Customer Reviews

The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics

5 star:		(24)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(12)

 

 

Let's start with my context. I am not a member of any Objectivism faction. I have never met or had anything to do with any of James Valliant, Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, or Ayn Rand. I'm just a guy who has read Ayn Rand's work with interest and enthousiasm, and read both Brandens' books on her. I don't know that I call myself an Objectivist, but I am in basic agreement with all of its core premises.

And the most important of those, as Rand herself claimed, is reason. And so it was in accordance with reason that I wanted to read this book, to get the other side of the story and judge for myself.

Sadly, reason is what this book is wholly lacking. I wasn't even able to get more than a few chapters into it before I was forced to judge it worthless and not worth my time. Paragraph after paragraph, sentence after sentence was filled with claims and assertions that simply did not meet the basic test of logic. There were very specific errors in logic, but also a broad one underlying (and undermining) the whole affair: the assumption that anything the Brandens say must be taken with great skepticism, but anything that Rand says is unquestioned Truth, to be taken at face value. The result is that this is not a scholarly work that objectively examines the evidence and draws negative conclusions about the Brandens' accounts. This is a deliberate hatchet job, determined to focus on any negative aspect it can find or manufacture, and ignore any possible positive evidence, inference, or interpretation. The Brandens never get the benefit of doubt on any point, while Rand never gets the detriment of even a single doubt.

And it's a shame, because an even-handed examination of the veracity of the Brandens' accounts would be valuable. It is rather a shame that the main biographical information we have about Ayn Rand comes from two people who had complex personal relationships with her (in this case, leading to unpleasant breakups), which certainly has the *potential* to distort their account, even if unintentionally. As a parallel, consider the way that Schindler's biography of Beethoven is shown by later scholarship to be very flawed. But sadly, Valliant is no Thayer. I suspect that scattered about in Valliant's vitriol are some nuggets of truth. But it was just way too much effort for me to try to mine them.

What's more, the book isn't even well written. I found it poorly organized, flitting somewhat jarringly between seemingly unrelated harping points. It is certainly tedious, belabouring its points relentlessly and in minute detail.

But the main problem remains the poor logic. The unproven assertions, the drawing of conclusions not warrented from the evidence, the direct contradictions. I truly regret spending my money on this book.

This book accomplishes the opposite of what it intends. The author is trying correct Rand's public image; the author seems to think that the two Brandens destroyed or damaged it. The first of half of the book reads like a prosecutor's brief against the Brandens, and it is a terrible read. The last part of it has a bunch of Rand's journal entries, analyzing them to prove how rational and brillant she was. I am truly stunned that Rand's estate allowed her previously unreleased journal entries to be used in this book. The entries make her appear to lack any self awareness, among other not so positive traits.

I don't really care about the Brandens, and the great rift happened before I was born. Reading about it now makes all sides look bad, though that was not the author's intent. Any description of a break up of two adulterers makes both parties look bad. I hate to say it, but the book feels like it was written by a "true believer" type. As a result, it unintentionally reinforces many of the negative viewpoints that the author is trying to correct. And it tries so hard to glorify Ayn Rand's actions (and demonize the Brandens' actions) that it is too one-sided to be credible. Objective, it is not. If someone wants to counter the Brandens' portraits of Ayn Rand, then this is the wrong approach. A better approach would be to write a full biography of her, correcting any misconceptions or errors contained in the prior biographies and fully humanize her - place the Brandens in the context of Rand's whole life and achievements. Ayn Rand is the one everyone is interested in - she wrote the books, etc; the Brandens are just a side show. I just can't believe that Rand's estate would let her private papers be used in this trashy book!

Now fun facts I learned from this book:
1. The author speculates that Rand's husband might have enjoyed the fact that she was having an affair. Ewwww. And not believable.
2. Throwing a surprise party for someone is evidence of an evil plan against that person!
3. An affair with a married person 25 years younger than you is rational!
4. The author actually states that Rand was totally open with her followers about the rift (in contrast to the Brandens), except for failing to tell them about the affair. Besides that minor detail, she told them everything!
5. After looking at Rand's journal entries, it appears that she did not do a lot of introspection about herself or her emotions. Sad.

