Word from James is that there's no word from Mr Britting yet.

James has had a bit of a relapse—will be back in due course. Get well soon, buddy!

It was the bit about certain people falsely imagining TAS to be a hotbed of Brandroids that got my goat and prompted my steamy love-note. If the Brandroids' influence is as negligible as you say, how the hell can they get speakers removed?

Coming back to SOLO after a busy summer, it sure is nice to hear such warm words of welcome from its principal. Reading over my most recent posts, I have struggled in vain to find what I had done to deserve them. Traffic is so high on the threads that interest me most that I hardly have time to read them, much less post articulate replies.

Ah, well. Lately I have been working on a project to find enough computational capacity to model new technologies that could increase North America's current proven reserves of oil and gas by at least twice, along with those of Australia and other civilized places. Maybe I can convince my boss that our company doesn't need the computers that soon, and that he should switch me to part-time status so that I have enough time for the important things in life, like greeting my true blue friends at SOLO every day.

-Bill

No word yet from Irvine.

It doesn't appear that Jim has been online in the last 2 or 3 days, so I hope there hasn't been a relapse.

There is one final point that I wanted to make. When I mentioned that Barbara Branden had said that Rand praised Frank's intelligence and insight excessively, here was Jim's response:

We need the examples, Neil, in order to see if such praise was excessive, otherwise we are uncritically accepting the generalized opinion of a biased witness, and one capable of "unfortunate hyperbole," to use your own words.

Jim has said that the Demonic Duo's narratives are either "virtually useless" or "entirely useless."  (PARC, p. 128.)  So how would examples help? 

Jim has not only said that we need more examples when it comes to the Demonic Duo's accounts, but even the accounts of their objectivity-challenged Gadarene associates lack the needed detail. Yet when it comes to proof that Frank was able to satisfy Rand's need for "intellectual feedback," the standard for evidence has changed.

Peikoff has said that O'Connor was "no dummy," but I don't need this. As PARC observes, Rand credibly and publicly reported that -- through private conversation -- O'Connor literally saved her view of the world and, thereby, The Fountainhead. So, no, he could not have been a dummy. Rand once indicated that he was "more of an atheist" than she was, and she must've had grounds for believing this. His clever and more-than-coincidentally-appropriate wit was appropriated by Rand for her literature. His presence is never described even by the Brandens as anything less than a knowing and sensitive one. And, of course, Rand's regarding him to be a severe critic, and being, obviously, one capable of trembling at a passage from her work Rand thought had merited it, also show his capacity to appreciate Rand's radical ideas to a significant extent -- and to share them.

Have we been given a single example of any intellectual conversation between Rand and O'Connor?  The closest we come is the 1949 letter in which Rand said that O'Connor was a "severe critic" and that he "refused to see that it [Atlas Shrugged] was bigger in scope and scale than The Fountainhead."  The former is rather nebulous and it's hard to know what to make of it unless we are given some examples.  The latter is not evidence, knowing Rand's frustration that people were slow to understand her ideas.

The other pieces of purported evidence fare even worse.  Peikoff's report that Frank was "no dummy" sounds like damning by faint praise.  Frank's saving Rand's view of the world means at most that they shared a similar "sense of life."  That Frank shared Rand's atheism isn't proof, etc.

When Jim returns perhaps he will finally give us some examples of Frank's intellectual conversations (with Rand or anyone else). 

TAS is really not the den of anti-Rand Branden worshippers that is sometimes portrayed in this forum.

So how is it that the Branden-worshippers are able to get speakers they disapprove of dumped from done-and-dusted TAS SS line-ups?

I meant to follow up on my "Joe Doakes reloaded" post of late June concerning the Brandens, and your response to it. But I was finishing up some things at work ...

Blah, blah, blah. Always a similar excuse. You've never once delivered on your promises, as far as I recall.

I don't speak for James, who no doubt will dissociate himself from Linz' language and tell you you're wonderful. But in my book, Mr. Nevin, you're a hypocrite, an appeaser and a two-faced soft-cock.

James,

Hang in there, guy. You are fighting the good fight on the Brandens and other issues. Even when I don't agree with you, you are a worthy debating partner.

I meant to follow up on my "Joe Doakes reloaded" post of late June concerning the Brandens, and your response to it. But I was finishing up some things at work and packing for the TAS Summer Seminar in Portland. That trip also involved vacationing in British Columbia and traveling on business to Alberta, so I kind of lost the momentum of the discussion. My girlfriend, whom you met at Borders 2 years ago, is visiting from New York this month, so I haven't had any time outside of work to keep up with other interests.

I did pitch your book pretty heavily at the seminar (when I wasn't waxing poetic on the charms of Hindi cinema,) and got quite a few folks interested in reading it. Most of them had not heard of it before, and most, especially the younger members, have no strong opinion, pro or con, on the Brandens. TAS is really not the den of anti-Rand Branden worshippers that is sometimes portrayed in this forum. Of the ones who admire Branden and stick by him, most are older people from NBI days. I hope that in a few years your book will prompt a sea change and he will be widely seen there for what he is.

-Bill

... what's happening? The suspense is killing me.

Dear Jeff,

I have another, special request. It might be easier if I just share my recent web-exchange with Mr. Parille:

Title: He's...

Submitted by James S. Valliant on Thu, 2008-08-21 03:29.

.. in my Mac "Address Book" and just wrote me this morning.

The email will be out by tomorrow noon, asking if early October is okay.

This is SUPER!

Title: DEAL

Submitted by Neil Parille on Thu, 2008-08-21 03:25.

Why don't you email Mr. Britting. I'm not sure if I still have his email.

Early October looks good for me.

Title: DEAL

Submitted by James S. Valliant on Thu, 2008-08-21 03:19.

But for one aspect: I insist on taking you to a nicer dinner than a moderate price will allow.

With your permission, I will copy and paste the whole of your last post, and this one, and attach it to an email to Mr. Britting, endorsing your basic terms: asking him to make available every interview in their possession, along with all of the Rand notes available to me -- or those acquired since -- indeed, everything in their possession whatever -- and asking him to allow your public report on everything that relates to anything in PARC -- and asking if he is in agreement with such terms.

Or, if you prefer, you could write him yourself, reporting that I have personally asked that he agree.

Title: Yes, I Am Serious

Submitted by Neil Parille on Thu, 2008-08-21 03:06.

Jim,

I am serious.

I will fly out to California, completely at my own expense (hotel, flight, meals, rent a car, etc.). I'll even pay for my own Rice-a-Roni.

I ask that I be permitted to listen to any interviews and examine any Rand journals and report to the SOLO/OL crowd --"Interview x supports/does not support the Brandenian account because of y." If I believe that you have not accurately transcribed certain journal entries, I ask to be permitted to discuss why.

I don't ask to transcribe/photcopy any verbatim transcript, just report whether the "sense" of an interview/journal document supports/refutes the Brandenian account.

If you and your lovely wife are close by, I'll even pay for dinner at a moderately priced Italian restaurant.

----

Please say "yes."

Jim Valliant

.. in my Mac "Address Book" and just wrote me this morning.

The email will be out by tomorrow noon, asking if early October is okay.

This is SUPER!

Why don't you email Mr. Britting. I'm not sure if I still have his email.

Early October looks good for me.

But for one aspect: I insist on taking you to a nicer dinner than a moderate price will allow.

