The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics

[Gideon Reich 0]

It is my understanding (though I don't remember where I read it) that he knew and consented.

Though once again-that's just my understanding, but not a fact-though if anyone knows where I could have gotten this piece of information, I'd be very thankful .

←

Well, all three parties agreed that Frank consented and Valliant even seems to suggest that he may have been quite supportive. But I still would love to read in Ayn Rand's own words how she justified it. I would love to have been a fly on the wall in the initial conversations among the four of them suggesting that the affair become intimate.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

Does nobody here then have the slightest problem with the fact that Ayn Rand agreed to have an intimate relationship with Nathaniel Branden while being happily married to Frank O'Connor?

←

I don't have any problem with it. It is really none of my business. I am not a voyeur. Nor am I an intrinsicist in ethics. Marriage vows do not have intrinsic value, that is, regardless of context. If two people form a contract and later agree to change the terms temporarily, is there a problem?

[Gideon Reich 0]

I don't have any problem with it. It is really none of my business. I am not a voyeur. Nor am I an intrinsicist in ethics. Marriage vows do not have intrinsic value, that is, regardless of context. If two people form a contract and later agree to change the terms temporarily, is there a problem?

←

It is very true that this is in fact none of our business. However, as a result of the Brandens it is public knowledge.

As to being a voyeur, I also don't consider myself one. I don't think I qualify for the definition I found in dictionary.com:

voy·eur: An obsessive observer of sordid or sensational subjects.

I did not mean to imply that there's something intrinsically wrong about what Ayn Rand did. However, it does seem at minimum unusual and "daring" (as Valliant put it). The "problem" for me is that I don't understand the reason and justification behind it. If one has found somebody better than one's original choice for spouse then isn't the appropriate course divorce and remarriage? It seems as if Miss Rand was aiming at a kind of polyandry here.

pol·y·an·dry: The condition or practice of having more than one husband at one time.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

It still seems to me that she was at minimum going against her marriage vows (I'm assuming they included some reference to exclusivity).

←

Any proper contract is made by mutual consent and the terms of the contract should be open to renegotiation if all the parties to it are willing to change them.

[ADS 0]

Well, all three parties agreed that Frank consented and Valliant even seems to suggest that he may have been quite supportive. But I still would love to read in Ayn Rand's own words how she justified it.

←

I don't know Miss Rand's justification(s) -- I don't know if anyone does -- but I can relate a point that Dr. Peikoff has made before about a possible explanation for her actions. (The following is my paraphrase of this, taken from his tape "Love, Sex, and Romance.")

With the vast majority of people, in the vast majority of situations, claiming to be as torn as Ayn Rand was between two lovers would bespeak of a lack of introspection or defining one's standards well enough. But we must remember how sui generis Ayn Rand was, and how difficult it would have been for a woman like her to find, united in a single man, both an intellect and a sense of life that matched hers. And the problem was that she (thought she) found these two elements in different men: the intellect in Branden, and the sense of life in Frank O'Connor. Thus, she was torn between the two, and quite plausibly so.

This kind of explanation does indeed seem plausible to me, but I want to stress that it is only an idea Dr. Peikoff recounted, and should not be taken as his first-hand knowledge of what Miss Rand was actually thinking at the time.

[Gideon Reich 0]

...

This kind of explanation does indeed seem plausible to me, but I want to stress that it is only an idea Dr. Peikoff recounted, and should not be taken as his first-hand knowledge of what Miss Rand was actually thinking at the time.

←

Right -- that's essentially the point Valliant makes in his book as well and it does seem plausible. Again, I bemoan the fact that we now do have first-hand knowledge of what Miss Rand was thinking at the time leading up to the breakup since we can read her private journal notes but we have no equivalent for the time of the "get together," as it were. Therefore we have to rely on speculations if we want to understand this at all (unless one assumes that this requires no special understanding).

Since Shoshanna Knapp is working on a more detailed biography of Ayn Rand's life up to the publication of Atlas Shrugged, perhaps we'll learn more when this new biography is published.

[ADS 0]

...I bemoan the fact that we now do have first-hand knowledge of what Miss Rand was thinking at the time leading up to the breakup since we can read her private journal notes but we have no equivalent for the time of the "get together," as it were. Therefore we have to rely on speculations if we want to understand this at all (unless one assumes that this requires no special understanding).

