Protocols of the Prospective Biographers of Ayn Rand


Recommended Posts

Jerry and Adam weighed in on the Heller thread about the stupidity and destructiveness of the arguments about Frank O’Connor’s drinking. I agree, but having such a contrary streak, I suddenly feel inspired to join that fray. We can go hog wild with speculations, and I feel like spinning a tale of my own.

This is geared to appeal to the SOLOPsists and even the ARIans, and I’ll state the Guiding Principle (GP) at the outset: As Mary McCarthy once said of Lillian Hellman, “every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the'”. This of course applies to TheBrandens™, curses be upon them. The plausible explanation for known facts that scores the most points in favor of the GP wins. Here goes:

After 26 years of marriage, Ayn & Frank -we invoke their blessed spirits- weren’t having sex, didn’t want to have sex…that part of the relationship had died out. This happens all the time, ask your married friends. Contrary to the lies and distortions of TheBrandens™ Frank couldn’t be happier about it when The Affair starts (score for the GP). The pressure was off. Extra point: he’d become impotent, was taking artherosclerosis (or other) medication that caused it, and TheBrandens knew about it, but left this fact out of their filthy lying libelous books since it would go against their agenda of depicting Ayn as nasty, brutish and short (3 pointer for the GP, yes we need to come up with a proper point system). We will hesitatingly acknowledge that she was short, because we do fight fair. We’ve got secret diaries, journals and prescriptions to back all this up, no you can’t see them, as we have standards when it comes to people’s private/sex lives, unlike TheBrandens™ (score again!).

On to the drinking. Here we must fight from two seemingly contradictory positions to score maximum points, internal inconsistencies are allowed but must be artfully concealed. First: he didn’t drink. Second: when he drank it wasn’t because of The Affair.

There’s no evidence he drank to excess, Peikoff the blessed is a witness, and we have plenty of corroborating henchmen witnesses. Logically we can’t prove a negative, and these are arbitrary assertions made by agenda driven enemies of the good for being the good. Subsidiary Guiding Principle: Witnesses to Frank’s drinking are unreliable drunks. Slam dunk just before half-time.

Omitted: one very artful transition dressed up as a half-time show.

When he eventually* started drinking to excess the driving factors were

1. his failing health, which had ended his painting

2. he missed his California farm, New York couldn’t offer him comparable pursuits

3. the unspeakable things TheBrandens™ did to upset his ever supportive wife

* Do not fail to fully capitalize on time/continuity problems with witnesses as cited by TheBrandens™. A bonfire is needed at this point, nothing less.flames.gif

2nd Subsidiary Guiding Principle: He started drinking on the day he met the earliest witness. Extra point if you show it to have been the witnesses fault that he started. Above all, guard against the implication that if Barbara Branden -curses be upon her- were a bald-faced liar she would simply claim to have witnessed St. Francisco drinking herself. Duh. Know thy enemy. Now get out there and win this one!

I’m not sure about the score in the second half, but clearly by now TheBrandens™ are toast. Create focus groups from ARI staff and Jabba's henchmen to pick the most effective manuscript for publishing and promotion. Effectiveness is measured on the soon to be patented PARC scale of relative sliminess.

Note: I am available for ghost-writing and editing on a consulting and purely amoral basis. Just ask. I also have shares in an income producing name brand bridge for sale...this here’s a one stop shop. comehere.gif

Looking this over I think a soccer metaphor might work better than basketball, oh well, too much time already.

Edited by Ninth Doctor
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Very nice. I will add some items to this when I have time. Excellent point about Barbara merely placing her personal testimony into the record, Hell she could come up with a copy of her diary that she kept.

Then the fallen angel arguments would have to be brought out.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now