With your permission, I will copy and paste the whole of your last post, and this one, and attach it to an email to Mr. Britting, endorsing your basic terms: asking him to make available every interview in their possession, along with all of the Rand notes available to me -- or those acquired since -- indeed, everything in their possession whatever -- and asking him to allow your public report on everything that relates to anything in PARC -- and asking if he is in agreement with such terms.

Or, if you prefer, you could write him yourself, reporting that I have personally asked that he agree.

Jim,

I am serious.

I will fly out to California, completely at my own expense (hotel, flight, meals, rent a car, etc.). I'll even pay for my own Rice-a-Roni.

I ask that I be permitted to listen to any interviews and examine any Rand journals and report to the SOLO/OL crowd --"Interview x supports/does not support the Brandenian account because of y." If I believe that you have not accurately transcribed certain journal entries, I ask to be permitted to discuss why.

I don't ask to transcribe/photcopy any verbatim transcript, just report whether the "sense" of an interview/journal document supports/refutes the Brandenian account.

If you and your lovely wife are close by, I'll even pay for dinner at a moderately priced Italian restaurant.

Are you saying, then, that you have no response to offer to the actual case made for the things you simply ignore and evade -- even as you deny them?

If you cannot address the simple reality that if Rand's view of her husband was extravagantly wrong, if her beliefs about him "had little to do" with who he really was, if she didn't begin to actually and consciously appreciate him for what he was for at least forty years -- and no matter how sincere or intense her feeling for him -- then the marriage was an empty fraud, then say so, but I've yet to read your case. Ditto, if O'Connor at any point stayed with Rand for mostly financial reasons.

The lies mentioned -- and the lies about those lies referred to -- are demonstrated and specific. To date no one -- not even Neil -- has shown this demonstration to be wrong.

Rather than address the argument for the Brandens' dishonesty, you make fun of it.

I have repeatedly complained about Linz's language, of course, but you're going to have to find those posts yourself since you're the one who just lobbed another BS accusation. But, of course, it really helps to impute his language to me under these circumstances, i.e., those under which you are unwilling to address the language used in PARC.

However, this is the real price of admission, Mr. Scherk: tell us, for example, why you think Mr. Branden was telling the world the truth when he spoke of "insuperable barriers" in 1968, and tell us why you think his continued assertion of the honesty of this is itself honest.

In plain talk, the first is a public lie, and the second, a lie about a lie. Any other identification of these things is itself mistaken, as would be a reliance on other uncorroborated reports from him about his relationship with Rand.

No, don't address it, call it names -- no, better still, call it mere name-calling itself, rather than even an argument.

That way, you won't have to address it -- ever.

The good folks out there can compare our own different use of language in these very discussions -- between you and me -- for themselves, and that should provide them some guidance, don't you think?

James Valliant writes: Mr. Scherk continues to use unwarranted language like "demented duo" for some reason. As I observed, it is less than helpful.

It is easy to understand that the author of PARC believes that both Barbara and Nathaniel Branden lied about the divorce talk. He uses emotion-laden words never uttered in connection with the marriage by either of TheBrandens™ -- and he now gets all sensitive about 'demented duo.' Huh. Here on SOLO certain gloried personages can call Barbara a low-life evil scum-sucking bitch with nary a peep from the prosecutor, but 'demented duo' brings on the vapours?

I think not.

JSV: His "demonization" allegation remains completely unsubstantiated -- and the arguments for distrusting the credibility of the Brandens remain entirely evaded.

Well, you would have to say that, wouldn't you, because the demons lied about the divorce thoughts, lied about a conversation, lied lied lied their evil lying lies . . . the demonic evil Rand-haters and liars.

Did I mention that they are both liars, with books shot-through with lies?

James, please give us a new thread. I think we have all said our pieces on PARC's misportrayal of TheBrandens™' view of the O'Connor marriage. You haven't demonstrated that either of the demented lying awful pair have called it either a fraud or a shambles, despite all your waffling and hand-waving and side-issues and fainting fits over language.

Can we all please move on and sink our teeth into some fresh outrage?

I will see you there.

WSS

I mean, if you were permitted to examine -- if not necessarily publish to the world -- whatever you wanted to look at, anything in the possession of the Archive, would you fly out and examine it for yourself?

Would you like me to arrange that for you, Neil?

I would be delighted!

I'll bet that you wouldn't even need my help -- but I will lobby hard, if that's what you want, and if you need it.

I'd wager money on the results of the request and on some of the results of your inquiry.

Jim,

What did Cynthia Peikoff, Harry Binswanger, Peter Schwartz or anyone else who knew Rand tell you about the marriage or Frank's intellectual abilities?

We've heard from Leonard Peikoff ("no dummy"), but let's not hold back. History (if not Objectivity itself) is at stake here.

Did they explicitly deny that Rand exaggerated Frank's intelligence?

Did your discussions with them shed light on Rand's marriage in the 40s?

Did the archivist tell you that the interviews with Rand's secretaries in the 40s confirmed PARC? You said he read the book and made corrections, but does he support your denial of problems in the 40s? Does he believe that the claim that Rand considered divorce is "arbitrary"?

I'm no Objectivist, but if Leonard Peikoff gave me complete access to the Archives ("nothing was withheld from me" as you said), I'd fly out to California to listen to the 275 hours of interviews at my own expense.

No, Neil, convincing Rand of something of the magnitude suggested, by itself, would put O'Connor over somewhat more on the right side than you seem to recognize.

But, of course, this will vary depending on one's opinion of Rand's intellect, won't it?

The list of folks you provide cannot corroborate the Brandens where we most need such corroboration, can they? No, it is precisely things like this private disclosure -- about the question we were discussing -- which stand outside the realm of corroboration by their own clear admission. This is the material for which we need credibility-guidance the most.

As to the opinions of anyone -- e.g., "BB was too soft on Rand" -- they are no better than the facts which support them. From those facts which we have been given, many of Ms. Branden's own opinions can be seen to be way off base -- in one case, by your own description, "unfortunate hyperbole."

If someone is willing to say that the "Inquisitor" comparison, among other things, was "being too easy on Rand," consider how we should treat that "witness," one who doesn't recognize even your "unfortunate hyperbole" when he sees it. Are we to accept his opinions uncritically, as well, simply because the number of people (who also broke with Rand) willing to say so increases?

This hardly seems rational.

No, "Mullah Rand" demonstrates the yawning gap between fact and generalization with regard to Rand the Moralistic Monster.

And do try to keep an open mind to all of the new primary source material that will soon be available.

Jim,

By corroboration,I mean that many people who knew Rand have supported Barbara Branden's portrayal of Ayn Rand.

You don't doubt, do you, that the Blumenthals, the Smiths, John Hospers, A, Greenspan, E. Holzer among others have expressed support for Barbara Branden's book? I grant that these people didn't know Rand in the 40s, but if they think Branden has been "fair and balanced" about the period in which they knew Rand, then this lends credibility to her account of having heard Rand say that she considered divorce in the 40s. (Actually, Dr. Blumenthal is reported to have said that Branden went too soft on Rand, but let's put that to the side.)

As far as Peikoff claiming that Frank O'Connor was "no dummy," I have of course never claimed that he was on the left side of the bell curve. I assume he was in the middle or slightly to the right.

