Atlas Shrugged and Virginia Tech

A post from Carol Iannone on National Review:

"I'm not a fan of Ayn Rand's writings or ideas but she has a long section in one of her novels about a train wreck which kills many people that seems apropos today. Everyone says of the train wreck that nothing could have been done to prevent it, but she goes over the whole buildup to the accident, every little piece in the chain, and shows how human choice, action, and decision-making accumulated step-by-step until culminating in the horror. That's how the Virginia Tech Massacre appears to me. No one thing might have prevented it, but it was caused, or permitted to happen, by a long accumulation of faulty actions and perceptions, of denials and mistakes, of bad decisions and assorted other failures. The only thing is to try to learn from it all. "

Radicals for Capitalism

My copy of this new book hasn't arrived, but I did come across this rather snide review in the New York Times by David Leonhardt.

Here is a sample:

"MOST troubling, Doherty merely catalogs the movement’s failings rather than grappling with them. He relates that Rand 'notoriously testified' before the big-brotherly House Un-American Activities Committee in October 1947, when the committee was investigating Hollywood, where Rand had worked as a screenwriter, but the episode receives only two paragraphs. He skates over other questionable matters, too: for instance, that Friedman advised the murderous Pinochet regime in Chile; that Merwin Hart 'infected his free-market thought with anti-Semitism'; and that Rothbard supported Strom Thurmond’s segregationist campaign for president in 1948 (because, Doherty casually observes, 'he admired Thurmond’s states’ rights position'). The book fails to ask why people who claim to love freedom have so often had a soft spot for those who would deny it to others."

A few comments:

1. Yes, Rand testified before the House Un-American Activities Commitee, but to discuss the role of commies in the film industry. Not the wisest decision perhaps, but Leonhard leaves the impression that she was turning people in for prosecution.

2. Who is Merwin Hart? I've never heard of the guy and I'm pretty much up on the libertarian movement. And in case Leonhardt didn't know, the main libertarians (Rand, Friedman, Rothbard and Mises) were all Jewish.

3. Friedman advised the Pinochet regime. That appears to be something of an exaggeration. In any event, does it bother Leonhardt that Friedman also gave advice to the Red Chinese or the Yugoslavian communists?

4. Rothbard supported Strom Thurmond in 1948. Yes, but Rothbard throughout his career tried to make alliances with people who shared some of his ideas. Of course, one might question the widsom of this approach, but let's not forget the context either.

The Truth Is Out There Somewhere, Part II

As I stated in a previous post, Valliant uses as one of his sources Jeff Walker’s book The Ayn Rand Cult (“TARC”). TARC is an explicitly anti-Rand book which is, as Valliant notes, is something of a repository for all anti-Rand stories. Curiously, Valliant uses TARC at times to supplement PAR, implying that it contains a better or more complete account of some events. He does this notwithanding that he accuses it of “extensive reliance” on the Brandens’ books. (PARC, p. 373.) One example concerns the production by Phillip and Kay Smith of Rand’s play Penthouse Legend (Night of January 16th), which precipitated the split between Rand and the Smiths. Valliant notes that while Branden reports that Rand split with Phillip and Kay Smith, she does not give the details of the split or connect it with the play.

In 1973, an off-Broadway performance of Penthouse Legend (Night of January 16th) was staged. Phillip Smith directed and co-produced the play; his wife, Kay Nolte Smith co-produced the play and acted as well. (PAR, pp. 369-372.) Walker says that Kay Smith made “unauthorized changes to a few lines of dialogue for a public performance” and for that reason was expelled from Rand’s inner circle. (TARC, p. 35.) Valliant’s only source is TARC. (PARC, p. 400.) Valliant’s version of the events is different. He says the Smiths, “changed the dialogue in their production of Penthouse Legend without authorization from Rand.” He describes the Smiths’ conduct as “systematic and personal betrayal.” (PARC, pp. 75-76.) However, TARC doesn’t describe the changes as concerning the “production” of the play but limits it to lines in one performance. Valliant doesn’t acknowledge the fact that TARC not only doesn’t support his description of this event, but contradicts it. Valliant also mentions that he asked Kay Smith for an interview in 1983, which she declined. Of course this could not be in connection with PARC since PAR wasn’t published until 1986.