Apparently written by an uncritical devotee of Ayn Rand (or, more correctly, of the Ayn Rand Institute) intent upon "clearing" her of any allegation of personal misconduct in her rather bizarre affair that she had with her "intellectual heir," Nathaniel Branden, the author is faced with a dilemma that he cannot resolve- How is it that the world's greatest philosopher and proponent of rationality - and a novelist with heretofore unknown and penetrating insights into human conduct - could be so naive and taken-in by the deceit of her lover?

To attempt this feat, the author must make Rand also appear as not only naive, but also completely innocent, with no personal responsibility for her own actions and the effect that her conduct had upon those that she cared for (including her husband). This requires a lot of intellectual acrobatics, revisions, and omissions of inconvenient facts and details. I would advise readers to also read both books by Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden, and then draw their own conclusions.

An author's ideas and contributions to philosophy and literature should be judged on their own merit, not by whether his/her personal life was 100% consistant with their every view advocated. However, the author of this book and his allies at ARI apparently cannot handle the possibility that Rand was not a perfect exemplar in her private life of her publically-expressed views. Consequently, in an attempt to make her look the innocent victim, they end up with making her look very naive of human conduct, totally lacking in any insight into her own behavior, and by implication, rather dull and stupid.

But Ayn Rand was definately NOT dull and stupid. What she was, however, is HUMAN. And that means not omniscient and not incapable of error. To claim that her philosophy is perfect and above and beyond criticism - and that SHE was also an equally perfect exemplar - make her more than human. Those characteristics define a god. This is a very curious claim to make for a philosopher of reason and atheism!

Parenthetically, one devotee who reviewed this book here amusingly alleges that it may have caused a few to leave one Objectivist organization (because the Brandens have made presentations there??). This is probably a lot less than those who have left (or were purged from) the ARI, over its "anti-tolerance" policies.

Kudos to Mr. Valliant. His new book The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics has made me proud to call myself an Objectivist once more. This thoroughly researched and readable book reveals the scope of the premeditated and self-serving dishonesty of Nathaniel (and Barbara) Branden against the person and character of Ayn Rand. These lies (made while she was alive and especially after her death) smeared the reputation of Ayn Rand to the point that a mere mention of her name or ideas in certain quarters is met with a chorus of ad hominem attacks.

The book thoroughly exposes the Branden's and their motives, finally laying to rest all of the urban myths surrounding these private affairs, assisted by portions of the unpublished journals of Ayn Rand herself. I care little for the private lives of philosophers, but these matters have become an impediment to the serious discussion of Ayn Rand's ideas. Valliant's deft dispatch of the Branden's should clear the path for more rational consideration.

More interesting, the book reveals the amazing focus and moral clarity of Ayn Rand; remarkable given the painful personal nature of the context. Few who are familiar with the consistency and systematic nature of her values will be surprised that she was able to discover, despite the evasions and misdirection of her psychotherapist business-partner/lover, the true nature of Nathaniel Branden. But her ability for rational introspection during difficult emotional circumstances, while still feeling the emotions, is truly inspiring.

One the greatest contributions and innovations of Ayn Rand is her integration of the fields of Ethics and Metaphysics -morality based on reality, with `life' as the objective standard of value for human beings. In an age dominated by mystics on one side and relativists and skeptics on the other, the philosophical alternative offered by Objectivist ethics is a desperately needed (and much more rational) option.

Thanks to Mr. Valliant's efforts in The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, the growing popularity for the ideas of Ayn Rand can enjoy a further renaissance of careful consideration and genuine debate, and we can put all that other rubbish behind us.

James Valliant, prosecuting attorney and graduate philosopher, aptly demonstrates a superior grasp of both professions with his book, "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics." The prosecutor meticulously delves into the voluminous fabrications, misrepresentations and outright lies perpetrated against Ayn Rand by her former associates, Nathanial and Barbara Branden. The philosopher exhibits the insight essential to a proper analysis of the facts in a highly philosophical context.