Miss Branden doesn't say that her friends would "not" corroborate the extent of the marriage problems, only that they didn't know. Again, I don't find that suprising.

Any insights from Cynthia Peikoff, Harry Binswanger or anyone else you wish to share?

Now, Neil, do I detect some emotion in your last post? Is it warranted or necessary?

No, it rather seems to me that intellect is not simply measured by your offered tests, and that the shoe is on the other foot: until you attend to the arguments demonstrating the Brandens' lack of credibility, you have no business accepting their every assertion until someone like me compels you to concede that it's "unfortunate hyperbole."

Peikoff has said that O'Connor was "no dummy," but I don't need this. As PARC observes, Rand credibly and publicly reported that -- through private conversation -- O'Connor literally saved her view of the world and, thereby, The Fountainhead. So, no, he could not have been a dummy. Rand once indicated that he was "more of an atheist" than she was, and she must've had grounds for believing this. His clever and more-than-coincidentally-appropriate wit was appropriated by Rand for her literature. His presence is never described even by the Brandens as anything less than a knowing and sensitive one. And, of course, Rand's regarding him to be a severe critic, and being, obviously, one capable of trembling at a passage from her work Rand thought had merited it, also show his capacity to appreciate Rand's radical ideas to a significant extent -- and to share them.

And -- of course -- no, you do not "have" the Brandens' "friends" here -- and, more to the point, you don't have any -- that's any -- of even the "suspicions" of any -- that's any -- of the O'Connors' friends, either.

In fact, Ms. Branden affirmatively tells us such friends would NOT corroborate the "extent" of the "trouble" that she is claiming here.

Seriously.

As I've also said, more than once, the Archivist himself read PARC over, and his corrections were most appreciated.

Jim,

1. What do your sources (if you have any) tell you about Frank's intellectual abilities? What type of intellectual conversations was he capable of holding? What were the nature of his discussion with Rand about The Fountainhead (or Atlas Shrugged, when Peikoff would be an unbiased witness)? Did Frank know anything about Kant, Hegel, etc.? Did Frank realize that Austrian economics had something to do with von Mises, or did he think it explained how you run a diner in Vienna? These are the questions that you should attend to before you call the Brandens liars.

I mean, you have discussed this with L. Peikoff, Binswanger, Cynthia Peikoff, haven't you?

If so, what did they tell you?

2. What do your sources (if you have any) tell you about the state of Rand's marriage in the 40s?

This is the kind of rolled-up-sleeves seriousness historical inquiry calls for, Jim.

I have the accounts of the Brandens and their "friends." Last I read, you can send someone to the slammer or the chair based on eyewitness testimony. What do you have?

The photos and the love notes do suggest something else to me, but this material is not necessary. Nor is it particularly decisive in my view. But, then, neither is the account of the Brandens under these circumstances, Neil.

It is precisely the extent of whatever problems there may have been that is in question.

Ms. B. tells us not to expect other corroboration for the "extent," i.e., considering divorce, that she is claiming.

PARC asks us to look at the most serious and believable reason for such marital problems in this relationship -- a potential lack of intellectual communication. PARC finds evidence -- which you don't seem to recognize as even being "evidence" -- that some such communication was in fact taking place in the 1940s.

PARC also notes the fact just observed: their marriage did indeed prove strong enough to survive the affair.

Under these circumstances, the so-say of the Brandens is insufficient to warrant any confidence in their claim here.

If a credible witness appears and tells us about observing violent or loud and unresolved arguments, or, say, seeing dishes thrown or something, then I will certainly revise my opinion, but Ms. Branden tells us explicitly that we are not likely to find witnesses to back up her claim, i.e., who would say that they even "suspected" the O'Connor marriage to be "troubled" to the "extent" of considering "divorce."

If their friends at the time would not have even suspect this extent of trouble, we lack the very corroboration required here.

This is the kind of rolled-up-sleeves seriousness PARC calls for, Neil.

Jim,

You write:

But, on the issue at hand, Ms. Branden has explicitly said that "none" of their other friends even "suspected" the "extent" of trouble that she is suggesting.

But doesn't this imply that friends knew that there was trouble? I think it's reasonable that Rand only revealed the "extent" of the problems to the Brandens.

But again, what do you know about the O'Connors' marriage in the 40s?  Do your sources tell you that there were no substantial problems in the 40s?

Of course, I have not implied that it would be appropriate to call them "twin demons of deception" -- especially since I have provided factual reasons to doubt specific assertions that they make -- and ones superior to Mr. Cochrane's proffered arguments, thanks very much.

If you're willing to offer up such a vague description as "marital problems," my confidence will extend beyond just the 1940s. As I say, "hard to imagine" no "ups and owns" during a variety of situations and times.

However, the extent of the problems in the 1940s suggested by the Brandens is not necessarily supported by the mere fact of a later affair. The fact that O'Connor and Rand both chose to stay in the relationship throughout, that the divorce did not occur even under those circumstances -- combined with Rand's requirement for the knowledge and consent of their respective spouses -- i.e., the extent to which she made efforts to preserve that original relationship -- actually suggest otherwise. These things certainly do not permit us to make the logical inference you are suggesting.

See, the fact that the marriage could survive such an affair may suggest that it was stronger, not weaker than we might otherwise "imagine." But even if you don't accept this logic, these facts are enough to prevent us from accepting your non sequitur, too.

You, then, can even say: "Yet at the same time, I find the Demonic Duo’s credibility enhanced by the large number of people who have described Rand in a similar way."

But, on the issue at hand, Ms. Branden has explicitly said that "none" of their other friends even "suspected" the "extent" of trouble that she is suggesting.

I mean... that was one of the points just made...

Now, while you and Mr. Scherk continue to suggest that PARC is an effort at "demonization," you simultaneously announce your own unwarranted gullibility -- in so doing, you imply that there really is no reason whatever to doubt the Brandens, ever, rather than that there is a pressing need to corroborate them.

Jim,

You write:

 Yes, it's hard to imagine a fifty year relationship that did not have its "ups and downs," Neil, of course, and PARC starts with a common-sense skepticism about the O'Connors' marital happiness in light of an affair. As PARC also says, Rand may well have needed more intellectual feedback than O'Connor offered, and O'Connor may have known this. (PARC, p.167) 

All agree that:

Fact1. “Rand may have needed more intellectual feedback than Frank offered.”

Fact2.  Rand’s affair with Nathaniel Branden c. 1954 likely had to do with Fact 1.

Fact 3. Rand and Frank had marital problems in the 40s (Do you dispute this?).  

Yet:

When those “twin demons of deception”* Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden say that Frank’s lack of intellectual feedback  caused Rand to consider divorce, they are lying.

I think that Facts 1-3 lend credibility to what the Demonic Duo claim to have heard.

Incidentally, I do think that certain skepticism is in order when one reads what the Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, Leonard Peikoff, etc. say.  Yet at the same time, I find the Demonic Duo’s credibility enhanced by the large number of people who have described Rand in a similar way.

 _____ 

*I borrow this memorable phrase from the late Johnny Cochrane who described Mark Furman and another police officer thusly in his closing argument in the “OJ” trial.

Mr. Scherk continues to use unwarranted language like "demented duo" for some reason. As I observed, it is less than helpful. His "demonization" allegation remains completely unsubstantiated -- and the arguments for distrusting the credibility of the Brandens remain entirely evaded.