←

Gideon, I'm still confused why not having firsthand knowledge of Miss Rand's thoughts is something to bemoan. Is it because you regard it as likely that Miss Rand's decision was unjustified?

Personally, I have no problem treating this particular decision of Miss Rand's like a whole plethora of decisions that she made in her personal life: they have nothing to do with my living my life, and I have every reason to presume that she was acting rationally when she did so.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Since Shoshanna Knapp is working on a more detailed biography of Ayn Rand's life up to the publication of Atlas Shrugged, perhaps we'll learn more when this new biography is published.

I have been dreaming about such a biography. I would really like to learn a lot more about the early Ayn Rand, her thought process, her philosophical progression and journey, and I especially hope the eyewitnesses and firsthand accounts are given the very top priority, so that as much as possible can be put on record (not so much of people who witnessed her earlier years which I realize is impossible now, but people who have heard her talk about those earlier years, which is still possible).

[Free Capitalist 0]

Wait, Shoshana Knapp or Shoshana Milgram?

[ADS 0]

Wait, Shoshana Knapp or Shoshana Milgram?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shoshana Milgram and Shoshana Knapp are the same person, and it is this person that I'm sure Gideon was referring to.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

But we must remember how sui generis Ayn Rand was, and how difficult it would have been for a woman like her to find, united in a single man, both an intellect and a sense of life that matched hers.  And the problem was that she (thought she) found these two elements in different men: the intellect in Branden, and the sense of life in Frank O'Connor.  Thus, she was torn between the two, and quite plausibly so.

←

That fits with something I heard Ayn Rand say in a Q+A. The question was "Can you be in love with two different people at the same time?" and Miss Rand answered "No, but you can be half in love with two different people at the same time."

On another occasion Nathaniel Branden was asked the very same question and his answer struck me as bizarre. He said that ordinary people shouldn't consider it and that the only people who could do it were "giants."

[Gideon Reich 0]

Shoshana Milgram and Shoshana Knapp are the same person, and it is this person that I'm sure Gideon was referring to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right. The Institute presently lists her as Shoshana Milgram. I'll assume that's correct and I apologize for the error.

[Gideon Reich 0]

Gideon, I'm still confused why not having firsthand knowledge of Miss Rand's thoughts is something to bemoan.  Is it because you regard it as likely that Miss Rand's decision was unjustified?

←

I guess I am interested for two related reasons. One is that personally, I cannot see myself doing this and I know for a fact that my wife would not tolerate this nor would I tolerate this in my wife. I consider my wife mine exclusively and she feels the same way about me. That was certainly part of reason we got married. So yes, personally I cannot justify it but I hesitate to judge what Miss Rand did in the absence of her own words about it. I know I don't understand Miss Rand's context well enough to judge. Valliant claims various observations in support of the idea that neither Miss Rand nor Frank O'Connor were as jealous as apparently my wife and I are. And, as others have pointed out, it was all done voluntarily with no lies, at least on the part of the O'Connors.

The other reason is polemical. Certainly it is possible to dismiss the whole thing as "none of our business" but if there's proper general principle here I would rather understand and be able to defend it.

[ADS 0]

I guess I am interested for two related reasons. One is that personally, I cannot see myself doing this and I know for a fact that my wife would not tolerate this nor would I tolerate this in my wife.

I couldn't see myself doing it either, but this in itself shouldn't prevent you from seeing the plausible rationality in another person doing it. The validity of Miss Rand's decision lies in the very fact that she was not in a situation like yours: she was in her own situation, with its own context.

Valliant claims various observations in support of the idea that neither Miss Rand nor Frank O'Connor were as jealous as apparently my wife and I are.

It doesn't sound like you and your wife are jealous, but just that you're in love. Jealousy (at least in its usual pejorative sense) is an irrational emotion in which you hold in contempt another person's gaining of a legitimate value, because you yourself do not have that value. But part of what you're saying is that you or your wife would not be trying to gain a legitimate value by seeking another lover; hence, it's not really jealousy for shuddering at the prospect of that.

The other reason is polemical. Certainly it is possible to dismiss the whole thing as "none of our business" but if there's proper general principle here I would rather understand and be able to defend it.