As an Objectivist on the scene when Ayn Rand denounced the Brandens in 1968, I can attest to the ensuing turmoil among her admirers due to the sudden necessity to face the distasteful fact of the Brandens' betrayal. In the confusion, they manipulated the unwary for years, strategically waiting until after Ayn Rand's death to unleash their main vitriol via "biographies," which in turn created a never-ending onslaught of attacks by a bevy of Ayn Rand haters. These books, notably Ms. Branden's "The Passion of Ayn Rand," are the primary source for virtually all the hatchet job op-ed misrepresentations that have appeared over the years of Ayn Rand, of her philosophy, Objectivism, and of her associates. The Brandens' fabrications have gone unanswered for decades.

Now comes James Valliant to set the record straight. Every Objectivist should read his book in order to grasp the incomprehensible depth and breadth of the scurrilous injustice perpetrated against our heroine. Every skeptic with an abiding respect for ideas should read his book in order to free himself of falsehood. Every detractor (and anonymous reviewer) should read his book; then look in a mirror.

Valliant's work is a tour de force. His is the dynamite to clear the logjam of deceit that has impeded the flow of Objectivism into the mainstream of popular thought; it will render the Brandens and their ilk just so much flotsam. As John Galt would say, "The road is cleared."

It is hard to know whether this assiduously cobbled, book-length smear of two former associates of Ayn Rand (there was a bitter parting of the ways in 1968) is more stupid than it is vicious or more vicious than it is stupid, and I regret having spent 14 seconds of my life pondering this question.

I'll give you one example of the caliber of VAlliant's "analysis," which I mentioned in a review that I did for the ISIL web site at the time the book came out.

Barbara Branden reported in her biography, The Passion of Ayn Rand, that Rand as a young woman recently arrived in America had chosen the name of "Ayn Rand" in part because of a Remington-Rand typewriter that she was using when she and a relative talked about what name Rand would adopt. (Rand did not want to use her Russian name, perhaps in part to protect her family back in Russia.) Evidence later found in Rand's papers seemed to suggest, however, that Rand decided on "Rand" before she arrived in America and could have become acquainted with the Remington-Rand typewriter. Because of this apparent discrepancy, Valliant declares that Barbara Branden deliberately "lied" about how Rand came up with her name, and that this lying about a small thing was an all-too-typical manifestation of Branden's alleged equal willingness to lie about big things. Valliant's contention was obviously dimwitted. But now, a few years later, we have further confirmation of its dimness if any were needed. In the new Rand-Estate-approved book 100 Voices, which is a collection of interviews with people who knew Ayn Rand, the relative that Barbara Branden cited as her source for the typewriter story is transcribed repeating the exact same story about how the typewriter inspired the choice of "Rand." In other words, if the story is incorrect, it's not because Branden "lied" but because the relative got it wrong or for some other reason.

The above is a small example of Valliant's approach of assuming the very worst of his targets, and of scribbling his indictments in blithe disregard of facts and common sense--but it is very far from an isolated example of this modus operandi. The book is written by a cultist who has no desire to be judicious and objective. Any facts that got in the way of his purpose of vindicating Rand and indicting the Brandens had to be either ignored or selectively recreated, and not very artfully. Valliant will never be able to escape the reputation for deliberate and sustained dishonesty he has earned with this self-parodying screed.

I received this book as a gift from a friend, and read it while I was a "captive audience" in my hospital room. What struck me most about this book is that it is the mirror image of the William F. Buckley, Jr. book, "Getting It Right."

Along with the venerable Mr. Buckley's tome, this book is an obsessive crusade to wage once again long-since stale vendettas over Ayn Rand's *personal* legacy. Whereas Buckley painted himself into a corner with his ridiculous theme that the conservative movement was "rescued" from "fringe lunatics" like Ayn Rand and the John Birch Society (Rand would have called this "package dealing"), Valliant puts forth a valiant effort to demonstrate, once and for all, that Ayn Rand was a saint beyond moral reproach, and implies throughout that Dr. Leonard Peikoff was objectivism's most important advocate during Rand's lifetime.

