aspects of Rand' philosophy (such as her little-known concept "meta-selfishness") and fills many gaps in the history of her life.

Yup, now you know it from Roderick Fitts himself: Valliant's opus is "well-researched."

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

Here's a suggestion when you criticize something. Get familiar with it before you criticize.

I see a recurring pattern of the following:

1. Phil complains that people are doing this or that.

2. People ask Phil if he has read what they wrote (if relevant) or the pertinent material.

3. Phil claims that this is not necessary.

4. When caught with his pants down, Phil quietly says nothing and does not own up to his own errors (see here for instance).

Lots of blah blah blah goes on around this frame, but that's the consistent outline.

That's an embarrassing way to brand yourself.

You have a good mind. It deserves a better reputation than that.

Michael

[Jonathan]

2. Suppose for example someone said the 9-11 takedown of the World Trade Center was caused by explosives planted on the major girders and if someone was skeptical saying the evidence presented on a discussion board could be interpreted a different way? Then that person said "Well, you haven't read two three hundred page books, so an uninformed person should not be participating?"

Or suppose that someone said that 9/11 was caused by terrorists crashing planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and then Phil replied that he had never heard of 9/11 and had no interest in learning anything about it, but that everyone was writing about it improperly, that they weren't doing everything possible to accommodate Phil's intellectual laziness and active resistance to learning, and they should maybe even chew his food for him and wipe his ass because he's too lazy to do anything for himself.

J

[Philip Coates]

> 2. People ask Phil if he has read what they wrote (if relevant) or the pertinent material. 3. Phil claims that this is not necessary......Get familiar with it before you criticize.

Michael, I have read TONS of posts on the issues in question over the years.

Probably five or six years worth of claims and allegations.

So I am quite familiar enough to participate in the discussion -- and to criticize the level or form of evidence offered on the board.

Edited September 20, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

> Phil replied that he had never heard of 9/11 and had no interest in learning anything

Too stupid to respond to.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

You certainly didn't read the post you bashed that I discussed in my link.

Nor did you pull your foot out of your mouth long enough to even say, "Oops."

(Here's the link again since I know you are a bit lazy about looking stuff up.)

Does that count in your "five or six years worth of claims and allegations"?

(btw - I stand by the pattern I have observed, your protestations to the contrary. Saying, "I know," and actually discussing the issues are two different things. On PARC I never see you discuss the issues. I like you, but I will not accept your knowledge on faith.)

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

MSK,

I have a question.

The list policy here prohibits "Branden bashing." But what if the "Branden bashing" is one Branden "bashing" the other?

In particular, I would like to know if it would be permitted to post here some excerpts from Barbara Branden's January 1990 Liberty interview -- an interview which was conducted not long after Judgment Day was published and which is the most open statement I've seen in print concerning Nathaniel's role in the "cult" atmosphere and concerning his deception of Ayn Rand.

I reread this interview during about the third time I was reading AR's diaries. To my way of thinking, it shows better than any other piece I know of what the atmosphere was like and the extent of Nathaniel's role in producing that atmosphere.

It certainly is, however, "[Nathaniel] Branden bashing."

I'm not desirous of being barred from posting here. There are some intellectual issues I still hold out hope of getting into in detail here. The issues pertaining to who/what Ayn Rand really was, however, still loom large for me, and still continue mostly to occupy my posting time.

There are questions which have been posed to me on this thread which Barbara's words of January 1990 would help in my answering. But I don't know if Barbara would welcome or if you would permit citing those words.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

There is a difference between discussing what the Brandens already discussed and the facts surrounding all that, and the Valliant party-line.

Also, my no-Branden-bashing policy was set to bar on OL rhetorical gimmicks that are used by Branden-haters to Branden-bash. For instance, saying "NB is a liar" in every other sentence so the phrase creeps into the reader's subconscious by sheer repetition, and things like that.

A third point was to keep the discussions of the Brandens within the context of the good they have done in life--which is considerable.

And a fourth point is that I don't want anyone coming on this list and calling Barbara and NB immoral jerks and things like that, especially not to their faces. There's the entire Internet for that if that is what they want to do.

At the time I set the policy, the Valliant-ARI crowd showed up everywhere on the Internet where they could post for free if the name "Branden" was mentioned within the context of Rand or Objectivism. And they showed their asses in rapid-fire posting, with lots and lots of post, all bashing the Brandens in some of the silliest ham-handed propaganda efforts I have ever seen. Obviously malice was at the root. (Fortunately, they were so silly and boring and boneheaded that most readers stopped reading them after a while.)

I decided there would be one place on the Internet where the Brandens, especially Barbara, could engage in a discussion with others without the discussion being polluted by taunts and so forth.