←

That's understandable. Perhaps the following will help (once again paraphrasing from Dr. Peikoff's "Love, Sex, and Romance" tape):

To be torn between two people like this, you have to have very intimate knowledge about two people who (among other things) mirror your top values. This would normally never happen, because once you found the first person, you wouldn't be getting to know someone else that intimately. Plus, no two people are equal, so if a conflict arose, you should be able to choose which one is right for you. But take a scenario in which a woman's husband has gone off to war, and she gets the word that he's dead. She builds a relationship with and marries another man -- but, after a while, her original husband comes back alive. In this kind of situation -- along with Miss Rand's situation -- there is an extenuating circumstance that makes it valid for the woman to sleep with both men for a period of time.

[Bill Bucko 0]

Personally, I have no problem treating this particular decision of Miss Rand's like a whole plethora of decisions that she made in her personal life: they have nothing to do with my living my life, and I have every reason to presume that she was acting rationally when she did so.

←

Absolutely. It's really none of our business. Nor would Miss Rand have regarded it as such.

[Gideon Reich 0]

I couldn't see myself doing it either, but this in itself shouldn't prevent you from seeing the plausible rationality in another person doing it.  The validity of Miss Rand's decision lies in the very fact that she was not in a situation like yours: she was in her own situation, with its own context.

Agreed. I guess I was hoping to understand more about her context.

That's understandable.  Perhaps the following will help (once again paraphrasing from Dr. Peikoff's "Love, Sex, and Romance" tape):

To be torn between two people like this, you have to have very intimate knowledge about two people who (among other things) mirror your top values.  This would normally never happen, because once you found the first person, you wouldn't be getting to know someone else that intimately.  Plus, no two people are equal, so if a conflict arose, you should be able to choose which one is right for you.  But take a scenario in which a woman's husband has gone off to war, and she gets the word that he's dead.  She builds a relationship with and marries another man -- but, after a while, her original husband comes back alive.  In this kind of situation -- along with Miss Rand's situation -- there is an extenuating circumstance that makes it valid for the woman to sleep with both men for a period of time.

←

I listened to Dr. Peikoff's talk a few years ago and I'm coming to the conclusion that the above is as close as I can get to understanding what Miss Rand was after. It does seem to be a rare, exceptional situation in which one is in love with two seemingly worthy people simultaneously and at the same time the two people do not make one choose between them. It seems that while the O'Connors were up to the challenge of the attempted relationship, the Brandens weren't (nor were they worthy of it) and thus as Miss Rand admits in the journal notes that Valliant quotes, it was a mistake.

[Paul's Here 0]

...............

On another occasion Nathaniel Branden was asked the very same question and his answer struck me as bizarre.  He said that ordinary people shouldn't consider it and that the only people who could do it were "giants."

←

I may be wrong but I think that Valliant attributed that quote to Rand who answered a question. Branden may have been simply repeating what she said.

[Jim Valliant 0]

I want to thank YOU--and everyone else at this forum--for your kind words about the book.

It means a lot.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I may be wrong but I think that Valliant attributed that quote to Rand who answered a question.  Branden may have been simply repeating what she said.

←

I went to the NBI lectures in the 1960's and I'm reporting what I heard with my own ears. Ayn Rand's answer made sense to me and Branden's seemed exceedingly strange.

It was one more piece of evidence, seeing them both answering various questions and in other situations, that fueled my growing concern that Branden was seriously lacking in important qualities of character that I loved in Ayn Rand.

[ADS 0]

I guess I was hoping to understand more about her context.

←

I'm still unclear why you have this desire, so I do encourage you to think further about whether this desire is justified. For myself, I neither have the desire to know more about her personal situation, nor am I worried about what that situation actually might have consisted in.

[Gideon Reich 0]

I'm still unclear why you have this desire, so I do encourage you to think further about whether this desire is justified.  For myself, I neither have the desire to know more about her personal situation, nor am I worried about what that situation actually might have consisted in.

←

All right, let me as it were, think out loud a little. How did I even find out about this affair? I had read Barbara Branden's biography shortly after I became a student of Objectivism. Mrs. Branden portrayed the affair as wrong and futile from the beginning. While it was admitted that it was all out in the open and no force was involved, Ayn Rand was portrayed as browbeating both her husband and Mrs. Branden into agreeing to it.

At the time I thought the affair was strange, though not immoral since no dishonesty was involved. I simply dismissed the whole thing as irrelevant to the ideas and my understanding of them. But as I learned more about Ayn Rand and Objectivism I did have some trouble integrating the possibility of non-exclusive love with the rest of her ideas. As I have already stated, given what James Valliant has written, the original portrait painted by Mrs. Branden of how the affair came about is clearly false. It certainly does not seem likely that Frank O'Connor would be made to do something he truly objected to and Mrs. Branden seems far from innocent if she has had her own secret affairs before that point.

Why do I care so much what Ayn Rand was thinking at the time? The affair apparently lasted about 14 years. While not defining Ayn Rand's life, it was clearly an important part of it. Ayn Rand took her relationships seriously. She did not have a fling; she attempted to have a long term serious and intimate relationship.

I don't think my desire to know what Ayn Rand was thinking when the affair started is significantly different from our desires (and actions, through the purchase of Valliant's excellent book) of wanting to know what Ayn Rand thought at the time of the break-up. In the case of the book, Valliant, in addition to showing the contradictions between the Brandens, uses Ayn Rand's journal notes to demolish the image of "a woman scorned" that they were trying to paint. Perhaps, I desire to completely eliminate the image that Mrs. Branden painted of how the affair started by reading Ayn Rand's first hand thoughts about it, in addition to the plausible arguments that Valliant and others have provided. I'm trying to understand Ayn Rand's comment paraphrasing slightly, that it was a mistake but it was right to attempt it. I can't quite see why this would be an invalid desire.

If I did not care that much about Ayn Rand's life and context then why would I have bought Valliant's book at all? After all, I had already read the web version. I was hoping that the journal notes would finally give us Ayn Rand's side of the story and in many ways they did.

Look, despite what it seems above I'm not obsessed with this it is merely an unresolved (or only partially resolved) issue in my mind. I'm not losing any sleep over this. I'm willing to accept the plausible case provided by Valliant but wouldn't it be more insightful to see what Ayn Rand herself said?

[Paul's Here 0]

I went to the NBI lectures in the 1960's and I'm reporting what I heard with my own ears.  Ayn Rand's answer made sense to me and Branden's seemed exceedingly strange.

It was one more piece of evidence, seeing them both answering various questions and in other situations, that fueled my growing concern that Branden was seriously lacking in important qualities of character that I loved in Ayn Rand.

←

I didn't mean to question what you heard at the time or your evaluation of Branden or the context in which he responded to the question. I was simply stating that I think Rand had given a similar response to a similar question. I'll see if I can find it in Valliant's book and let you know where it is.

[Paul's Here 0]

That fits with something I heard Ayn Rand say in a Q+A.  The question was "Can you be in love with two different people at the same time?" and Miss Rand answered "No, but you can be half in love with two  different people at the same time."

On another occasion Nathaniel Branden was asked the very same question and his answer struck me as bizarre.  He said that ordinary people shouldn't consider it and that the only people who could do it were "giants."

←

According to Valliant, on page 138, he quotes Branden as stating it was Rand who answered the question "Is it possible to be in love with two people at the same time?" with "It's a project only giants can handle."

[Betsy Speicher 0]

According to Valliant, on page 138, he quotes Branden as stating it was Rand who answered the question "Is it possible to be in love with two people at the same time?" with "It's a project only giants can handle."

←

So he attributes that to Branden (allegedly) quoting Ayn Rand. I wonder what Valliant's source for that was.

[Bill Bucko 0]

So he attributes that to Branden (allegedly) quoting Ayn Rand.  I wonder what Valliant's source for that was.

←

Branden is a known, and admitted, liar. If he tells you today is Saturday, you'd better look at the calendar to check.

Jim Davidson told us it was Branden who made the remark, in a taped Q&A session; and that Miss Rand was so angry with Branden's answer she demanded it be expunged from the tapes, before they were distributed.

For more on Jim Davidson and his connection with NBI, see my post # 6, in this thread.

Dotty, Jim's wife, commented that Nathaniel Branden seemed to project he could have any woman he wanted. Jim added that Barbara Branden never seemed to project to her husband, "Big boy, you turn me on."

I hope I'm not the only one who sees the STRONG resemblance, in fundamental ways, between Barbara Branden and Lillian Rearden.