What a bunch of hooey! Even though both the Brandens' memoirs could at times be self-indulgent, Valliant's mischaraterizations of them could only be described as a smear job.

This is muckraking quackery of the worst sort. It is sad to watch grown adults sweat blood trying to convince the world that a woman dead now for 25 years was either an infallible saint or a wickedly manipulative devil. This book has the "feel" that Mr. Valliant was "put up" to this unenviable task of playing Grand Inquisitor to the Brandens. Although I haven't any proof, this book seems to have the fingerprints of one Dr. Leonard Peikoff -- an incessant recycler and retreader of Ayn Rand's legacy, whose ability to squeeze every last penny from the ephemera bequeathed him by Rand would impress even Yoko Ono -- all over it.

If you live in the real world -- and not within the Ayn Rand or Buckley cults -- don't waste your time on this fanatical tract.

No matter how much effort Objectivism's official spokesmen invest in philosophical clarity and precision, their blind worship of the philosophy's progenitor will prompt outsiders to confuse evaluations of her with evaluations of her ideas. Their attempts to whitewash any and all blemishes have the opposite effect of what the spokesmen intend: outsiders see it as a lack of intellectual honesty on the part of the philosophy's advocates-and begin to wonder if this does not cast doubt on the truth of the ideas.
This would be true for any intellectual movement, but the impact is compounded for Objectivism. Because its foundation rests on respect for the facts of reality, the whitewash gives newcomers good basis to dismiss the entire philosophy as phony without further study.
When chief Objectivist spokesman Leonard Peikoff opened the Ayn Rand archives to the author of this masterpiece of convoluted, mind-numbing pseudo-analysis, he may well have set the Objectivist movement back 37 years, deflecting attention away from the crystal clarity of Rand's ideas and back on the self-defeating schism that has enabled him to rule with virtual papal infallibility over the Objectivist `establishment' since Ayn Rand's death in 1982.
Good move for Dr. Peikoff. Bad move for the future of Objectivism.
Defenders of the book (hereafter PARC) will cite various reasons, their devotion to the memory of Ayn Rand being foremost among them. But no serious reader of the Branden books will put down this volume with any higher level of respect for her. Her admirers know full well that, whatever her faults, she remains the greatest writer and thinker of the 20th Century. Despite PARC's endless allegations, the truth is that the Brandens made no attempt to deny their own culpability or to detract from the glory of Ayn Rand's legacy. It is absurd to suggest that this book `sets the record straight.' No one outside the triangle of Rand, her husband and Nathaniel Branden can possibly know the full truth about that notorious and tragically destructive affair. On that account, this book adds nothing but obfuscation and peculiarly vicious ad hominem.
It is fascinating to read Ayn Rand's personal journal, but it is not necessary to read her words to empathize with her pain-and her pain does not exonerate her of blame nor diminish the suffering endured by her husband or Branden. (At one point, PARC's author asks us to believe that Ayn Rand's husband may not have been the least bit disturbed by his wife's love affair. Is it necessary to elaborate further on the author's "objectivity"?) For those who were not involved, it must remain a story without heroes or villains-or innocent victims.
Others insist that it is important to make the case for the `other side.' The author certainly does that. PARC insists that Rand was a saint and that Nathaniel and Barbara Branden were `immoral'. Now there's a shock. Only a novice would not be aware that, from the perspective of orthodox Objectivism, this is scarcely a distinction. In his essay, "Fact and Value," Dr. Peikoff branded most advocates of "inherently irrational" ideas (i.e., pragmatism, egalitarianism, et. al.) as dishonest and, therefore, immoral. So PARC's author devotes 400 plus laboriously footnoted pages to proving that the Brandens are, well, pretty much like everyone else. (Many Objectivists, needless to say, regard Peikoff's sermonizing to be rationally indefensible and blatantly counterproductive to the spread of the philosophy. The same could be said for this book.)
A large part of PARC's indictment of the Brandens consists of tediously documenting various inconsistencies in their accounts. Yet the author glosses over some major inconsistencies that do not favor his case. Ayn Rand is eulogized throughout the book for never straying from her strict moral principles. Then why is it that, eight days after she first condemns Nathaniel Branden as "the most immoral person I have ever met" (July 4, 1968), she asked him to tell her exactly what she meant to him? ("We talked personally. Neither of us wanted to stop.") The author would have us believe that, when Ayn Rand is indulging in it, "tolerance" suddenly becomes a virtue.
Another clue to the author's `objectivity' can be observed in PARC's contention that Ayn Rand was absolutely devoid of jealousy in her actions toward Branden and that Branden made all the sexual overtures in the last year of their relationship. Rand supposedly "came to terms" with the end of their romance as early as January, 1968. If that's true, why do you suppose (as the author admits) Branden gave her the famous "letter" in July of 1968 in which he "rejected" her romantically? And why does Ayn Rand proceed to write a lengthy response in which she attacks his desires for her rival (Patrecia) as "silly, trashy, vulgar and juvenile"?
Others have claimed that the book serves a worthwhile purpose by shining new light on a controversy that has not and will not go away. But it will not go away precisely because Peikoff and his flock do not want it to go away. The books authored by Barbara and Nathaniel Branden, whatever their flaws, were obviously written with the hope of trying to heal a very deep and agonizing wound. PARC not only reopens it but injects that wound with a vile and repugnant venom, spewing muck and mucous in everyone's face, insuring that Objectivism's internal squabbles will continue to fester and infect the movement for years to come.