At the current time, after all the yelling has been shown for what it is, the issue is more historical than outright smearing of the Brandens, which is what it was before, so I have no problem with discussions about PARC within that intent. In other words, I--and the others who agree with me--won. PARC as a propaganda instrument to scapegoat "the enemy" has been thoroughly discredited, but there are details that could be interesting to discuss.

Also, the worldview that produces the different approaches to Rand, to PARC, to Branden-bashing, etc., is a very important topic within the Objectivist-libertarian subcommunity and it needs to be discussed. PARC is a good topic since it highlights the excesses so well. Is Objectivism a philosophy/body of ideas or a covert religion/cult? Was Rand a human being or was she a super-human being (a covert goddess)? Should we focus on engaging enemies or scapegoating them? And so on.

Just keep the discussions respectful of the Brandens, which means keep bigoted hatred and/or bullying out of them, and everything is fine.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Of course Nathaniel had the major role in the cult atmosphere surrounding Ayn Rand and just about everything else Objectivist in those days. He was the entrepreneur of Objectivism. Barbara had the core idea, I've read, of using tape transcription for the courses which was the backbone of NBI's success. I believe Nathaniel also got Ayn going with writing non-fiction in the 1960s. Everything Objectivist post Atlas Shrugged in my experience, which is not absolute knowledge of course, has Nathaniel right in the center of it and Ayn tangential except for the biggest two things of all: the impact of the novel and her relationship to him. The first four 1960s' books including the Brandens' Who Is Ayn Rand? were extremely important, but grew out of that NBI flowerpot.

--Brant

Edited September 21, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Robert Campbell]

There's never been any question in my mind—or, I should think, in most people's—about Nathaniel Branden's role, before 1968, in building and maintaining a cultish atmosphere around Ayn Rand.

What Jim Valliant and his fellow flunkies have tried to do is create the misleading impression that NB did all of that without Ayn Rand's knowledge, consent, or complicity.

Among Valliant's slime and sleaze, this is some of the worst.

Valliant and his allies assiduously practice the cult of Ayn Rand, and have no objections whatsoever to Rand-worship, canceling subscriptions to The Objectivist, excommunications, Peikoff the Pontiff, or any of the other crap—except when someone calls what Valliant et al. are into a cult, or when Valliant et al. notice that Satan (er, Nathaniel Branden) once played a role in it.

Quotations from a Barbara Branden interview are unlikely to rile anyone here.

If Ms. Stuttle wraps any Valliantoid vaporings around them, it'll be a whole different story.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

There's never been any question in my mind—or, I should think, in most people's—about Nathaniel Branden's role, before 1968, in building and maintaining a cultish atmosphere around Ayn Rand.

What Jim Valliant and his fellow flunkies have tried to do is create the misleading impression that NB did all of that without Ayn Rand's knowledge, consent, or complicity.

I wasn't there but that Rand would go to a debate with Albert Ellis and Branden in May 1967 attended by, what? 1200 people all but, what? 200 of them her avid followers and stand up from the audience and exclaim, what? "Am I impossible?" (or "real") in answer to Ellis saying her heroes weren't real, pretty much refutes those guys.

--Brant

I think I got this from Ellis's Is Objectivism A Religion?

[Neil Parille]

Ellen,

You write:

I'm not desirous of being barred from posting here. There are some intellectual issues I still hold out hope of getting into in detail here. The issues pertaining to who/what Ayn Rand really was, however, still loom large for me, and still continue mostly to occupy my posting time.

So what are the five major mistakes of fact in the Heller book and the five major mistakes in judgment. Ditto with Barbara and Burns. What are the virtues of PARC?

I don't see any posts on these topics from you.

-Neil Parille

[Robert Campbell]

The issues pertaining to who/what Ayn Rand really was, however, still loom large for me, and still continue mostly to occupy my posting time.

Since Ayn Rand's death, 3 serious biographies and 1 memoir have been published:

The Passion of Ayn Rand, by Barbara Branden (1986)

Judgment Day: My Years with Ayn Rand, by Nathaniel Branden (1989; revised 1999)

Goddess of the Market, by Jennifer Burns (2009)

Ayn Rand and the World She Made, by Anne Heller (2009)

Another serious biographical work is about to appear:

100 Voices, edited by Scott McConnell

Still another serious biography may appear eventually (Shoshana Milgram's; I count this effort as serious despite its authorized status).

Not counted as serious here is a brief memoir aimed at bucking up the Rand-worshipping contingent (Facets of Ayn Rand by Charles and Mary Ann Sures).

Neither are a whitewashed film and its associated book (Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life and the derivative volume by Jeff Britting), though these latter do include some nice pictures.

