Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What then IS he trying to prove?

Ellen,

That he is a forensic classifier of criminal souls?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The following boneheaded quote by Valliant is too rich to pass up:

Did Branden himself ever risk Rand's anger? No...

Heh.

Here is a quote from Rand's journal entries in PARC (p. 315), where she is discussing when Nathaniel did manage to become interested in sex with her.

... such as during our violent quarrels...

Violent? Quarrels with an "s"? Like more than one?

Or how about this quote (p. 333)?

When I exploded, he dropped "the goddess" hypothesis.

Exploded? Like lowering the boom on someone who risked her anger?

There is a very heavily edited excerpt by Rand on p. 303 that shows clearly that both Nathaniel and Barbara had been accusing Rand of being moralistic, and her total refusal to entertain the real meaning of the term when applied to her. Rand's writing insinuates that this had been said to her more than once. Here is the quote (with Valliant's edits, since I am unsure if an accurate Rand quote would be left over if I removed them):

The most awful issue to me is [the accusation of being] "moralistic": he (and perhaps [barbara Branden]) blame me for being blameless, i.e., moral and rational. This, to me, is penalizing me for my virtues because they are my virtues.

I don't think they were accusing Rand of being blameless at all, nor penalizing her for virtue. I think, going from Rand's own words, that they were accusing her to her face—more than once—of being overly-condemnatory and applying moral denunciations to issues that did not warrant such practice. But I will let them speak for themselves.

At any rate, violent quarrels, explosions and accusations of being moralistic sound to me precisely like someone risking Rand's anger—unlike Valliant's conclusion that Nathaniel did not risk her anger, which sounds to me like a lie he makes to support his smears.

There is a whole lot more along these lines in PARC. When I get in a benevolent mood, I start agreeing with Robert Campbell that maybe Valliant did not read PARC.

Michael

[Mike11]

I don't go to joke sites anymore.

[Neil Parille]

Ellen,

This, from PARC's introduction, appears to be Valliant's "point":

Despite the claims these biographers make that their memoirs are drawn from personal experience, it will be seen that their intense personal animosity towards Rand—which emanates from that experience—has scarred all aspects of their work.

We shall see that the level of willful deception, rhetorical trickery, clever insinuation, suppression of sources, uncorroborated and nakedly opportunistic memories, and epidemic internal contradictions, make even the positive things the Brandens have to say about Rand—which might be regarded as credible considering the authors’ obvious hostility toward her—essentially worthless as well. Any praise they offer seems, in the end, a mere acknowledgement of the observations of far more honest sources.

* * *

Rand’s private journals turn out to shed enormous light on the events related in the Brandens’ works, and this again prompted several additions to the original essay, and these will be apparent. As with the previous modifications, I found that this material only strengthened the original analysis, exposing still more flaws in the Brandens’ accounts of the very kind already identified, and confirming several of the original theses. In particular, this material demonstrated the degree to which the Brandens have suppressed information vital to a fair assessment of their own behavior and Rand’s, and, far from revealing personal hypocrisy on Rand’s part, are testimony to Rand’s integrity and consistency.

Even more, these journals provide the fascinating account of how an extraordinary mind systematically unmasked the systematic deceit of a rather extraordinary deceiver, and they provide a tragic chronicle of how a romantic soul was cruelly manipulated by a man to whom she had given her highest trust and affection.

Most critically, these journals provide Rand’s only means of posthumous response to the Brandens’ allegations, the only window into her perspective on this issue. For this reason alone, Rand’s students and admirers must be grateful to the Estate of Ayn Rand for making them available—without fee or royalty of any kind—for this analysis

Valliant has two main points: (1) there are so many internal and external problems with the Branden books so as to lead to a conclusion that they are dishonest; and (2) Rand's journals contradict the Brandens' account. (His overarching claim however appears to be that the Brandens are bad people who wronged Rand.)