After Ayn Rand died in 1982, her ex-followers Nathaniel and Barbara Branden wrote tell-all memoirs of their years with her. Their portrait of Rand - as an eccentric and authoritarian - has pretty much carried the day. Now, James Valliant tells us that Rand wasn't any of that.

Of course, the Brandens books are a bit self-serving and probably one-sided in their presentation of Rand. If Valliant had wanted to point out the various flaws in their accounts (which isn't that hard to do), he might have written an interesting article. Instead, The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics is an exercise in how to write a tendentious account of people you don't like. Did Barbara Branden tell us that Rand wasn't a very happy person? Well, she says that when Rand was younger, she was happy on a certain occasion. So a generalization has to take into account every waking moment in a person's life? This is pretty much Valliant's modus operandi.

Even the one thing that might have made this book interesting - the publication in Rand's diaries - turns into an exercise in hagiography. Valliant can't just quote what Rand says. No, he has to add pages and pages of commentary telling you how wonderful Rand was and what great insights she had into everything (except, interestingly enough, how Nathaniel Branden was running a cult). If you ever wondered if Objectivism was and is a cult, Valliant has now made, inadvertently, an iron-clad case.

At the end of the day, I don't see any reason to doubt the basic image of Rand described by the Brandens, a description which has been supported by almost everyone else who knew her.

Ayn Rand has been dead almost 25 years and yet here we are a quarter of a century later with this tripe as the latest sorry example of the state of scholarship dealing with arguably one of the more important and fascinating thinkers of the twentieth century. For those not familiar with the subject matter of this book it serves as a polemic against two of Ayn Rand's early admires and associates Barbara and Nathanial Branden and picks apart each of their memoirs dealing with Rand "The Passion of Ayn Rand" and "Judgment Day" respectively. The author's conclusion... (Skip this part if you don't want me to give away the ending) The Brandens are bad people - to which I ask the question - So what? Valliant's book reads like a court transcript having diligently researched every sentence of the Branden's testimony... I mean their books, and formulates his well-researched counter argument based on extensive study of the highly sacred Ayn rand archives. What unfortunate nonsense this has all become. Nathaniel and Barbra Branden Leonard Piekoff and the rest of the original disciples are getting old and this was their fight from a long time ago. What is most discouraging about this book, even more than the irrelevant topic, dry and rigid style is the picture of the author on the dust wrapper - he looks like a young guy. I dread the thought of a new generation of thinkers incapable of delving any deeper into Rand than he said she said.