Least of all is a sleazy, ill-researched, underhanded, badly written, out-of-print book plainly intended to encourage the Rand-worshipping contingent:

The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, by James S. Valliant (2005)

Not even the original, previously unpublished material (Rand's 1967-1968 diaries) included in the Valliant book—and these are the only reason that most people will ever subject themselves to reading it—can be entirely trusted. There is no way now, and there may not be for many years, that any but a handful of people can compare Jim Valliant and Casey Fahy's edited versions with the originals.

Now if Ms. Stuttle really wants to contribute to serious Rand biography, great.

But her personal acquaintance with Ms. Rand was extremely limited, and whatever tales Ms. Stuttle has had to tell from personal experience she has told and retold endless times already. She has long since moved into claiming to have been tighter with certain people than she really was, and pretending to knowledge that she does not in fact possess concerning Ms. Rand and her remaining circle during Ms. Rand's final decade.

Whatever genuine insights Ms. Stuttle has had into Rand's personality or frame of mind, she has had years to express them in this forum and in others.

And there's never been anything terribly distinctive about such opinions as Ms. Stuttle has chosen to express in the past.

For a long time, Ms. Stuttle attached herself to one established point of view, namely Barbara Branden's.

More recently, she has decided to reject Barbara Branden's standpoint outright, for reasons she has never bothered to explicate with any clarity. Her dislike of other supporters of that viewpoint and her itch to outdo them seem to have been the main driver.

And instead of following her own path, Ms. Stuttle has merely shifted her allegiance to Jim Valliant's anti-Branden point of view, appointing herself online defense counsel to Mr. Valliant, pretending to friendship with Jim and Holly Valliant, and kissing up to persons she once affected to detest, insofar as they were usefully connected with Jim Valliant (e.g., Lindsay Perigo, but only as long as Jim Valliant was posting on his site).

Since what Valliant actually wrote in PARC has been ripped apart along every conceivable dimension and, as Ms. Stuttle is surely in a position to realize, has essentially no credibility remaining, she has to pretend to find some vague, never before detected signal amongst all the noise.

And the novelty of a non-Rand-worshipper endorsing Valliant's book (when all of its other endorsers have been frank Rand-worshippers, incipient Rand-worshippers, or persons who pretended to worship Rand in order to advance some other agenda) has lasted about three minutes.

Ms. Stuttle has not written her own biography of Ayn Rand.

She will not be writing her own biography of Ayn Rand.

She has asked a few worthwhile questions about details in Barbara Branden's book, Jennifer Burns' book, and Anne Heller's book, without either attempting a fundamental critique of any of these works or having any chance of succeeding at it.

She has pretended to find previously undiscovered value in Jim Valliant's book while helping to undermine its credibility in the past, and doing nothing to restore it in the present.

Bottom line: several authors have now made serious efforts to understand Rand as she was and to present her in print, as accurately as they can.

Whether any has been completely successful or not, Ms. Stuttle now entirely rejects the work of all of those authors, without anything approaching adequate cause.

And she offers nothing to put in their place.

It sure looks as though Ms. Stuttle keeps posting on this topic because she so badly wants an audience.

Problem is, when it comes to this same topic there's no one left who wants to be part of her audience.

Robert Campbell

[Dennis Hardin]

Since Ayn Rand's death, 3 serious biographies and 1 memoir have been published:

The Passion of Ayn Rand, by Barbara Branden (1986)

Judgment Day: My Years with Ayn Rand, by Nathaniel Branden (1989; revised 1999)

Goddess of the Market, by Jennifer Burns (2009)

Ayn Rand and the World She Made, by Anne Heller (2009)

Another serious biographical work is about to appear:

100 Voices, edited by Scott McConnell

Still another serious biography may appear eventually (Shoshana Milgram's; I count this effort as serious despite its authorized status).

Not counted as serious here is a brief memoir aimed at bucking up the Rand-worshipping contingent (Facets of Ayn Rand by Charles and Mary Ann Sures).

Neither are a whitewashed film and its associated book (Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life and the derivative volume by Jeff Britting), though these latter do include some nice pictures.

Least of all is a sleazy, ill-researched, underhanded, badly written, out-of-print book plainly intended to encourage the Rand-worshipping contingent:

The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, by James S. Valliant (2005)

Robert Campbell

Robert,

Excellent overview.

All those posthumous biographies are obviously the products of subjectivist mentalities bent on rewriting history to make it fit their version of the truth. The only one which Objectivist True Believers should accept is Barbara Branden’s biographical essay in Who Is Ayn Rand?, because it undoubtedly reflects Miss Rand’s efforts to rewrite her own history to make it fit Miss Rand’s version of the truth.

No doubt it would be part of the orthodox canon, were it not for the inconvenient fact that Mr. and Mrs. Satan appear on the cover.