As Michael Stuart Kelley notes, Phillip Smith supports TARC’s contention that the change was limited. Dr. George Reisman recounts the incident as follows in his weblog in 2006:

"Many years ago, there was a young actress to whom Ayn Rand gave the responsibility of directing a production of her play 'The Night of January 16th.' Toward the close of the play’s run, an actor prevailed upon this young woman to allow him to alter one of Ayn Rand’s lines in one of the play’s last performances. When Ayn Rand learned of this, she was furious and completely ended her relationship with this young woman, who had been in her inner circle for several years."

So while I think that, in retrospect, Branden should have included the details of this split, reporting it probably wouldn’t have changed the typical reader’s opinion of Rand.

Incidentally, when confronted with the obvious problems in his description of the split with the Smiths by Chris Sciabarra, Valliant responded that he had “anonymous sources” for his version of the split (and also anonymous sources for other events). Yet no such sources are mentioned or even hinted at in PARC with respect to the break with the Smiths or any other event. Valliant even goes so far as to claim that “[u]nlike Ms. Branden, I do not rely on anonymous sources as my only source for something . . . .” Valliant is relying on his anonymous sources exclusively for the Smith break given that Walker contradicts his version (or, perhaps, he is just misquoting TARC). And finally, one can’t notice the double standard employed by Valliant: when Branden said post-PARC that she heard the Remington-Rand story from Rand, Valliant accuses her of dishonestly attempting to bolster her case.

The Truth Is Out There Somewhere, Part I

One claim of PARC is that the Brandens’ books can be shown to be unreliable based on evidence that Valliant has unearthed. Most significantly, Valliant argues that Rand’s diaries contradict the Brandens’ version of the 1968 split. However, these diaries do not shed much (if any) light on other events.

Valliant has referenced some, but not all, of the other published works that bear on his topic. He mentions, among other material, Jeff Walker’s The Ayn Rand Cult, recollections by John Hospers, interviews (by others) with the Brandens, and the video of Rand’s first appearance on The Phil Donahue Show. At the same time, he has ignored other sources relevant to his work, such as Justin Raimondo’s biography of Murray Rothbard and Joseph Stromberg’s essay on the Rothbard plagiarism allegation. In addition, while he accuses Nathaniel Branden of departing from Objectivism in various ways, he does not reference any of Branden’s post-split work, with the exception of his memoirs and his 1984 essay “The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.”

So far as I can tell, Valliant did not ask either Nathaniel or Barbara Branden for interviews. Barbara Branden’s book is based on dozens of interviews. He did not ask Barbara Branden for permission to listen to the tapes of interviews she had with others. It is quite brazen for Valliant to allege that Branden has fabricated entire incidents without seeking access to the evidence upon which she based her claims. The only interview (or rather attempted interview) that Valliant mentions is Kay Nolte Smith, who he claims refused an interview with him in 1983. (PARC, p. 400.) As Ellen Stuttle noted, by Valliant’s own admission he was, in 1982, a teenager in college.

Notwithstanding his apparent lack of interest in the evidence upon which Barbara Branden bases her accounts, Valliant is quite content to leave the impression that there is some version of events “out there” that she is suppressing. As one example, take Branden’s contention that Frank O’Connor drank excessively. Branden says that “each week” Rand’s housekeeper went to Frank’s studio and “found no new paintings, but instead, rows of empty liquor bottles.” (PAR, p. 366.) We are told by Valliant that “the housekeeper is said to have been indignant at Ms. Branden’s allegation”, apparently telling Leonard Peikoff that she was misquoted or misinterpreted by Branden. (PARC, p. 144.) The source for Peikoff’s statement is “the author’s best recollection of Leonard Peikoff’s statement in response to a question on the subject given during a conversation in his home in California in 1991, and it echoes comments made be Peikoff in the question and answer period following his speech “My Thirty Years With Ayn Rand” . . . on April 12, 1987 . . . .” (PARC, p. 407.) Since Valliant appears to be on rather friendly terms with Leonard Peikoff, it would not have been too difficult for Valliant to have asked Peikoff about this matter instead of relying on his recollection of a conversation fourteen years before. Incredibly, Valliant even claims that “as previously indicated, it is those closest to the O’Connors in their later years who most vehemently deny this charge.” (PARC, p. 147, emphasis in the original.) Really? The only people to whom Valliant could be referring are Peikoff and the housekeeper, and neither is quoted by Valliant as actually denying that O’Connor drank excessively.

Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, Objectivist Heretics, Part I

One of the central sub themes of PARC is that not only that the Brandens’ books are untrustworthy, but also that the Brandens have so departed from Objectivism that they view Rand from their new perspective, often distorting Rand as result. At times, Valliant also hints that their alleged departures from Objectivism are so severe as to render anything they say suspect. However, even Valliant must concede that by all accounts the Brandens remain quite favorable toward Objectivism and their departures are principally in the areas of psychology and moral judgment. (PARC, p. 27.)

Turning to Nathaniel Branden, Valliant argues that there are “significant” philosophical differences between Branden’s current views and Objectivism. (PARC, p. 27.) First, he argues that Branden rejects the term “validate” with regard to metaphysical axioms. Valliant’s source for this contention is a conversation recounted in JD between Branden and Alan Greenspan, apparently from the 1950s.

“Can you prove you exist?” he would ask, and I would respond, “Shall I send you my answer from nonexistence?” “Validate the laws of logic,” he would insist, and I would reply, “’Validate’ is a concept that presupposes your acceptance of logic; otherwise, what does it mean?” (JD, p. 133.)

Valliant is obviously reaching here. A conversation (or summary of conversations) from the 1950s doesn’t appear to have much relevancy to what Branden believed in 1989 (the year JD was published). And this conversation doesn’t support his claim that Branden rejects to the idea that one can validate axioms. While I no more profess to be an expert on Objectivism than Valliant does, Branden appears to be employing the “stolen concept” argument.

Valliant also contends that Branden’s approval of child psychologist Haim Ginott’s phrase “labeling is disabling” is another example of his departure from Objectivism. Valliant suggests ominously that “Branden seems to have veered sharply away from the author of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, if not the necessity and objectivity of concepts themselves.” (PARC, p. 28.) Branden’s favorable quotation of Ginott’s phrase is in the context of a discussion of the term “social metaphysician.” Branden says that he no longer use that term and instead he prefers to focus on one's “growing in autonomy and self-trust.” (My Years With Ayn Rand, [“MYWAR”], p. 111.) Branden does not deny that social metaphysician remains a valid concept, but its use circa 1960 presupposed a level of independence and autonomy which he no longer believes exists in the average person.

Valliant’s next example concerns Branden’s distancing himself from some of what Rand said in her introductory essay in For the New Intellectual. In that essay Rand surveys the history of philosophy, briefly summarizing the ideas of central philosophers such as Plato, Kant, Hegel and Spencer, drawing broad conclusions about their influence on history. Valliant says that “Branden does not argue with Rand’s evaluations, but he nonetheless claims Rand’s approach unnecessarily alienates intellectuals.” (PARC, p. 28.) This is another very poor summary. Branden says that many philosophy professors, in commenting on the essay at the time it was published, told him that they thought that Rand’s treatment of philosophers “oversimplified, in some respects erroneous” notwithstanding the “valid points” Rand made.” Branden says that while he didn’t agree with this criticism at the time, he now sees they were “right.” Thus, Branden does disagree with Rand’s evaluations (at least in part) and his reason is not that it alienates intellectuals. (JD, p. 281.)