I've spent more time on the first part of PARC (that not directly involving the journals). Here Valliant doesn't make his case. That Barbara Branden made a mistake about how Rand chose her name, that the Brandens threw a surprise party to attempt to "control Rand's context," that they disagree with some of what Rand said about libertarianism, etc. is for the most part (as Dan Barnes has noted) insignificant trivia twisted "until it confesses its sinister intent." And even then, Valliant constantly misquotes the Brandens. He and his supporters have said that what I've done is nitpicking, but these are the very examples that Valliant uses to make his case.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I want to keep this whole sorry spectacle on record since I did say that nobody is taking PARC seriously anymore.

We have Bonehead No. 2 now clamoring for a holy crusade. He is addressing Bonehead No. 1, who said he wanted to thank his legion of supporters.

Frankly, right now these folk should be stepping up. The Brandroids are clearly on the offensive again in their campaign to de-heroise Ayn Rand under the guise of combatting a cultist equation of heroism with infallibility, of hero-worship with blind adulation. All those people who gave you "private praise and encouragement" should be speaking out at this time. Nothing less than historical justice for Rand is at stake. Those who stay silent in such circumstances are cowards and traitors.

There followed some Shakespeare used as jingo.

What this means is that Bonehead No. 2 will be pumping the emails like he used to do with me when we were on speaking terms, suggesting, begging, threatening, cajoling, blackmailing doing anything he can to get someone to post what he wants posted.

What few people he will manage to get will do it once or twice then stop. PARC simply ain't worth it.

I will be watching, though, and register it as more proof that PARC's influence is nil.

There are several Objectivists I know of who buy into the theme PARC was supposed to defend, as is their right (for as much as I disagree with them), but I wonder how many of them want their names associated with a mountain of shoddy scholarship promoted by river of irrational excesses, i.e., PARC promoted by Perigo, i.e., boneheads.

Michael

[Jonathan]

We have Bonehead No. 2 now clamoring for a holy crusade...

Not to get all technical, but to me it looks like there's more fat than bone:

[Dragonfly]

This is how I imagine a villain in Atlas Shrugged.

[Chris Grieb]

I don't know if anyone OL watches "The Brotherhood" but there was an actor who played a hitman on one episod. The picture of Prego reminded me of him. Sorta of a male Ivy Stearns.

[Robert Campbell]

Over there, where Mr. Valliant continues his meltdown, I challenged him to name some members of his alleged legion of supporters.

So far, he has claimed that Tara Smith is a big fan of his book.

Very well, let's see now whether Dr. Smith steps forward to endorse his opus in public.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

In this whole thingamajig, the following complaint about you from Valliant is one of the strongest contenders for top quote I have read so far (and I have read a lot):

And then there's the mind-numbing repetition of claims refuted over and over -- it starts to look as if you want to scare any potential readers of this discussion away with the endless, patience-taxing repetitions -- and for obvious reasons.

Dayaamm!

You are right. This guy maybe wrote PARC, but from that quote, he did not read it! Here he shows he is hellbent on proving that A is not A (i.e., a person can write but not read his own work at the same time).

Once, while researching regional music in Brazil, I spoke to a "pai de santo" (essentially a witch doctor in a deity religion from Africa). He told me that the lowest form of spirit was the person who could not see himself. That phrase always stuck with me and I think it is true. Self-awareness is the doorway to wisdom.

In philosophy, Socrates said, "Know thyself."

How is it a Brazilian witch doctor has more wisdom than a so-called Objectivist?

Michael

[Jonathan]

This is how I imagine a villain in Atlas Shrugged.

Not me. I think that, in literature and drama, handsome villains are generally more realistic, romantic, and effective, because, as is true in real life, I think people are often more likely to be fooled by a pretty face.