As far as one can tell, for Scherk, there is simply no reason to note bias, to suspect dishonesty, or to question or doubt a single visual description or vague impression.

Indeed, he will claim that he has "demonstrated" something even as he -- like Mr. Parille -- simply ignores the response to it.

Oddly, he quotes me as citing the reader to page 167, but, then, implies that this same matter is "put" in words found on other pages which do not relate to the quotation in any way.

No, sir, the "it" is PARC's recognition that O'Connor may have appreciated that he was not himself meeting his wife's intellectual needs -- and this was perfectly clear from the context from which you pulled it. So, no, that is not "how it was put."

Since you won't take the matter head-on, I will repeat:

If Rand is said to have had an extravagantly mistaken conception of her husband -- however sincere or intense her feelings may have been, as PARC explicitly "puts it" -- the marriage was a fraud.

If financial considerations held O'Connor to the marriage following the start of the affair in the 1950s (after Rand had allegedly considered "divorce" in the 1940s!), then the marriage was a fraud.

Curiously, you also ignore the significance of that underlined material -- as does Neil.

We are told that "none of their friends suspected the extent to which their relationship was troubled...," and that it was only a later comment made in private which suggested the idea that the relationship was so troubled as to have put divorce on the table.

That's right: "none."

And the level of knowledge we are discussing here? None even "suspected" the extent of trouble. But Rand, later, told her once that...

And, alas, this is by no means the only occasion where one or both of the Brandens require us to uncritically accept their private information -- even if it will not find support in the mere suspicions of any other contemporary source.

I'm not sure that we should expect any corroboration as to this "extent" of trouble from any of those "friends," Neil, not if this is to be believed. (Mr. Parille and I were just discussing the "extent" issue.) Ms. B. is telling us that she's got the best info from this private talk she had. She is suggesting that we should not expect to find any corroboration for this "extent" of trouble, isn't she?

Maybe, just maybe, the evidence-package presented on this issue of "extent" is open to some question...

No, Mr. Scherk, as I said to you before -- although I have been given no reason to think it has sunk a centimeter, yet -- I have my own differences with Rand, and I would have no problem believing her to have been mistaken about love.

But the BS Ms. B. peddles about Rand's alleged demands for romantic relationships is built on her own mistaken impressions (or worse), not on Rand's own beliefs on the subject. No, it contradicts them.

This much can be -- to use your own word -- demonstrated.

Let me suggest that you first listen to "Understanding Objectivism," and then reconsider Rand's writings on the subject in light of that material -- including the notes in PARC -- before claiming such personal authority with regard to Ms. Branden's assertions here.

BTW: simply making fun of the idea that a witness may not be honest only suggests that you see no reason whatever to doubt her in any respect. Indeed, from your presentation of the raw material, you seem entirely uncritical when accepting any and all of the descriptions and opinions tendered.

And all without addressing considerations of bias in any way, shape or form.

I am confident that future biographers of Rand will not share this gullibility -- or the same ideological biases which seem to motivate it.

James Valliant is not about to concede this critic's narrow point regarding the demented duo's claim that Rand thought of divorce at one time; at the very least he can entertain the possibility that there may have been such thoughts: This is good.

JSV: Yes, it's hard to imagine a fifty year relationship that did not have its "ups and downs," Neil, of course, and PARC starts with a common-sense skepticism about the O'Connors' marital happiness in light of an affair. As PARC also says, Rand may well have needed more intellectual feedback than O'Connor offered, and O'Connor may have known this. (PARC, p.167)

Here is how it is put in PARC:

The Brandens tell us that the O'Connor's marriage was an empty fraud. For Rand, is was maintained by her fantasy-like projection of O'Connor. For O'Connor, this supposed financial dependence serves to explain what is otherwise explicable to the Brandens--O'Connor's staying by Rand's side.

The Brandens tell us that the O'Connors' marriage was in shambles from the forties onward. But here, as well, they cannot claim much by way of direct evidence or personal knowledge.

Now, as I demonstrated in my earlier post in Mullah Rand, neither of TheBrandens™' passages as cited in PARC support the interpretation given by PARC.

It's a small point, but it's encouraging to note that James understands where the disagreement with his words comes from.

Again, here are the relevant passages from PAR and MYWAR from whence PARC took its citations in support of the 'fraud and shambles.' The underlined portions are what is used in the text on page 152. The time related in Rand's later confidence** of troubled times for her marriage is the early forties when the O'Connors lived in San Fernando Valley, during the hard slog of writing Atlas Shrugged.

PAR: The people who knew Ayn and Frank often puzzled over the question of what had drawn and held her to him. Frank projected a sympathy, a wordless understanding, a kindness that was as essential a part of him as the color of his eyes, which touched his friends deeply; but they could not understand why these qualities were of value to Ayn—whose stated values of intellectuality, of ambition, of energy, of commitment, were alien to the values Frank possessed. It was impossible to doubt the reality of her love. It was evident in her constant need for her presence, in the compliments she continually paid to his appearance and his character, in the softness in her eyes when she looked at him, in a kind of hovering concern for his physical well-being. "Frank is my rock," she would say. "He always knows my context. He reacts just as I do, to people and to events. He always knows what I'm feeling and what things mean to me. He's never once let me down."

Occasionally, she would grow irritated with him, and they appeared to have little to say to each other. But none of their friends suspected the extent to which their relationship was troubled. A number of years later, Ayn was to admit that during this period the friction between them and their lack of intellectual communication had come to so frustrate her that she had seriously considered divorce. She had decided to put the issure out of her mind until Atlas Shrugged was completed. By then, she had changed her mind. It seems unlikely that she would have divorced Frank under any circumstances, however hard and long she had considered it; her need of him was too great; the place he filled, the place of nonthreatening lover and companion, was too vital to ever be abandoned.

MYWAR: "Frank believed in me. he saw who I was and what I would become when no one else did, when we were both young and struggling and had nothing," Ayn told us. "We have the same sense of life. But Frank is too disgusted with people to share what he is with the world."

At this time, I had absolutely no intimation of trouble between Ayn and Frank. Much later, Ayn told me that those years on the ranch had been bad for them. They were quarreling a great deal. She was bothered by his passivity and lack of intellectuality. Then she confided in me that in the entire history of their relationship, he had never once initiated sex; it was always she who began it. After that, she said, everything went fine; he was involved and uninhibited. But is was not difficult to imagine how that would leave her feeling. Then, there was the plain fact of their enormous intellectual differences—not merely the issue of intelligence but also differences in how their minds worked. She understood only pure, linear, sequential reasoning; he was almost totally intuitive. Although he could appreciate her cognitive style, she was never really comfortable with his. She said that she had been thinking of divorce but wanted to to wait until the novel was finished, because she dreaded the interruption of her work. Work came before everything. And yet, years later, she told me that she could not live without him. He was, in his own sad way, her rock.

WSS

** the confidence is of course dismissed by Valliant as an out and out fabrication. No such thought of divorce ever occured to Rand, and no such conversations took place. Both Brandens are liars on this point.

Yes, it's hard to imagine a fifty year relationship that did not have its "ups and downs," Neil, of course, and PARC starts with a common-sense skepticism about the O'Connors' marital happiness in light of an affair. As PARC also says, Rand may well have needed more intellectual feedback than O'Connor offered, and O'Connor may have known this. (PARC, p.167)

These things are indeed very easy to "imagine."