Valliant’s final example concerns Branden’s claim that Rand’s moralism reflected a remnant of religious thinking. According to Valliant, Branden now prefers to see things as “harmful” or “beneficial” rather than “bad” or “good.” Valliant concludes that Branden “appears” to embrace the current view that moral evaluations are non-objective and unscientific.” (PARC, p. 28.) Valliant again misrepresents Branden’s views, although he is perhaps a bit more in the “ball park” this time. Branden writes that, even during his years with Rand, he tended to see “good and evil” in the context of an individual’s spiritual and psychological well-being. He believed Rand was too quick to condemn people with stern moral pronouncements such as “evil.” On the other hand, he was more inclined to ask “what is this person trying to accomplish?” (JD, p. 296.) Branden does not deny that there are actions that may appropriately be called “good” and “evil” much less deny that ethics is objective and scientific. Indeed he evidently believes his approach to ethics is more objective and scientific than Rand’s.

Did No One at Durban House Even Read This Book?

The opening chapters of PARC are an attempt to cast doubt on the reliability of The Passion of Ayn Rand (“PAR”) by suggesting that it is riddled with errors and inconsistencies. Valliant asks rhetorically, “did no one at Doubleday even read this book?” Although I believe Valliant vastly overstates these alleged problems, the same could with more justice be said about PARC. PARC is filled with mistakes. The Brandens’ books are frequently misquoted. Indeed, the very first quote from PAR contains a typo. (PARC, p. 9.) PAR is misquoted again on page 12. On the following page, Valliant quotes Nathaniel Branden as telling an “undetermined ‘us’” that Rand’s name came from her Remington-Rand typewriter, but it is clear from the context that the “us” refers to Barbara and Nathaniel Branden. (Judgment Day [“JD”], p. 73.) There is no need to surmise (as Valliant does) that this second person is “likely” to have been Barbara Branden. When Nathaniel Branden describes Rand's claim that no one ever helped her as an "evident contradiction" with other facts, Valliant claims he calls it "'grandiose' dishonesty." (PARC, p. 41; JD, p. 63.)

Minor mistakes abound in areas tangential to the book’s argument, often in footnotes. Stephen Macedo’s The New Right v. The Constitution is called The New Right Versus The Constitution. Murray Rothbard’s Individualism and the Philosophy of the Social Sciences is called Individualism and the Methodology of the Social Sciences. Rothbard’s The Ethics of Liberty is misquoted. An internet article by David Hayes is given two slightly different titles. Chris Sciabarra is misrepresented twice concerning his views on Rand’s philosophical background. The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is cited inconsistently. Sometimes it's National Review and other times The National Review.

Granted all books contain mistakes of this type, but the sheer number in PARC casts doubt about the care the author has taken with his sources. More importantly, it makes one wonder if Rand’s diaries (which make up a large portion of PAR) have been accurately transcribed.

Our doubts with respect to PARC have of course been confirmed. Divergent accounts by the Brandens are presented as if they were identical, as in the case of Rand’s break with John Hospers. Sources are summarized carelessly as in Valliant’s claim that a surprise party to celebrate Atlas Shrugged was thrown by Random House, when his only sources say it was thrown by the Brandens. Most notoriously, Valliant claims that Barbara Branden conceals the fact that the Blumenthals broke with Rand when PAR quotes Allan Blumenthal stating explicitly that they decided to leave Rand. Another misrepresentation concerns Branden’s report that Frank O’Connor drank excessively. Branden says that “each week” Rand’s housekeeper went to Frank’s studio and “found no new paintings, but instead, rows of empty liquor bottles.” (PAR, p. 366.) Valliant changes this to “’rows of empty liquor bottles’ . . . which Rand’s housekeeper is said to have found there after O’Connor’s death.” (PARC, p. 144.) He omits the part about their being no new paintings. Suspicions are raised when none are warranted, as in the case of the origin of Rand’s name. It is not at all surprising that Barbara Branden did not mention in PAR that she heard the Remington-Rand story from Rand given that Fern Brown’s recollection (which she quotes in detail) purports to be an eye-witness account of Rand actually choosing her name and was not questioned until years after PAR was published. (PAR, p. 71.)

The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism, Part II

In my essay The Passion of James Valliant’s Criticism, I focused primarily on James Valliant’s use of the Nathaniel and Barbara Brandens’ books as sources. As I showed, Valliant consistently misrepresents the Brandens’ books. I occasionally discussed, often in passing, some of the more serious methodological problems with PARC, such as Valliant’s uncritical grouping together of the Brandens’ books. In this series of posts I will discuss many of these larger problems of PARC in more detail.

Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer

Although I've read Rand's Journals, this never quite clicked.

A Final Word on PARC

The internet is wonderful, and the ability to debate ideas in "real time" is exciting. On the other hand, there is always the tendency to want to get the last shot in. This will probably be my final response to Valliant, . . . for now . . .

Anyone who has read my review knows full well that it is not a defense of either Nathaniel or Barbara Brandens’ books. I make it quite clear that my critique is limited to PARC's use of the Brandens' books as sources. I explicitly state that I am not vouching for the accuracy of their books. However, I have not concluded, as Mr. Valliant alleges, that there are “many” mistakes in Ms. Branden’s biography. The Passion of Ayn Rand is roughly 425 pages long and it contains some errors. I have no reason to think that it contains more errors than the typical book of its length and kind; but again, this isn’t the focus of my review.

Given the purpose of my review, an intelligent critique would take an issue I discuss and attempt to show that my contention that Mr. Valliant has not accurately evaluated the Brandens' books is mistaken. For example, with respect to the surprise party, one might attempt to show that: (1) it really was an attempt to control Rand's "context through deception"; (2) although Rand's husband was part of the "deception" (having invited Rand out on the pretext of a quiet dinner), the Brandens' conduct was nonetheless culpable; and (3) Mr. Valliant's contention that Random House threw the party is correct, notwithstanding the lack of documentation.

Likewise, with respect to the Blumenthals, one would provide evidence to refute my contention that Mr. Valliant is wrong to say that Branden conceals the fact that it was the Blumenthals who left Rand. I see that Mr. Valliant contends that I have engaged in selective quotation, yet in PARC he quotes Jeff Walker’s book and not Branden’s biography concerning this particular split. So who is the “selective quoter” here?

As a final example, Mr. Valliant might attempt to support that his claim that Branden accuses Rand of being “self-delusional” in her 1959 Foreword to the new edition of We the Living. Branden describes Rand's conduct as conscious and deliberate.

The Remington-Rand Story, Again

In my discussion with James Valliant, I pointed out that in Allan Gotthelf’s 2000 book On Ayn Rand, Gotthelf says that Rand took her last name from a Remington-Rand typewriter. I also pointed out that Gotthelf states that he checked all the biographical portions of the book with archivists at the ARI. Valliant responded by stating that Gotthelf says that he "erroneously" relied on PAR. Valliant further says there is nothing in the archives to support the claim that Rand took her name from a Remington-Rand (“RR”) typewriter.

I am willing to give Gotthelf the benefit of the doubt. Certainly he realized the mistake quite shortly after he published his book.

Here is what Gotthelf says:

“Barbara Branden has written a biography/memoir of Ayn Rand, based in part on taped interviews with her in 1960 and 1961. The book has numerous factual errors . . . . Because of this, although I have consulted the book where it draws directly on the taped interviews, I have checked every report I have used (and other details of Ayn Rand’s life) with archivists at the Ayn Rand Institute, which has access to all the tapes.” (OAR, p. 27.)

A couple things should be noted. First, Gotthelf says that he relied on PAR only where it concerned taped interviews of Rand. Branden attributes the RR story to Fern Brown. Therefore, by Gotthelf’s own admission, he didn’t rely on PAR for the name issue. Second, he says he checked his facts in all instances with the ARI. He emphasizes two more times that he checked the biographical sections with the ARI. (Pages 2 & 17.) He also says that Harry Binswanger read drafts of the book (although it’s possible that the draft Binswanger read didn’t have the name discussion).

It’s also important to compare what Fern Brown said about the name (as relayed by PAR in 1986) and what Gotthelf said in 2000.

Here is the Brown version (at page 71 in PAR):

1. AR chose the first name “Ayn” upon arrival to the US, having first heard it presumably in Russia (this actually is not from Brown);
2. Rand brought a RR typewriter with her from Russia;
3. While in the U.S., AR looked at her RR typewriter, prompting her to chose “Rand” as her last name;
4. Rand didn’t tell her family in Russia her new name for fear that they might be endangered.