Also, in regard to my posting the picture of Pigero, I wanted to say that I don't associate fatness with badness, just as I don't associate, say, jaundiced abdomens with badness. I just thought it was an amusing coincidence that, mentally, Pigero is a fathead, and, physically, he has a fat head, just as I think it would be an amusing coincidence if a very cowardly person actually had a yellow belly.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

Valliant has two main points: (1) there are so many internal and external problems with the Branden books so as to lead to a conclusion that they are dishonest; and (2) Rand's journals contradict the Brandens' account. (His overarching claim however appears to be that the Brandens are bad people who wronged Rand.)

I've spent more time on the first part of PARC (that not directly involving the journals). Here Valliant doesn't make his case. That Barbara Branden made a mistake about how Rand chose her name, that the Brandens threw a surprise party to attempt to "control Rand's context," that they disagree with some of what Rand said about libertarianism, etc. is for the most part (as Dan Barnes has noted) insignificant trivia twisted "until it confesses its sinister intent." And even then, Valliant constantly misquotes the Brandens. He and his supporters have said that what I've done is nitpicking, but these are the very examples that Valliant uses to make his case.

Neil,

I agree that the excerpt from PARC you post in #504, plus the preceeding "monuments of dishonesty" paragraph on pg. 6, would seem to be the point of PARC, the contention or thesis he's taken upon himself the burden of proof of proving.

However, just as you say above in regard to the critique you've performed of Part I, he and his supporters keep coming back with the claim that you're nitpicking, that you're dwelling on irrelevancies -- and that you're missing the point. Which leaves the question, well, then, what is the point?

Furthermore, in recent discussions -- see my post #491 -- he's disclaimed arguing for several particulars important to establishing what seemed to be -- from his own Introduction -- the contention/thesis/point of the book.

What's left?

That the stories Nathaniel spun were more extensive than anything he quite explicitly said in his memoir? I'd grant that. But this is hardly enough to support Valliant's stated burden of proof.

Anything else?

Is there some secret code hidden in the text which all his critics are missing?

Ellen

___

[Daniel Barnes]

What is Valliant trying to prove?...

My guess is, his apparatchik credentials. Unsuccessfully.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

You asked, so here it is. Here is the point of PARC:

Branden never understood Objectivism well enough to be in the position he was in (being allowed to opperate as a spokesperson to Rand). When you read his old writings now it seems clear he was just saying what he thought Rand wanted him to, and his newer writings confirm as much.

This lie indicates a blank out of the series of concepts Nathaniel Branden specifically contributed to Objectivist thought (including the infamous one of social metaphysics) and the literature that Rand herself proclaimed as canonical Objectivism, while demonizing Nathaniel as not only an evil person, but as a mediocre intellectual as well. Even in "To Whom It May Concern," Rand's lament at the end was that he was so brilliant, not that he did not understand Objectivism. Hell, even Peikoff, in "The DIM Hypothesis" lectures, alluded to Nathaniel, claiming that he understood Objectivism and could teach it as no one else back in the day. (The rest of the mention was not flattering, but that does not alter his statement about Nathaniel's understanding of Objectivism.)

Fortunately, this kind of swallowing of historical rewrites whole to this extent are few (although there is a good deal of slurping and gulping going on in O-Land), probably due to the fact that Objectivism itself is a philosophy of reason. Even among Rand-worshippers and Branden-demonizers, there are limits. Only a mind that consciously chooses to close off to identifying facts will be able to go to this length, but this young man is proof that PARC can influence the volitionally out-of-focus if the tribal vibes are humming at the right frequency.

So Valliant can at least be proud that there is one mind on record that he helped warp into accepting a bowdlerized lie as fact. The bittersweet irony is that this young man presumes to know more about Objectivism than Rand did to make that kind of statement, seeing that she never repudiated Branden's pre-break work. But that is a mere detail. Valliant did it and that's what counts!