But there are very unconventional aspects to Rand, O'Connor and their relationships, and this signals the need for extreme caution in using cliche-thinking.

Moreover, the question remains: do we uncritically accept the Brandens' accounts and opinions?

Like O'Connor's "perceptiveness" or his "insight," the level of the "intellectual communication" is a question of degree, for, surely, all of these things existed to some degree.

What just the evidence from Rand's letters and her "Introduction" to The Fountainhead suggest, however, is something not adequately accounted for by the Brandens' descriptions of O'Connor, in my opinion. There is more implied in these materials than they suggest about the man's character and even his intellect.

When someone confesses that the O'Connor marriage was a "mystery" or O'Connor a difficult man to get to know, I take him seriously.

When an obvious self-interest is at work, I also take that seriously.

The Brandens' relationships to and break with Rand are the most important features of their own lives, by almost any measure. Their break was the result of the lies they told to Rand. In recounting the very story of this relationship and break, the Brandens have a self-serving interest in the portraits of ALL those who had either a break with -- or a lasting relationship with -- Rand herself. As part of the romantic situation in which both Brandens have an interest in presenting themselves as victims, the portrait of O'Connor is of particular importance to them.

Now, like Fern Brown, relatives of Rand or O'Connor may never have had a break of any kind, but still be subject to making big mistakes. I am not saying that this is so of Mimi Sutton (who does not say all that Ms. Branden says, either, btw), but I must also observe that only the colorful or interesting detail will find its way into print on onto film.

However, the Brandens lied to Rand. The 1968 statement Branden published to world in response to Rand was a tissue of lies -- the demonstration of which you still have not responded to -- and, yet, they continue to endorse that statement -- even as they now reveal facts which show that statement to have been dishonest.

"Insuperable barrier" and all!

So, do we believe them about something pertaining to matters for which the Brandens are interested witnesses? On subjects like Rand's breaks, her approach to romantic relationships, the reasons of others for staying with Rand, her moralism and intolerance, etc.?

The Brandens lied to Rand -- this caused a nasty falling-out -- then, they lied to the world about their lies to Rand in 1968 -- and, now, they still lie about those lies about those lies in their more recent books.

No, I will continue to insist on corroboration for things like the degree of marital tension caused by a lack of intellectual communication -- and even the measure of that "lack," since, in my view, they have not adequately accounted for the evidence pertaining to O'Connor's character, and even his intellect, before us at this stage.

Now, you may not see any self-serving motives here, but at least account for the argument to the contrary, rather than just ignore it and repeat your position.

Part of the reason for the affair was likely Rand's belief that Nathaniel provided her with an intellectual relationship that was lacking. I don't find it hard to believe that if Rand embarked an extra-maritial [sic] affair for such a reason, she might also have considered divorce for the same reason.

The fact that you don't find something hard to believe doesn't mean it was the case. This methodology is akin to Robert Campbell's "Is there any reason to doubt [supply idiotic contention of your choice here]?", when there are millions of reasons to doubt [supply idiotic contention of your choice here]. And you should learn the proper use of the comma.

My personal policy re anything said by Babs is to accord it the same status as the things she has said about me—malicious crap. In my case, since I'm still alive and flourishing, its status as crap is easily verifiable, along with her penchant for uttering it. In Rand's case, not so easy. But since your pin-up girl is, demonstrably, the lying, smearing low-life bitch that I have called her, and her cheerleaders are established cane toads like Kelly, I take the view that we can safely assume the truth to be the opposite of anything she claims. James, of course, is much more charitable.

Ok, I never get involved with these threads because I know jack about the subject and don't want to look silly but this really caught my eye and I had to say something....

"Mimi is Mimi Sutton, Frank's niece. She was never part of of Rand's inner circle and never had a falling out with her."

So sources on Rands character are worth more to you if they had a falling out? I understand the inner circle part but what's with the falling out quip? Very odd.

P.S. Welcome Back James! forgive my lack of written well wishes and my lateness in welcoming you back. Wonderful to see you're fresh faced (?) and back in the shit-stirring/counter shit-stirring game!

Jim,

What is self-serving in the Brandens' claim here? They report something about your hero that you don't like, but it doesn't make the demented duo look better or worse.

In any event, there are two pieces of evidence that indirectly support the "lack of intellectual communication" claim.

The first is the affair with Nathaniel Branden. Part of the reason for the affair was likely Rand's belief that Nathaniel provided her with an intellectual relationship that was lacking.  I don't find it hard to believe that if Rand embarked an extra-maritial affair for such a reason, she might also have considered divorce for the same reason.

The second is evidence from PAR itself.  This is from page 172:

Ayn's two mainstays during that hectic year [1942] were Frank and Nick [Frank's brother]  . . . Nick, because she could discuss the book with him, know[ing] that she was understood. . . . As always, Ayn first read her longhand drafts [of The Fountainhead] aloud to Frank, then edited and typed it, it was Nick to whom she showed it for his criticism or approval

"I'd be dozing on and off, late at night," Mimi recalled, "and Nick would come in.  She'd read to him, and they would talk for hours. . . .

Mimi is Mimi Sutton, Frank's niece.  She was never part of of Rand's inner circle and never had a falling out with her.

Incidentally, in PAR there are occasional mentions of the problems in the O'Connors' marriage in the 1940s.  Since Barbara Branden didn't know Rand at this time, I assume she has sources (such as Mimi Sutton) for these accounts.  As it stands, the only evidence I'm aware of indicates that there were substantial problems with the marriage at the time.  But again, if your research has uncovered witnesses who tell a different story, I think you should let us know.

One has to work pretty hard not to see the reasons to doubt the idea that a lack of intellectual communication in the 1940s was causing such dramatic relationship-ending considerations as are alleged, when the private Rand correspondence published since the release of PAR reveals that Rand was reading Atlas -- sequence by sequence -- to O'Connor in the 1940s -- and caring so very much what he thought about it, and, specifically, what he thought about things like its philosophical "scope." Or, doubting this "lack" from something lacking in the kind of visibility his obviously intense, if hard-won, reactions gave her.

If one has a hard time also imagining such a troubled relationship with the man who she credibly credits with having recently saved The Fountaihead and her very view of the world itself -- through private conversation -- is this also something the Brandens' self-serving claims have placed off limits from consideration?

Just checking, Neil, since you hadn't qualified it thus previously.

This stuff will be important evidence -- and I'm glad you seem to agree.

Jim,

You stated: "Are you blaming me for not listening to those of the interviews which didn't even exist at the time?"

Yet again I am confused.  PARC came out in 2005.  Plenty of interviews had been done by that time which no doubt would have shed light on the O'Connors' marriage in the 1940s.

This is from the 1996 Archives letter:

In April ARI began interviewing relatives and associates of Ayn Rand and Frank O’Connor. Ayn Rand Archives researcher Scott McConnell has interviewed seventeen people to date, including Rand’s 1946 secretary, a 1930 next-door neighbor who was the inspiration for Peter Keating and for The Fountainhead, and five of her Chicago relatives. Two of the relatives, Morton Portnoy and Fern G. Brown, a successful writer of children’s books, first met Ayn Rand in 1926, just after Rand arrived in America, and was living with her Chicago relatives for six months. Two of Frank O’Connor’s nieces, Marna (“Docky”) and Connie Papurt, have also been interviewed. The interviewees, Mr. McConnell reports, have been very cooperative and informative. “They provided extensive information on Ayn Rand’s and Frank O’Connor’s family trees and family histories. The interviewees’ anecdotes range from the amusing, such as stories about Miss Rand training her cats, to the heartwarming, particularly about the love between Ayn Rand and Frank O’Connor . . . .