Here is the Gotthelf version (at page 19 in OAR):

1. AR settled on “Rand” while in Russia;
2. AR first spotted “Rand” on a RR typewriter in Russia (no mention if it was hers or if it was brought to the U.S.);
3. AR was leaning toward “Ayn” while in Russia;
4. AR’s family in Russia knew her new last name;
5. Rand decided on a new name because, if she became famous, her family in Russia might be endangered.

Gotthelf bases at least part of the above on a letter that AR’s sister Nora wrote to her from Russia before Rand had arrived in the U.S. This is obviously information from the archives that Branden didn’t have access to.

The versions are more dissimilar than similar. The most significant difference is the name “Rand.” Gotthelf says that AR chose it while in Russia after spotting it on a RR typewriter. There is no mention of whether the typewriter was Rand’s or whether it was brought to the U.S.

I think it’s clear that by 2000 Gotthelf/ARI knew that Fern Brown’s story could not be true, at least in large part. Knowing this, it is extremely unlikely that they accepted the RR story based exclusively on PAR. Therefore, there was a separate oral tradition that supported the RR story.

If this is true (and I think my analysis has shown it to be more likely than not), this makes plausible Barbara Branden’s recollection of having heard the RR story from Rand. It certainly undercuts any claim that she is lying.

PARC's "Main Point"

James Valliant has accused me (and others, I think) of ignoring the "main point" or "major substance" of his book.

I get the impression from reading PARC that Valliant's "main point" is that the Brandens books are unreliable and in fact dishonest, thus their "picture" of Rand should not be trusted. PARC makes its points by an analysis of the Brandens books taken either individually (internal contradictions), a comparison among them (gross inconsistancies) and a comparison to other, more reliable version of events (such as, apparently, Jeff Walker's TARC).

There are six chapters of the book and the general approach described above is taken by Valliant in each chapter. I discuss chapters 1, 2 and 3 in depth. Chapter 4 concerns the split with the Brandens which, as I point out, I am unable to discuss based on the lack of public evidence. Chapter 5 concerns Frank O'Connor and focuses on Branden's claim concerning his alcoholism. I do not discuss this chapter because it has been discussed in depth. Chapter 6 is a minor chapter which summarizes some of his points.

If there is another "point" to Valliant's book, it would appear to be that Nathaniel Branden deceived Rand in 1968 both personally and professionally. Granted, I don't discuss this, but I do concede in my review that Nathaniel Branden's dishonesty vis-a-vis Rand should be weighed in evaluating his memoirs.

Amazon PARC Review

I published a brief review of PARC on Amazon.com. James Valliant responded.

Jim's first point is that because the Remington-Rand typewriter story cannot be true, Barbara Branden must be lying about having heard it from Rand. This is a non sequitur. First, Rand could have lied, telling Branden that Fern Brown's story was true. As I point out, archivists at the ARI believed until recently that Rand's own statement about her name was a "red herring" to protect her family in Russia. In other words, they believed that Rand told at least one lie about her name. I doubt this, but it can't be ruled out. Second, it's possible that Rand inadvertently said something supporting Fern Brown's account. Third, it's possible that Branden has mistakenly remembered something Rand said as supporting Brown's story. Valliant and his side-kick Casey Fahy are quick to accuse people of lying (Fahy claims my review is "dishonest") but I'm willing to believe that Branden has made an honest mistake.

In response to my claim that Valliant mischaracterizes PAR with respect to the Blumenthals, Jim's response is . . . well, he doesn't respond. He claims that Branden has falsely grouped all of the breaks in the same category. I don't believe this is true, for the reasons I mention. However, note that Valliant has misrepresented PAR concerning the Blumenthal's break with Rand. Let's (again) look at what Valliant says in PARC:

"One would never have guessed it from reading Ms. Branden's book, but it was they [the Blumenthals and Holzer] who left Rand." (PARC, p. 75.)