Valliant should hold this young man's statements up to the intellectuals at ARI, say, "Look what I did," and see what they think—see if they find this kind of reasoning a fitting example of Rand's legacy: her intellectual progeny.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

He wasn't yet born ten years after The Break. I was born in 1944 and read Atlas in 1963 and have first-hand experience with NB--and he's telling me?!!! "Not that he was a dolt, far from it": Peikoff. He had to be all but a genius, "A consumate actor" (Peikoff), to fool an Ayn Rand. Nathaniel Branden, the only man I ever met who could dictate a coherent, valuable book standing on his feet in one continuous take if he wanted to. Not his best, of course. Ah, youth! Me too, once, but differently presumptuous.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

MSK, first, apologies for not having yet read your post 2 in the queue above. I signed on for a particular -- pre-slated -- purpose.

On SOLO, Brendan Hutching has posted something which I think is an excellent brief statement of reasons to believe that AR was "authoritarian" in her approach.

Of course, by "authoritarian" I'm not meaning, nor are most making this claim meaning (though there are some who do mean) "totalitarian" -- a false association between "authoritarian" and "totalitarian" which Valliant plays on in his "Mullah Rand" chapter. Instead, what's meant is her being very non-allowing of any divergence from acceptance amongst those close to her of her viewpoints -- a non-allowing which wasn't that of the usual person who doesn't want friendships with someone radically different from his/her outlook on life. In short, Rand placed "requirements" on friendship with her, requirements well documented both in the breach and the observance. Those who remained in her close circle toed the line.

In the next post, I'll copy the post by Brendan which I think provides a very good synopsis of reasons for thinking AR "authoritarian."

Here I'm entering one guestion mark about a factual detail, one I've entered before above:

See my post #447.

It isn't clear if Rand indeed did:

[...][assign] her lieutenant to give Hospers a bollocking [...].

NB says so in his memoir. But Hospers in his 1990 "Conversations With Ayn Rand" says that he got "no hint" of what was to come. One or the other -- or a mixed state of both (i.e., something between a "riot act" and "no hint") -- is misremembering. I don't know if Hospers said something later which enlightens.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Here's the full Brendan Hutching post I referred to above. I think that this is very good:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/4787#comment-53755

Shunning and breaking

Submitted by Brendan Hutching on Mon, 2008-06-16 07:42.

“…the very idea that the Hospers break might have been an innocent misunderstanding on the part of both is utterly out of the question…”

As I said, it’s clear there was a misunderstanding. Rand thought she was being unfairly attacked. Hospers thought his comments were fair in the context. But while these misunderstandings may have been the occasion of the break, they are not sufficient to account for what happened next: the shunning and the break.

Rand did not attempt to seek an explanation from Hospers. Instead, she assigned her lieutenant to give Hospers a bollocking, and offered no “second chances”. The shunning and the break are the facts that elude your myopic focus.

“Rand was authoritarian because, well... Rand was an authoritarian."

I think there’s plenty of evidence from varied sources that points to Rand’s authoritarian tendencies. For example:

• The persuasion. Rand managed to persuade two spouses that an affair between her and Branden was a rational and honourable course of action. The paucity of the arguments she offered points to a highly persuasive personality.

• The ideal society. In Atlas Shrugged, Galt’s Gulch is presented as both a refuge from the world and a microcosm of a new and emerging society. But instead of the vigorous debate one might expect between the shapers of a new society, we are instead presented with unanimity of thought – clearly Rand’s notion of the ideal society.

• A commanding speech. As Rand’s alter-ego, John Galt begins his speech: “…if you wish to know why you are perishing…I am the man who will now tell you”. This is followed by 50-odd pages of authoritarian pronouncements on the world and psychology of his listeners.

• Bollockings. Several witnesses attest to Branden brow-beating them over various transgressions, carried out in the presence of Rand.

• Question time. While it’s grudgingly admitted that Rand could become angry at NBI questionnaires, what is omitted is her denigration of the character and psychology of the questioner. These comments acted to intimidate the questioner.

• Concepts in a hat. This party game – which was popular with Objectivists in the 1960s -- requires the player to offer the fewest conceptual steps between two concepts. The beginning and end points are pre-determined. It’s a system for shaping thought, a type of catechism for clever people.