This is from 1997 (this lady was interviewed):

When Ayn Rand and Frank O’Connor lived at their San Fernando Valley,California, ranch in the 1940s, Miss Rand employed June Kurisu (then June Kato) as her secretary from 1947 to 1949. Miss Kato got the weekend secretarial job through her parents, who lived and worked on the ranch as the O’Connor’s cook and ranch hand.

This is from 2000

By far the largest acquisition—itself a source of further investigations—is the Archives Oral History Program. The program has interviewed 170 individuals and has captured 276 hours of audio on tape. The topics cover every known phase of Ayn Rand’s life.

Do you honestly believe that to be a fair summary of the evidence and my argument?

For the zillionth time: PARC recognizes that Ms. Branden tells us that the O'Connors shared a sincere and intense affection. It is explicit in that respect.

However: if Rand's conscious perception of O'Connor was extravagantly mistaken for at least forty of their fifty years together, if her conceptual thinking about her husband had "little to do" with the actual man, O'Connor, then their marriage was a fraud, with her love based on a self-delusion.

If O'Connor stayed with Rand for financial reasons, then their marriage was a fraud, as well.

Both of these are claimed to be true.

Of course, I "wonder what kept them together," but see plenty of reason why, specifically from the perspective of Rand's ideas and values, they did stay together.

Again, the issue is not evul, or even evil, but considering specific cases of credibility in this reporting, and using the evidence to evaluate this.

Importing such language is not helpful, however colorful it might seem to you.

No, we haven't a single example of the "extravagant" terms Rand used about Frank -- apart from the quotations found in PARC, the ones we were actually given -- nor even a single example of something that might have seemed to have embarrassed Frank.

If you think otherwise, please quote the terms Rand used for us.

I am sometimes embarrassed by praise of me which, in retrospect, was more insightful about me than I had been -- and certainly less distorted by traces of lingering altruism or destructive false humility in my own psychology. Indeed, all Ms. Branden is revealing here is her own unwillingness to believe Rand about things she apparently had no basis to doubt.

As to the first, I would only point out the obvious fact that causing "change" does not yet imply causing positive change from PARC's perspective. As I recall, the context was my response to the claim by MSK about no one "taking PARC seriously," not necessarily even "agreeing with PARC" in any of its particulars. Your penchant for adding in what you like and ignoring the rest of what I write is tiresome, Neil.

Are you blaming me for not listening to those of the interviews which didn't even exist at the time? In any event, the Archivist himself reviewed the book and was aware of the interviews which existed at the time. His corrections were much appreciated.

Also, I have seen the photos -- and the little love notes Rand wrote O'Connor -- preserved at the Archive. Had I written a biography, I would have used these things, and more.

However: pointing out the unsupported nature of certain assertions -- noting the existing evidence which tends to contradict them -- observing the Brandens' natural biases -- pointing out the gaps and internal contradictions when taken at face value -- i.e., the grounds for questioning their accounts -- does not need to get into any of this evidence nor cite it.

From your own resistance to the very idea of a distorting bias at work here -- as shown not by empty claims, but by the uncritical nod you give to every other potential for "unfortunate hyperbole" -- it is plain that a book will have done enough if it only shows why one should doubt the case presented by the Brandens from the existing record, and the reasons why one should not accept their assertions uncritically, rather than establish all that I know or believe about Ayn Rand.

Sure, new evidence is always going to appear, and we must correct our evaluations when necessary -- but we cannot expect positive OR negative corroboration for many of their claims, Neil. PARC indicates why one should treat their unsupported opinions extremely critically.

I "base" that final quotation on the simple fact that when a woman has an Affair, this, all by itself, is some reason to question the happiness of her marriage. The evidence in Rand's case, of course, is highly unusual.

And, of course, had Peikoff written about her life or attempted a critical evaluation of her psychology, I think we would know the direction of his "biases," as I have repeatedly said. While he did not know about the affair at the time, he knew O'Connor at the time. And, after the Break, he knew O'Connor as well as anyone ever did, it seems. This gives him a primary foundation for such an opinion that only a witness possesses, Neil.

Whether or not either of TheBrandens™ wrote of an appalling fraud of a marriage is easy to gauge. One reads the books they wrote.

Fraud implies, in the context of marriage, a coupling that is fundamentally dishonest, faked.

Whatever are the most fraudulent couplings (perhaps a 'paper wedding' or a marriage of convenience), most marriages are based on affinity at the very least, if not love, if not mutual sexual longing, if not a rare communion of interests and attitudes and actions.

The word 'fraud' doesn't come to my mind when reading PAR or MYWAR. From Barbara's book at least, there is a firm impression of a marriage that was solid, if occasionally puzzling.

Anyone, knowing nothing of the O'Connor marriage but a few items (he worked a little, she worked a lot, she supported the family as chief breadwinner, she was a major author, he was a movie extra and sometimes florist, she had a love affair with another man for a number of years), anyone might wonder what kept them together.

Is it possible that both books give more than a broad hint that what kept them together was a mutual love and regard? I think so, so the charge of 'fraud' dissolves.

The underlying issue with James is not the talk of fraud (since there was none), nor the talk of love (since there was enough), but the talk of divorce.

As I wrote before, there is nothing fraudulent about a marriage in which one or both of the partners thinks about divorce. There is nothing particularly fraudulent about a marriage that has its difficult times, and a waxing and waning of passion.

If at heart of the 'fraud' charge is that both Barbara Branden and Nathaniel Branden cooked up a lie about the difficult years in California, if that is the issue -- that they are both out and out liars and Rand did no such thing, Rand never talked of divorce with either of the evul team, if no hint of discord or thought of separation ever entered the O'Connor mind at any time, and never would Ayn Rand speak of her troubles and her marriage to the demented duo, I'm not convinced by PARC.

WSS

Jim,

I'm all in favor of you clearing up whatever confusion there might be in the passage we have been discussing. No, I won't claim you corrected a "mistake."

I believe this is confused as well. On pages 157-58 you write:

Ms. Branden writes, " . . . the man [Rand] spoke of in such extravagent terms had little to do with the real human being who was Frank." Ms. Branden does not tell us exactly what those "extravagent terms" were apart from the following, solitary example: "I could only love a hero," because "[f]emininity is hero-worship."

But Branden says on page 88 of PAR:

Yet the friends who knew them most intimately were to agree that the man Ayn spoke of in such extravagant terms had little to do with the real human being who was Frank. As they listened to her praise his intelligence, his insights, his philosophical and psychological perceptiveness, they were often embarrassed—as Frank, too, appeared to be—by the nature of the compliments.

Branden does give more than one, solitary example, unless I am again missing your point.

1. Here is what you said about Ms. Heller: "if Ms. Heller's private comments -- and asking me to read the galleys of her new biography -- are any measure -- PARC has forever changed the field of Rand biography.” You are implying she has a high regard for your book.

2. The Brandens say Rand's marriage was in trouble in the 40s. In the 200 hours of interviews with the Archives, there were likely some witnesses to their marriage at this time. Isn't it responsible to listen to these before you accuse the Brandens of lying?

And if there are eyewitnesses who confirm the Brandens account, this would enhance their credibility.  So it certainly seems to me that you weren't too eager to search for evidence that might support the Brandens.

3. Did you ask Leonard Peikoff, Harry Binswanger or anyone else if he or she ever heard Rand praise Frank in terms that were excessive? If so, what did he tell you?

4. I do concede the potential biases of the Brandens. But do you concede that Leonard Peikoff is potentially biased as well? I don't have a copy of the Sense of Life video, but I recall that he says the affair didn't hurt Frank and engages in other speculation.  He didn't even know of the affair.  Is Peikoff's motivation ever suspect?

5. Incidentally, you say in PARC, "[w]hether they were always truly happy together, especially in light of Rand's affair, can be questioned . . . ." Is this just speculation on your part?  Since you reject the Brandens' account, on what do you base this statement? 

12. Up to the same stellar standards of scholarship that we have come to expect from you, Mr. Parille, you now claim that I alleged a high regard for PARC on Ms. Heller's part.

Once again, you are wrong and have misrepresented me. It's become a bad habit, hasn't it? Please stop it.

And, so, your premise is all wrong, too.

11. To speculate that there are those whom you "might have asked" for that badly needed help -- or, if others "would have asked" themselves -- does not assert that you did seek such advice. Plain English.

Obviously, you should have.

But do you really contend that this was a claim that you had sought such help?

Readers can see for themselves that it was not.

10. It could give it credibility only if we ignore the rest of the evidence that you had flatly claimed did not even exist and the good reasons why this was not and naturally would not have been reported by others, of course. And these make a hash of such "corroboration." As does a consideration of the potential biases of the Brandens in this regard.

9. There is no other evidence to corroborate this claim -- and this is critical support for the Brandens' most self-interested claims.

Obviously.

Have you really read PARC?

Your remarkable refusal to acknowledge the slightest potential aspect of bias or distortion in witnesses who play central roles in the tales they themselves spin and who had nasty fallings-out with the subject of their complaints -- indeed, someone whom they feel no less than victimized by -- is truly astonishing blindness.

As persons who had fallen out with Rand, the nature and character of Rand's relationship to those who DID remain with her to the end is of vital importance to them. It will help to determine how history will evaluate the Brandens and others who had such fallings out themselves.

For example, if one really could have esthetic differences with Rand and continue to be trusted by her, much less to have avoided any anger or judgment by this difference, undermines Ms. Branden's claims about how Rand treated esthetic disagreements.

The composite picture will tell us whether Rand was so intolerable a human being as to make their departure "make sense" on different levels to their readers. Thus, Peikoff must be attacked in exaggerated terms, etc.

No, it really wasn't about the lies they told Rand -- it was about her own intolerant, moralistic and angry personality.

So, how did O'Connor survive? No, it could not have been that Rand actually admired the actual virtues he actually possessed -- and O'Connor appreciating his wife's remarkable qualities and achievements -- could it? No, we must therefore be told that Rand had a largely fictionalized view of the man, you see, and that he, drinking heavily, was her financial thrall.

Get it?

8. First, the Brandens' claims are unsupported -- how, exactly, Rand had exaggerated the man or his intellect, we are not told -- and there was no reason not to tell us what these alleged claims were.

This -- alone -- given the biases noted above -- is sufficient grounds for doubting them. Add to this the evidence which contradicts their assertions and it becomes clear that one cannot rely on their conclusory opinions.

7. No, I believe that the Brandens are the only ones who knew the O'Connors who have written that they found the relationship to be "puzzling." Do you know of any others -- or are you inventing corroboration out of thin air? What I was driving at was the fact that the Brandens' conception of Rand's approach to romantic love was exactly what one might have predicted from ANY rationalist. Again, you are misrepresenting what I had written.

5. and 6. No, PARC did not make such a claim.

The Brandens both imply that Rand's marriage was a fraud -- both suggest that it stands in contradiction to Rand's view of love. Check.

And the pathetic financial dependency argument "serves" both Brandens. Check.

Both assertions are true. No claim is made that Mr. Branden had mentioned financial dependence. And, we still have pages to go in that subsection, so we are not yet "summarizing" the whole, yet.

Now, if I modify this passage so as to avoid your confusion, please do not misrepresent my position -- again -- as admitting error.

The argument indeed "serves" Mr. Branden's case, well.

4. I still don't see Rand "quoted" -- nor do I see "precisely what he said" as I had called for in the very quotation you cite from me.

The "allegation" that I was looking for is a final evaluation of the man's intellect, as I said, "brilliant," "smart," etc.

We need the examples, Neil, in order to see if such praise was excessive, otherwise we are uncritically accepting the generalized opinion of a biased witness, and one capable of "unfortunate hyperbole," to use your own words.

I have cited a number of examples where Rand used O'Connor's clever language. This existed. Rand's positive mention of this would have been warranted, whether you or Ms. Branden think so or not.

Saying that Rand praised his "insight," his "perceptiveness," his "intelligence," does not yet tell us even the degree of her allegedly outsized claim, for he surely possessed some intellect, some insight, some perceptiveness... We still don't even know HOW MUCH of these things Rand allegedly attributed to him.

O'Connor was known for a dry wit, as Ms. B. herself concedes, and, obviously, he had the brains to see Rand as something special long before anyone else did in America.

We have evidence which would support positive claims about O'Connor in regard to these very aspects -- his intellect, perceptiveness, etc. -- and nothing real to counter it except an unsubstantiated opinion from a biased witness who reports his silent ways.

3. No, once more, I got it right. Ms. B. is clearly and unmistakably saying that only after FORTY years did Rand even start to consciously appreciate him for what he was -- or, perhaps, to recognize why she, in some sense, always had "loved" him, despite the grotesque or, at least, "extravagant," charicature she had previously conceived him as being.

IN RAND'S TERMS, this would have rendered the relationship no less than a fraud.

To realize for the first time that one has "always loved" someone is say that one was in the same condition as Scarlett O'Hara from Gone With the Wind -- so self-deluded that she did not understand what she was loving -- or even that she was loving -- when in fact she was.

Straight out of romantic fiction about self-deluded heroines.

Rand's stated claims about why she loved O'Connor -- and her very perception of O'Connor -- was fictionalized "extravagantly" (yes, I made it an adverb), we are told.

Neil, your refusal to see this claim as rendering the O'Connor marriage a fraud is simply laughable.

For an Objectivist, and I hope others, too -- this would be empty fraud.

2. Do you expect anyone to believe in your good faith about this? This was an uncontroversial claim that you admit is true yourself. Was there any reason to doubt PARC here? Was there any reason for PARC to have cited names, if this is so universally accepted?

1. I don't know what you are saying, Neil, except that we must uncritically accept the unsupported opinions of persons who knew Rand, even if they had a nasty falling out with her.

I have done research -- research more than sufficient to undermine the Brandens' empty claims. The burden of proof is on those unsupported claims. If they can establish them -- in fact -- it is up to them to do so. PARC has given them the chance to add to the record.

But Ms. Branden has hardly established the fact that Rand's praise for O'Connor was excessive, or even its likelihood, has she?

The Brandens falling out with Rand casts suspicion on their evaluations of those who remained with Rand -- with respect to precisely these kind of issues. They provide no evidence to support their generalized opinions and even a single dubious example of Rand's outsized praise is lacking. Indeed, there is good evidence to contradict many of these opinions, for example, evidence which contradicts the claim that the O'Connors lacked intellectual communication in the 1940s.

1. If you are trying to persuade readers that the Brandens’ description of Rand’s marriage is in error, wouldn’t it have been helpful to listen to the interviews of others who knew her and Frank? That PARC isn’t a biography isn’t an excuse for not doing this research.

2. No, I don’t dispute that the O’Connors were affectionate. I asked who the “numerous” witnesses were because you have a habit of referring to various sources later where none were named in the book. I’m just trying to nail down your sources.

3. I still don’t see how the Brandens’ description of Rand’s marriage can be read as a fraud. And Barbara Branden says on page 88 that "[d]espite the disasters that were to occur in their life together, despite the bottomless agony she was to cause him, he was the love of her life." You are misrepresenting what Branden says on page 364. She writes, “she began to truly love the man she had married—or perhaps, to accept the fact that she always had loved him, loved him as he was and as he had been . . . .” That’s not the same as saying that “Rand never even STARTED to love the man she actually married until after the first forty years of their relationship.”

4. You wrote: “Where is Rand quoted as overstating O'Connor's intellect? Where do the Brandens even claim that she made such a claim? See. as PARC demands, we need to know precisely what Rand had said about O'Connor that was untrue. Did she call him a ‘genius,’ ‘brilliant,’ or even just ‘smart’? Have the Brandens even alleged this?”

Yes. On page 88 of PAR, Barbara Branden writes: “Yet the friends who knew them most intimately were to agree that the man Ayn spoke of in such extravagant terms had little to do with the real human being who was Frank. As they listened to her praise his intelligence, his insights, his philosophical and psychological perceptiveness, they were often embarrassed—as Frank, too, appeared to be—by the nature of the compliments.”

5. You claim that the Brandens attribute Frank’s staying with Rand as motivated by financial concerns. “If we are to take the Brandens’ word for it, the O’Connors’ marriage was an empty fraud. For Rand, it was maintained by her fantasy-like projection of O’Connor. For O’Connor, this supposed financial dependence serves to explain what is otherwise inexplicable to the Brandens—O’Connor’s staying by Rand’s side.” [PARC, p. 152.] According to your summary of the Brandens, the marriage was a fraud for 50 years and Frank stayed in it for 50 years because of money.

6. See the above quote. You attribute this to both Brandens. And unless you can quote Nathaniel Branden to this effect, you are in error.

7. You concede that others who knew the O’Connors well were puzzled by what kept them together. To me this lends credibility to the Brandens’ account.

8. Barbara Branden says that Rand projected qualities onto Frank that he didn’t have. (I believe NB says this as well, but I can't find it right now.) I don’t see any reason to reject what they say. They knew Rand for 19 years. I didn’t. You didn't.

9. The background here is your claim that the Brandens made up the story that they both report of Rand saying that she considered divorce in the 40s. Barbara Branden says that it was in part for lack of intellectual communication. Even if this letter constitutes evidence of intellectual communication (which I don’t think it does), it still doesn’t make the Brandens’ story untrue or even not likely to be true. Why would they make this up?

In addition, what do you know about the state of Rand’s marriage in the 1940s? Do you think the claim that Rand considered divorce in the 40s is implausible?

10. Since you concede that no one ever observed Rand and Frank having an intellectual conversation, this lends credibility to Barbara Branden’s claim that Rand considered divorce because of it.

11. Please read what you wrote: “Well, I mean nothing personal by this, but it did seem that Neil needed help rather badly. I don't know who but other posters at OL such as yourself he might have asked, or, indeed, if others at OL reading this thread, observing the situation, would have asked on his behalf.”

Do you have any proof that I might have “asked” for help?

12. Since you are comfortable in revealing that Miss Heller allegedly has a high regard for your book, I don’t see why it would be a problem revealing some specifics.

Thanks so much, but, for me, debate is therapeutic.

Let me address the first two last, if you don't mind.

3. No, sir, this is not an "agree to disagree" kind of thing.

Ms. Branden does not question the sincerity or the intensity of the couples' feelings for one another -- as PARC states explicitly -- and PARC fully recognizes what you have cited.

However, we are told that these feelings were based on Rand's illusions about the man. Rand's descriptions of him had "little to do" with his reality, we are told. It is said that her claims were "extravagant." And, we are told, Rand never even STARTED to love the man she actually married until after the first forty years of their relationship, by which point the man began to suffer from a variety of illnesses.

By Rand's own philosophy on the subject of love, she was compelled to see him as a "hero" he never really was, it is alleged.

"Objectivism," we are told -- at least as Ms. Branden alleges Rand had presented it -- makes Rand's love for O'Connor something of a "puzzle," just as your quotation makes plain.

In all of these senses, the marriage, as described by Ms. Branden, was an empty fraud -- one predicated on Rand's self-delusion. And she claims that it represented a rather odd contradiction to Rand's stated beliefs.

There is nothing vague or unclear about this, but this is simply and precisely what Ms. Branden is actually saying in PAR -- whether you are able to admit this to yourself or not.

Of course, Rand's views on love have been radically distorted. Her love for O'Connor is in no sense inexplicable to someone familiar with Rand's ideas on the subject.

To cite but one example, the Rand notes in PARC are a devastating rejoinder to this all-to-common straw-man.

4. Where is Rand quoted as overstating O'Connor's intellect? Where do the Brandens even claim that she made such a claim? See. as PARC demands, we need to know precisely what Rand had said about O'Connor that was untrue.

Did she call him a "genius," "brilliant," or even just "smart"? Have the Brandens even alleged this?

Do you have any basis for this claim?

5. Well, where do I claim that this was a motive for all those fifty years? Indeed, on page 157, I show that Ms. Branden used this to explain O'Connor staying with Rand AFTER the start of the Affair, and in the context of his reported anguish over it. The context in PARC makes this plain.

What is otherwise "inexplicable" is O'Connor remaining with Rand AFTER the Affair which had allegedly caused him such anguish had commenced. PARC never asserts that such a motive was claimed for the whole of the relationship, does it? The curious thing that needs explaining is why a contemporary American husband would tolerate such an on-going affair by his wife. Get it?

6. PARC makes clear that this "explanation" for O'Connor remaining with Rand following the Affair is sourced in Ms. Branden. "Ms. Branden says..." and "Ms. Branden writes..." (p.157) PARC does not assert that Mr.. Branden said this himself. No, it states that this "serves to explain what is otherwise inexplicable to the Brandens" -- i.e., O'Connor staying with Rand. The theory indeed "serves" a gap in Mr. Branden's account, and this is all PARC says.

7. Of course not. Indeed, the Brandens' are simply classical examples of this crude misunderstanding of Rand's ideas.

It's cause? They suffer from an all-too-common syndrome we Objectivists call "rationalism." This puzzlement, as the King of Siam might have called it, is just the sort of misunderstanding one would predict from a rationalist. It was precisely in order to combat this syndrome that Peikoff gave his 1983 course, "Understanding Objectivism." Peikoff refutes this approach, root and branch, and explains why it leads to such errors -- and he describes how Rand led him away from it -- just as the Rand journal entries in PARC show how Rand was trying to help Branden overcome the sybdrome. If you are