However, Branden quotes Allan Blumenthal "I telephoned Ayn and said we no longer wished to see her." (PAR, p. 388.)

I encourage people to read my review and look at Valliant's responses.

The Free Man's Library by Henry Hazlitt

Mentions Anthem and The Fountainhead.

Hazlitt notes that some will find Rand's individualism "extreme."

The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism

My lengthy essay on The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics is up on Objectivist Living.

The New York Times on Atlas Coming to the Big Screen

An article from today's NYT.

Objectivist Ethics

In the recent Gotthelf/Salmieri piece that I linked to below, it says as follows:

"Rand’s virtue-focused rational egoism differs from traditional eudaimonism in that Rand regards ethics as an exact science. Rather than deriving her virtues from a vaguely defined human function, she takes 'Man’s Life' – i.e. that which is required for the survival of a rational animal across its lifespan – as her standard of value."

A couple points:

1. What is the difference between Rand's ethics and "traditional eudaimonism"? Why didn't the authors give us a single example of whose ethics is different (I realize that they had limited space, but ARIans love to tell us that Rand is so different without providing even a name of another philosopher to compare).

2. The language concerning the "survival of a rational animal across its lifespan" is unusual. The "lifespan" idea doesn't have any precedence in the Objectivist literature, from what I can tell.

The Passion of James Valliant's Critcism: Link

I have created a link to the draft of my essay on PARC at the upper right.

The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism: Contraditions Galore

The first part of chapter 2 is a lengthy discussion of various alleged contradictions within and between the Brandens’ accounts. Valliant starts with two quotes from Barbara Branden where she describes Rand’s view the value of intelligence. One quote appears to say that Rand didn’t value people unless they had unusual intelligence. The other quote indicates that Rand believed that simple people could understand complex ideas with some help and she greatly valued the simple person who wanted to learn. (PARC, pp. 15-16.) Only taken in the most wooden manner are these quotes contradictory. Here is what Branden says: “where she saw no unusual intelligence—nor the capacity for dedicated productive work its consequences—she saw no value that meant anything to her in personal terms.” (For some reason, Valliant places ellipses in the place of “nor the capacity for dedicated productive work its consequences.”) She then discusses how Rand never said as a significant compliment such things as “he’s generous” or “he’s kind.” (PAR, p. 7.)

In other words, people with average intelligence, who weren’t interested in learning, weren’t of value to Rand. And if Branden meant what Valliant claims she meant, it is hard to imagine her loving description of Rand explaining metaphysics to a student, a gardener, or a housekeeper.

Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers -- Ayn Rand

This is an article from the above reference work about Rand and Objectivism written by Allan Gotthelf and Greg Salmieri.

The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism: The Surprise Party From Hell

Both Brandens relate a surprise party that was thrown for Rand to celebrate the publication of Atlas Shrugged. Barbara writes that it was thrown by “the collective.” (PAR, p. 295.) Nathaniel says that he and Barbara decided to have the party. For some reason, Valliant twice says that Random House (Atlas’ publisher) threw the party. (PARC, pp. 48-49.) The Brandens report that Rand was unhappy and made it clear that she didn’t like surprise parties. She was rather gloomy for most of the party, but eventually Bennett Cerf (who doesn’t discuss the incident in his memoirs) was able to cheer Rand up. Both Brandens engage in a bit of psychologizing relative to Rand’s reaction to the party.

Granted, one might find this psychologizing excessive. But Valliant’s claim that Nathaniel is claiming some sort of “special (i.e, unverifiable)” knowledge is off the mark. Branden knew Rand quite well and his (and Barbara’s) analysis of Rand is entitled to some deference. Particularly strange is Valliant’s claim that the party represented an attempt to control Rand’s “context through deception.” (PARC, pp. 49-50.) In any event, if Random House did in fact throw the party as Valliant contends, that makes the Brandens somewhat less culpable. Interestingly, Frank O’Connor (Rand’s husband) was part of the “deception”; but if Rand’s husband didn’t think she would get upset, I don’t see how the Brandens can be blamed.