• Breaks. A good number of people parted from Rand because in one way or another they failed to toe her line.

• The Big Break. After the Rand-Branden break, rank-and-file Objectivists were required to repudiate Branden, and a number of leading Objectivists signed a declaration condemning Branden, despite few or any of them knowing the full context of the break.

• The ‘cult’ question. This issue dogged Rand and her circle from the beginning, and was still a live issue in the 1980 Donahue interview. Whether or not Objectivism at the time fit the category of cult, there were sufficient similarities for people to gain the impression of cultism.

In addition, even in more recent times other Objectivists have accused the Ayn Rand Institute of authoritarian behaviour, some going so far as to call it a cult.

• Peikoff-Kelley dispute. This dispute involved the matter of judgement. Kelley wanted to raise the bar on making judgements, whereas Peikoff preferred to keep the bar low, thus enabling judgments to be stronger, wider ranging and more frequent. This policy is consistent with a culture of authoritarianism and conformity.

• Fatwa. Leonard Peikoff makes a ruling on the ‘correct’ way for Objectivists to vote, on pain of losing their Objectivist status.

• Many sources. Many people have independently opined that Rand was an authoritarian personality who demanded conformity of thought and action from her followers. This is not a case of one or two disgruntled individuals, but a roll-call of many people, and includes credible commentators with no obvious axe to grind: George Walsh, Eric Mack, the Holzers, the Smiths, the Blumenthals, Tibor Machan.

These various items of evidence range from Rand’s behaviour, to her writings, the actions of her associates, the views of credible witnesses, through to the latter-day behaviour of her successors. This is not to deny that some people may have acted badly towards her and deserve condemnation for that reason. But the weight of evidence is overwhelming and points to a pattern of authoritarian and conformist thought centred on Rand and her circle.

“Also, Branden tells us that he did "read Hospers the riot act," not that he "chickened out"…”

Remember that Hospers was not an Objectivist, but an independent scholar. It’s very likely that what Branden called a “riot act” was a mild expression of views, since he had no authority over Hospers.

“How was he shunned…”

Rand presented a paper on aesthetics to a non-Objectivist audience. It was an important event, given Rand’s desire for respectability among ‘professional’ philosophers and other intellectuals. One would assume that the Objectivists present at the after-match function would have a strong interest in how the presentation was received. Instead, Hospers says he was shunned.

We know that this event was the occasion for the break with Hospers. We are told that Branden was deputised to read Hospers the “riot act” following the presentation. We know that Rand was quick to judgement. Hospers says he was shunned. We know that Hospers saw no more of Rand from that night. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that Rand voiced her displeasure to her intimates, and that they adopted her attitude towards Hospers.

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am curious about something I have seen Valliant prattle on and one about. He keeps harping on some passage by Nathaniel Branden that he initiated the affair with Rand. See here, for instance, for the latest edition:

Rand's "persuasion" about the affair -- an affair commenced at Mr. Branden's self-reported "initiation" -- came well before any Objectivist "movement," before NBI, before any "cult."

I have seen him emphasize this point time and time again as if it were some earth-shattering disclosure.

So let's look at it. Is Valliant trying to insinuate that Rand did not want the affair in the first place? That it only happened because Nathaniel initiated it?

A woman like Ayn Rand?

Not knowing what she wanted in something that important?

That's even more boneheaded that Valliant's normal boneheaded stuff.

This dude forgot about Dominique being raped by Roark "by engraved invitation."

Dayaamm!

What on earth is he thinking?

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

I am curious about something I have seen Valliant prattle on and one about. He keeps harping on some passage by Nathaniel Branden that he initiated the affair with Rand. See here, for instance, for the latest edition:

Rand's "persuasion" about the affair -- an affair commenced at Mr. Branden's self-reported "initiation" -- came well before any Objectivist "movement," before NBI, before any "cult."

I have seen him emphasize this point time and time again as if it were some earth-shattering disclosure.

So let's look at it. Is Valliant trying to insinuate that Rand did not want the affair in the first place? That it only happened because Nathaniel initiated it?

A woman like Ayn Rand?

Not knowing what she wanted in something that important?

That's even more boneheaded that Valliant's normal boneheaded stuff.

This dude forgot about Dominique being raped by Roark "by engraved invitation."

Dayaamm!

What on earth is he thinking?

Michael

Michael -

That should be clear:

Thinking process for Valliant:

"I want A to be true. Therefore it must be true."

If wishes were fishes, we'd all catch a few.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Alfonso Jones]

He taught at the University of Denver for a year or two. While he may have been on Rand's bad side for a while, I doubt he was sent to Denver. You go where the jobs are. He had just gotten his doctorate but no teaching rec. from Sidney Hook.

Brant,

Leonard Peikoff's sojourn at U of Denver has been presented by Nathaniel Branden, at least twice, as a consequence of Dr. Peikoff's being banished from Ayn Rand's presence for a time.

For what it's worth, Leonard Peikoff's capsule bios (on his books, at the ARI site, etc.) usually don't mention that he taught at Denver.

Robert Campbell

PS. This is the first time I've heard that Sidney Hook refused to write a positive letter of recommendation for Leonard Peikoff. That is near-fatal in academic philosophy. How did Dr. Peikoff later get a job at Brooklyn College [sorry, Brooklyn Poly—see below]?

Here's the quote from Branden, page 301-302 of MYWAR:

"Within a year, Leonard made Ayn angrier than she had ever been with him before, and he was exiled to the University of Denver, where he had been offered a job teaching philosophy. His offense, as always, involved some failure to support and defend AYn and her work in his dealings with other people. His assignment was to redeem himself in Ayn's eyes, to prove somehow that he could be a good Objectivist, perhaps by his proselytizing in Denver."

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Chris Grieb]

In the spring of 1966 I was briefly in NYC and attended NBI. While there Leonard Peikoff course on Contempory Philosphy was offered. This was Leonard Peikoff's first course after he had returned from Denver and I believe it was the first time it had been given at NBI.

I was given the impression that Leonard was happy to be back from Denver. He later offered his first course on Objectivist Epistomology.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Among the subjects recently being discussed on the SOLO threads about PARC is that of cancelled subscriptions to The Objectivist.

Valliant writes:

[Here]

Cancelled subscription = "culture of conformity"? Doesn't that depend on who got the cancellation -- anarchists, Nazis, child-molesters, or what?

How about people who politely objected to the lack of evidence provided in "To Whom It May Concern"? There might have been some people who wrote objecting in such inflammatory, gauntlet-thrown-down style as to plausibly have been considered so impolite as to deserve cancellations.

I know, however, from having myself seen some of the letters which resulted in cancellations that some of the letters were polite, sorrowful in tone, and not justly viewed as deserving cancelled subscriptions in response.

I happen to still have a Xerox of a 3-1/2-single-spaced typed letter which was sent to Elayne Kalberman by Peter and Jan Crosby, who were L.A. representatives for NBI. Carbon copies were sent to: Ayn Rand, Leonard Piekoff [sic], Robert Efron, Norty Lefkoe, Allan Gotthelf, Mr. and Mrs. Harvey Shugar. Of course I don't know if any of the people who received the letter read it.

The date is March 27, 1969. It starts by saying that the Crosbys have received Elayne's note, and a returned check, refusing their subscription to The Objectivist; also by indicating that Elayne apparently didn't know the reason why she'd been instructed to cancel the subscription, and that their letter to her was their "first 'public' statement" explaining their viewpoint.

I'd like to type in the entirety of this letter, since I think it well illustrates the atmosphere which pertained at the time of the Break. However, I don't recall from whom I received a Xerox of the letter, and whether or not the Crosbys gave blanket permission to the letter's being distributed.

I have no idea if the Crosbys are still associated with Objectivism, or even if they're still alive.

Does anyone here know what became of them?

A detail I noticed in re-reading their account this morning is that they were shown the document Nathan wrote to Ayn, with notes on it in her handwriting. So that indicates that the document was returned to Nathan and has subsequently been lost by him, not lost somewhere in the Rand archives.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

I agree with exercising caution about publishing the contents of private communications, but if they stated that this was a public statement, I see no reason to conclude otherwise.

According to the way you describe the content, I have no doubt they would be glad to see the document used in public to help set the record straight. In fact, that seems to be the reason they wrote it.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Among the subjects recently being discussed on the SOLO threads about PARC is that of cancelled subscriptions to The Objectivist.

Valliant writes:

[Here]

Cancelled subscription = "culture of conformity"? Doesn't that depend on who got the cancellation -- anarchists, Nazis, child-molesters, or what?

How about people who politely objected to the lack of evidence provided in "To Whom It May Concern"? There might have been some people who wrote objecting in such inflammatory, gauntlet-thrown-down style as to plausibly have been considered so impolite as to deserve cancellations.

I know, however, from having myself seen some of the letters which resulted in cancellations that some of the letters were polite, sorrowful in tone, and not justly viewed as deserving cancelled subscriptions in response.

I happen to still have a Xerox of a 3-1/2-single-spaced typed letter which was sent to Elayne Kalberman by Peter and Jan Crosby, who were L.A. representatives for NBI. Carbon copies were sent to: Ayn Rand, Leonard Piekoff [sic], Robert Efron, Norty Lefkoe, Allan Gotthelf, Mr. and Mrs. Harvey Shugar. Of course I don't know if any of the people who received the letter read it.

The date is March 27, 1969. It starts by saying that the Crosbys have received Elayne's note, and a returned check, refusing their subscription to The Objectivist; also by indicating that Elayne apparently didn't know the reason why she'd been instructed to cancel the subscription, and that their letter to her was their "first 'public' statement" explaining their viewpoint.

I'd like to type in the entirety of this letter, since I think it well illustrates the atmosphere which pertained at the time of the Break. However, I don't recall from whom I received a Xerox of the letter, and whether or not the Crosbys gave blanket permission to the letter's being distributed.

I have no idea if the Crosbys are still associated with Objectivism, or even if they're still alive.

Does anyone here know what became of them?

A detail I noticed in re-reading their account this morning is that they were shown the document Nathan wrote to Ayn, with notes on it in her handwriting. So that indicates that the document was returned to Nathan and has subsequently been lost by him, not lost somewhere in the Rand archives.

Ellen___

If the letter wasn't cc'd to you you'd probably have more right to publish it than if it had been. Also, since it was cc'd to so many it is doubtful that the authors expected it to remain private. That in itself can be considered a form of publication. You're still in a grey area. Why not ask Barbara or Nathaniel if they know what happened to the Crosbys? It's kind of strange that a Jan Crosby is married to David Crosby of Crosby, Stills and Nash. Speaking of (Edward?) Nash of Nash Publishing, I was always under the impression that he died decades ago. Is this true, anyone?

--Brant

Edited June 19, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

I agree with exercising caution about publishing the contents of private communications, but if they stated that this was a public statement, I see no reason to conclude otherwise.

According to the way you describe the content, I have no doubt they would be glad to see the document used in public to help set the record straight. In fact, that seems to be the reason they wrote it.

Michael

Several reasons make me hesitant, Michael: The letter was written nearly 40 years ago. They used "public" in scare quotes; there's nothing which explicitly gives permission to share the document as if it were an "open letter." And for all I know, either or both of them today, if still alive, would rather not have any part of Objectivist squabbles, or might have different opinions than were expressed then.

--

Brant,

I think I heard, too, that Ed Nash had died.

Ellen

PS: I'll send a PM to Barbara and ask if she has any idea what became of the Crosbys.

PPS: It is an historically important detail that they saw the document -- presumably what they're referring to is the document -- in NB's possession after the Break.

___

Edited June 19, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle