Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore
by Michael Stuart Kelly

In early 2005, an unknown author and government attorney, James Valliant, published a book entitled The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics. It is abbreviated as PARC.

The thesis of the book is that both Brandens had badly damaged Rand's reputation by smearing her in an underhanded—not easily perceived—manner in their published books and that Rand's own journal entries at the time of the break between her and the Brandens prove her to be such a victim.

At the time of publication, this book received the endorsement of almost the entire orthodox Objectivist community. This was fueled by the fact that Leonard Peikoff, Rand's heir, had granted Valliant the right to publish Ayn Rand's journal entries from the time of the break, going from the end of 1967 up to the middle of 1968. Peikoff also heartily endorsed the book by claiming the following*:


I admit I also think of Valliant sometimes as a "that" and not as a "who." I also admit that this is not very important, but there it is. This quote was posted by the Chicago Objectivist Society in their announcement of Valliant's talk on April 15, 2006.

* NOTE ON MAY 20, 2008: Valliant just revealed that this quote is from the video jacket of Ideas in Action, which, according to him, was published 10 years earlier than PARC. I just documented this in a post. As you can see in the full context in the Noodelfood post reproduced below, there is a strong insinuation that Peikoff wrote this to plug PARC. At any rate, Peikoff endorsed PARC enough to let Valliant use Rand's unpublished journal entries. I have no formal knowledge of what his evaluation of the finished book is, but I have a good guess, and I guess it has changed over time.

There are no archives of this announcement on the Chicago Objectivist Society's website and the Wayback Machine entry for it apparently has been deleted. The entire announcement, however, was repeated verbatim on Noodlefood on March 21, 2006. Here is the full blog post in case it should likewise disappear one day (I did not include the links in the post):


The comments to the post had nothing of interest to add. There is a repeat of the entire Noodlefood post on the Objectivism Online Metablog dated March 21, 2006. Also, there is a notification by Stephen Speicher on Mar 18 2006 on the Forum4AynRandFans which also gives the Peikoff quote.

I ask the reader to please excuse the level of detail on documenting this Peikoff quote, but this is a perfect concrete example of two points that are germane to what I am discussing here, which is that nobody is taking PARC seriously anymore.

Point 1. The method used by Valliant of distorting reality and rewriting it to fit his evaluations does not come from him. It comes from the top of the heap. I remember reading this Peikoff quote all over the place back when it was first posted. Currently, the three places linked above are the only ones left that I have been able to find. If you want to check for yourself, I suggest you Google it. Just to make sure, I checked the Google, Yahoo, Live, Ask and Mahalo search engines. This is a clear indication that someone has been going around asking people to remove it.

This kind of behavior is tiresome to people who have their own lives to lead and it eventually becomes difficult to document. The idea behind doing that is to distort public image through constant corrosive activity. As an old saying goes, "Drops wear down the stone, not by strength, but by constant falling."

Rhetoric-wise, this is the exact method used in PARC. Valliant did not arrive at this method on his own. He learned it from his orthodox Objectivist betters.

Point 2. The very fact that the quote is being silently removed is an indication that ARI is starting to distance itself from Valliant's book, or at least Peikoff no longer wants to provide such a solid endorsement. Granted, PARC is still being sold by the Ayn Rand Bookstore, but I personally think that this is a face-saving measure. If ARI removed it from the catalog, that would be tantamount to admitting that Peikoff made a colossal mistake in entrusting Rand's journals to such an incompetent boneheaded author as Valliant.

The fact is that nobody but a Branden-hater ever really took the PARC seriously in the first place (except for a convert or two on the Internet forums over the last 3 years—and you can count those converts on the fingers of one hand). The act of demonizing a person or group to the extent PARC did is a solid indication of tribalism.

If you want to have a good example of how this works in reality, go to the comments section on the Amazon sales page for PARC. You will find two basic kinds of comments: people who solidly endorse the book, but pepper their comments with practically nothing but wishful opinions about burying the Brandens, and readers who are appalled at Valliant's obvious distortions.

You can also notice that those who are appalled are generally given one star and those who express approval are given 5 stars. What this means is that there is a small tribe actively trying to manipulate the rating system to present a false public image that PARC is making some kind of impact. They want to give the impression that the majority of Amazon visitors disapprove of the negative reviews. Unfortunately, there are too many negative reviews for this to come across as intended and the distortion is obvious.

Now here we come to a real problem with discussing PARC anywhere. The tribe members are (or were) committed to defending the book at all costs. This meant that they did not care about the veracity of any facts. They have tried to win any and all arguments by wearing people down.

Valliant is particularly slippery in this respect in his online behavior. He is an active poster on the Solo Passion website and was active on its precursor, SoloHQ. He always leaves himself wiggle-room to get out of owning up to an obvious fact if it goes against his Branden demonizing Rand whitewashing campaign, but then he comes back the next day repeating his original point as if the fact that was presented did not exist.

This is trying to win an argument by wearing people out, not by having actual facts that contradict the one presented. Unfortunately for him, people have become aware of this. It is the main reason that PARC is not being taken seriously anymore.

What's worse is that nobody is ever convinced by this method. They are merely silenced for a while. They get bored. There is only one reason this obvious truth is not understood by Valliant and those who do like he does: they are disconnected from reality. If they were connected, they would understand that they are not defending Rand at all. They are simply driving people away from the discussion, even their own tribe-members.

Still, Valliant is so slippery that his method is hard to document in an open-and-shut manner that cannot be denied even by acolytes. However, Neil Parille gave a brilliant performance in nailing Valliant to the wall in a manner that eliminated the wiggle-room. Valliant literally had no way out and capitulated. He had to just to save face. But he still did not capitulate entirely to owning up to the facts. And he is still trying to win God knows what by wearing folks down. (He seems oblivious to the fact that there are precious few of us left who even read him.)

Here are some highlights to a discussion between Valliant and Neil. It concerns the veracity of Barbara Branden's meeting with Ayn Rand shortly before she died. This issue was discussed amply in other places where PARC was discussed, with Valliant using a wide range of his traditional smarmy rhetoric, but frankly I do not feel like wading through all of that again. The recent discussion is more than enough to illustrate my point.

On Feb, 27, 2008, Neil mentioned the following on Solo Passion:


On Feb, 28, Valliant responded (amidst a plethora of smarmy language):


On Feb, 29, Neil posted:


Valliant refused to answer and made a smarmy post instead, accusing Neil of avoiding questions.

On Feb, 29, Neil posted again:


Valliant still refused to answer, although he posted more smarmy crap.

On Feb, 29, Neil posted once again:


On March 1, Valliant responded:


I think if Valliant had imagined the outcome, he would not have been so smarmy here. Just to make sure that this issue is understood correctly, Valliant is lying. He actually did "make such argument in PARC." It is on page 94. Here is a direct quote (and Neil already quoted part of this). Valliant is discussing affairs in 1968 during the time of the break.


How can anyone imagine, other than making it up or lying, that Barbara would report later meeting Rand if "Rand never saw her again?" Valliant is either incredibly sloppy here or he is the one lying. I think he is both based on his behavior.

What's worse, Valliant not only refused to admit he had not checked the archives or Peikoff, he insinuated that no corroboration existed and that he had actually checked the archives.

But let's not take him at his insinuation. Let's take him at his word. In July 2006, Barbara made a speech at The Atlas Society's summer conference entitled "Objectivism and Rage." Valliant participated in a book-signing nearby around that time to try to cash in on TAS's public. During the Q&A following a speech he gave, he made the following statement (and this is from the horse's own mouth). This mp3 was posted on Solo Passion for a while. I cut off the beginning and end to reduce the size. What is left was extracted whole, without editing, from the original.



If you have any trouble operating the player, just right-click on the link below and choose "Save target as" (or link or file or something similar) to download the mp3 file to your hard disk. The file's real name is Valliant2006_07_06_QA-shortened.mp3.

Valliant's opinion of Barbara's last visit to Ayn Rand

Here is a transcription.


Can there be any doubt that Valliant claims to have the authority of the Ayn Rand Archives to doubt Barbara's story? Is there any wiggle-room at all here?

Then came the bomb.

On March 7, Neil posted a thread on Solo Passion entitled "Barbara Branden's Meeting With Ayn Rand In 1981." Here is the text of that post:


Did Valliant say "Oops!"? Did he say, "I'm sorry for the mistake"? Did he say, "I actually did not consult the archives about this"?

No.

He acted as if he knew all along how it would turn out. Take a look at this incredible lack of owning up (on March 7). What is amazing about the post is that Valliant is so boneheaded he doesn't even see the implications in his own statement. Here is what he said about the ARI archives in that post:


Say what?

Does this mean that "they will work to give you their best information" to Neil, but did not give their best to Valliant when he was right there in the building during extended stays doing research for his book?

Can there be any doubt that Valliant is lying about something?

I think he is an incredibly shoddy scholar and/or equally shoddy liar. No wonder Peikoff (or his supporters) is silently removing his endorsement from the Internet.

Even with Valliant's own mendacity rubbed in his nose in public, he still had the gall to say (in that boneheaded post):


To be fair, Valliant thanked Neil twice, once in that boneheaded post and once on another thread. Neil has also documented some of this in his article on OL, "The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism, Part III."

Since then, Valliant has not become more humble. He has not asked for corrections (other than rhetorically to try to prove that none need to be made in PARC). He has not shown good will at all to accept facts and question whether or not he may have made other incorrect assumptions. On the contrary, he has started melting down and some of his current posts border on unintelligibility.

For instance, in later trying to chastise Neil (March 12), Valliant made an incredibly stupid blunder again, practically fessing up to his own shoddiness:


Of course there is no reason to suppose that anyone at the archives told him anything if one already knows that he did not ask anyone about it. But since he claimed he knew what was and was not in the archives (and there is much more online from Valliant making this claim than I gave above if anyone wants to look for it), it is reasonable to think someone from the archives told him there was no meeting between Barbara and Rand, or at least there was no evidence in the archives of such.

Now I want you, dear reader, if you are still awake or with me in this life-shattering topic, to think about the following. (That was sarcasm.) Look at how much crap was needed to get Valliant to stop spreading one boneheaded smear (with an accompanying bare-faced lie) out of a gazillion in PARC.

It would be possible to do that point-by-point and I assure you that Valliant would not fare well in the exercise. But who has the time for all of that?

I would not suggest using the following method on hardly any other book, but I know this one in depth. It is 100% safe to conclude that if Valliant used such sloppiness and lack of morality in the issue of Barbara meeting Rand at the end of Rand's life, he did that in other cases in PARC. As I said, there are gazillions. In fact, he did that so often that this is exactly what the people in the Amazon reader reviews of PARC sensed and what made them so appalled. The real issue is not pro-Rand or contra-Rand or pro-Brandens or contra-Brandens. It is the implications involved in fabricating and endorsing an intellectual swindle.

Objectivism is a philosophy of integrity, or it is supposed to be. Is lack of integrity, outright lying and gross intellectual sloppiness what ARI really wants to endorse? Do they really want their name associated with this crap? Do they really want to show the world that Peikoff will endorse something irrationally out of hatred—even when it has been incontestably proven wrong—and not out of reason?

PARC is not a serious book. Valliant is not a serious scholar. Shame on the people who allowed some of Rand's most intimate writing to see the light of day in this bonehead's hands. And shame on the people who endorsed this mess.

The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism, Part III
by Neil Parille

Introduction

In The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism, Parts 1 and 2, I demonstrated that James Valliant consistently misrepresents Nathaniel Branden's memoirs and Barbara Branden's biography. I also pointed out his double standards, failure to name sources, and failure to acknowledge evidence that undermines his case. Since the publication of these essays, I have continued my research into The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics ("PARC") and here discuss some additional problems as well as Valliant's attempt to defend the book.

Barbara Branden's Meeting With Ayn Rand In 1981

In The Passion of Ayn Rand ("PAR"), Barbara Branden writes that she met Rand in 1981 and wrote Rand a letter thereafter. (PAR, pp. 397-400.) In PARC, Valliant says that Rand never saw Barbara Branden again after their split, implying that she made this meeting up. (PARC, p. 94.) I contacted the Archives of the Ayn Rand Institute ("ARI") in February 2008 and they confirmed that there is evidence that this meeting took place. Specifically, although the letter mentioned by Branden was not found, Cynthia Peikoff (who was Rand's secretary in 1981) refers to the letter and the meeting in the forthcoming 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand, by Scott McConnell.(1) When I informed Valliant that the archives confirmed that the meeting occurred, he conceded that "no one ever told me that there was no meeting,"(2) apparently admitting that he made no efforts to verify PARC's insinuation that Branden fabricated the meeting.(3)

Valliant contends that this is a minor mistake. However, Rand's meeting with Barbara Branden in 1981 puts into perspective her concealment of Nathaniel Branden's affair with Patrecia Scott. Although Rand denounced Barbara Branden in 1968 for alleged dishonesty in other matters, her willingness to meet with Branden years later is evidence of how Rand saw her and Nathaniel Branden's respective roles in the split. After all, it was Barbara Branden who told Rand about the affair. (PAR, p. 345.) It further undercuts Valliant's constant reference to "the Brandens" as if they were one person. As we shall see below, it also raises substantial questions about Valliant's diligence as a researcher.

Another Mistake: The Surprise Party From Hell

In PARC, James Valliant says that the surprise party to celebrate the publication of Atlas Shrugged was thrown by Random House (the novel's publisher). I pointed out that this contradicts the Brandens' accounts, which say they or the Collective threw the party. When I wrote my critique of PARC, I did not have the Sures recollections of Rand published in 2001 as Facets of Ayn Rand. The ARI recently made the book available on the web. The Sures confirm that the Collective threw the party. When I questioned Valliant on this mistake in 2007, he claimed he based his account on "various sources." Yet PARC does not mention any sources (anonymous or otherwise) concerning this party. Given the agreement of the Brandens and the Sures on this event, we may confidently conclude that the Collective threw the party. Valliant's "sources" are in error, or perhaps he didn't have any sources and simply misread the books.

Valliant is apparently unable to read his own book as well. On November 3, 2007, he said on RichardDawkins.net that, "[o]f course, PARC attributes no such malevolence to them [the Brandens] for throwing a party." Yet he says in PARC that:


He says later in PARC that "[w]hether it was a little deception—like the surprise party—or a big one--like Branden's intellectual fraud—the Brandens insist on their right to manipulate Rand with their lies." (PARC, p. 109.)

Yet Another Mistake: The Change To Penthouse Legend

In Part 2 of this essay, I noted that Valliant claims that in 1973 Philip and Kay Nolte Smith "changed the dialogue in their production of Penthouse Legend without authorization from Rand." He describes the Smiths' conduct as a "systematic and personal betrayal." (PARC, p. 75.) Valliant's only source for this is Jeff Walker's book The Ayn Rand Cult ("TARC"). However, Walker quotes Kay Smith as saying that she made "unauthorized changes to a few lines of dialogue for a public performance." (TARC, p. 35.) This obvious discrepancy was first brought to Valliant's attention by Dr. Chris Sciabarra in July 2005. Valliant responded on Sciabarra's blog:


As I pointed out, Philip Smith and Dr. George Reisman (an Orthodox Objectivist no longer affiliated with the ARI) confirmed post-PARC that the change was a minor change to one or two lines of the play's last (or one of its last) performances. According to Philip Smith, Kay Smith told Rand that she made the change. Yet Valliant tells us that the changes were made before the play's opening and implies that there was something underhanded about the way the Smiths (allegedly) made and concealed these changes. In spite of my repeated requests, Valliant refused to disclose what his sources told him. When pushed, Valliant responded that, "(i)t WAS a minor change as far as I am concerned . . . ." How this squares with what he said on Sciabarra's blog is anyone's guess. Even more strange, Valliant recently contended that the public sources (specifically George Reisman(4)) confirm that the changes were made prior to the play's opening.

James Valliant's Sources

These three examples constitute mistakes by Valliant. Post-PARC he told his critics that he had independent sources for two of these events, the surprise party and the changes to Penthouse Legend (although none are mentioned in his book). I think we can conclude that Valliant has misread his published source and that his anonymous sources (to the extent they exist) are not credible. In light of his mistake concerning the 1981 meeting, readers are entitled to ask what efforts he made to verify his claims, notwithstanding his occasional (and non-specific) statements that former associates of Rand have told him that the Brandens' description of Rand is erroneous.

Are The Brandens' Books "Useless"?

Valliant's professed evaluation of the Brandens' works is quite negative. The books are "useless to the serious historian." (PARC, pp. 85-86.) "Where the Brandens are our only source, the topic must be marked with a giant asterisk and an attached footnote reading, 'Highly dubious.'" (PARC, p. 128.)

Valliant, however, honors this more in the breach than in the observance. Let me give three examples, taken almost at random:

1. "O'Connor had been the first to recognize Mr. Branden's true character, as well, it seems. Ms. Branden reports that in 1968, just before Rand was to learn the truth, O'Connor ' . . . said . . . [t]hat man [Nathaniel Branden] is no damn good . . . . ' Ironic that it took Frank O'Connor to point out that Rand was projecting imaginary virtue--on Branden!" (PARC, p. 161.) Valliant's only source is PAR.

2. "Ms. Branden relates that Rand was herself quite close to her brother-in-law Nick O'Connor--who, according to Ms. Branden, Rand believed was gay. (P.A.R., pp. 100-101)." (PARC, p. 405 n. 7.) Again, PAR is the only source.

3. "PARC does not challenge the Blumenthals' story or the idea the Blumenthals were quoted correctly [in PAR] -- I presume they would have challenged Ms. B[randen] by now about it if they were not." (James Valliant on Objectiblog, August 6, 2006.)

Now, in fairness to Valliant, he does say in the preface to his book that "the inclusion of material from either of the Brandens' biographies in no way implies that any of the events related actually took place, or, if they did, that the Brandens are believed to be credible sources regarding those events." (PARC, p. 8.) Even here, Valliant doesn't follow his own strictures. The example concerning Frank O'Connor's insight is obviously taken by Valliant as true, because in the next line Valliant tells us that "[t]his is not the only evidence of O'Connor's perceptiveness." (PARC, p. 161.) Evidence? What happened to the giant asterisk and the attached footnote?

Likewise, it is correct that a biography or memoir might be generally unreliable, but certain accounts have a "ring of truth." If Valliant seeks to use the Brandens' books in this limited way, it is incumbent on him to tell his readers why he finds some uncorroborated accounts of the Brandens accurate and others not. He rarely does this. As I've shown, his main criterion of reliability (with occasional exceptions) is whether something helps his case.(5) Thus, the Brandens' criticism of each other is credible, their criticism of people other than Rand is credible, even other witnesses who sometimes criticize Rand (such as the Blumenthals) are at other times credible. It is only when the Brandens criticize Rand (or Leonard Peikoff) that their accounts become suspect.

Thou Shalt Not Speculate

Valliant claims that there is too much speculation in the Brandens' books. I should have highlighted more the fact that Valliant is the king of speculation.

To take the first of three examples pertaining to Ayn's and Frank O'Connor's relationship, Barbara Branden says that Frank O'Connor told her that he wanted to leave Rand, "'But where would I go? . . . What would I do? . . .'" (PAR, p. 262.) Here is Valliant:


Barbara Branden was an eyewitness and I see no reason to doubt her recollection. Even if what Valliant says is true about husbands receiving generous settlements (a claim he doesn't document), O'Connor might not have known this or might have felt there was something wrong about asking for money from Rand.

As a second example, after quoting from Rand's notes for Atlas Shrugged from 1949 where Rand writes that Rearden takes pleasure in the thought of Dagny having sex with another man, Valliant writes that "this particular account of male psychology is almost certain to be an expression of her husband's own psychology." (PARC, p. 166, emphasis added.) This note isn't even about O'Connor. As a final example, take this piece of speculation on p. 167 of PARC (emphasis added):


The only direct evidence bearing on the affair's effect on O'Connor are the reports of Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden that it hurt him, at least at times. To the extent that one need speculate, experience indicates that these types of relationships cause hurt and even the innocent party may feel "conflicted." Even Valliant has to admit that "[w]hether they were always truly happy together, especially in light of Rand's affair, can be questioned . . . ." (PARC, p. 157.)

Alan Greenspan

On my SOLO Passion weblog, I pointed out that the back of PAR contains a favorable blurb from Alan Greenspan ("A fascinating insight into one of the most thoughtful authors of this century."). Greenspan sided with Rand after the break and knew Rand well from the early 1950s until she died in 1982. I said that this constituted Greenspan's "vouch[ing]" for the book. I was taken to task by Valliant and his supporters. After all, Greenspan said only that the book was a "fascinating insight" into Rand. Diana Hsieh and Gus Van Horn (both supporters of the ARI) apparently read Greenspan's blurb the same way I did. According to Mr. Van Horn:


Conclusion

Additional research into The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics further demonstrates that it is an unreliable critique of Nathaniel Branden's and Barbara Branden's works. In particular, Valliant's claim that he has reliable sources which undercut the Brandens' account of events is highly suspect.




Endnotes

1. Reference assistance courtesy the Ayn Rand Archives, A Special Collection of the Ayn Rand Institute.

2. As readers of the thread can see, Valliant repeatedly refused to answer my simple question of what efforts he made to verify that the meeting took place. It was only after I informed him that the Archives documented Branden's meeting that he admitted that no one told him the meeting didn't take place.

3. After I pointed out Valliant's mistake concerning the 1981 meeting, Valliant wrote: "Now, as to how the meeting may have gone down... (the most suspicious part of all)?"

4. George Reisman said on his blog in 2006 that "[t]oward 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."

5. For example, Barbara Branden's recollection that O'Connor wanted to leave Rand is inaccurate; but her recollection that O'Connor denounced Nathaniel Branden as "no damn good" is accurate. In addition, as I mentioned in Part 2 of my critique, Valliant accepts that Rand and Nathaniel Branden secured the consent of their respective spouses, but the Brandens are the only sources for this claim.

The Passion of James Valliant’s Criticism, Part II
by Neil Parille

Introduction

In my essay “The Passion of James Valliant’s Criticism,” I focused primarily on James Valliant’s use of Nathaniel and Barbara Brandens’ books as sources. As I showed, Valliant persistently misrepresents their books. I occasionally mentioned, 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 essay I will discuss some of these larger problems of PARC in more detail and analyze additional examples of misrepresentations by Valliant.

Did No One at Durban House Even Read This Book?

Valliant attempts to cast doubt on the reliability of PAR by suggesting that it is riddled with errors and inconsistencies. Valliant asks rhetorically, “[D]id no one at Doubleday even read the book?” (PARC, p. 20.) Although I believe Valliant vastly overstates these alleged problems, the same could with more justice be asked about PARC. PARC is filled with mistakes. The Brandens’ books are frequently misquoted. Indeed, the very first quote from PAR contains a copying error. (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. (JD, p. 73.) There is no need to surmise (as Valliant does) that this second person is “likely” to have been Barbara Branden.

Minor mistakes abound in areas tangential to the book’s argument, often in footnotes. Murray Rothbard’s Individualism and the Philosophy of the Social Sciences is called “Individualism and the Methodology of the Social Sciences.” (PARC, p. 421, p. 400 n. 44.) Rothbard’s The Ethics of Liberty is misquoted. (PARC, p. 400 n. 44.) An internet article by David Hayes is given two slightly different titles. (PARC, p. 390 n. 14, p. 417.) Chris Sciabarra is misrepresented concerning his views on Rand’s philosophical background. (PARC, pp. 391-92 n. 28.) The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is cited inconsistently. (PARC, p. 1, p. 422.) Sometimes it’s The National Review (p. 67, p. 77, p. 399 n. 37, p. 417) and other times National Review. (PARC, p. 417, p. 421.)

Our concern with respect to Valliant’s use of sources was confirmed in Part I of this essay. As we saw, 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 reported carelessly, as in Valliant’s stating that a surprise party to celebrate Atlas Shrugged was thrown by Random House, when his only referenced sources say it was thrown by the Brandens. Some sources are outright misrepresented, as in Valliant’s claim that Barbara Branden conceals the fact that Allan Blumenthal broke with Rand when PAR quotes Allan Blumenthal stating explicitly that he and his wife Joan decided to leave Rand. Another misreport involves the issue of Frank O’Connor’s drinking habits. 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.) This is particularly significant given the importance Valliant places on attempting to undermine Branden’s claim that O’Connor drank excessively.

Although some of these mistakes could be attributed to copying errors, the sheer number in PARC casts doubt on the care the author has taken with his sources. Furthermore, it makes one wonder if Rand’s diaries (which make up a large portion of PARC) have been accurately transcribed.

The Brandens, their Friends and Rand’s “Critics”

As I observed in Part I, Valliant repeatedly groups Nathaniel and Barbara Branden together is if they were one person. Yet, as even he acknowledges, their post-split relationship has not always been friendly. Although Nathaniel Branden is listed in PAR as having been interviewed by Barbara Branden, she states in a footnote on page 357 that she and Nathaniel had not met in “several years.” In a C-SPAN interview aired on July 2, 1989, he said that he had not spoken with Barbara in “I don’t know maybe a year.”(1)

Throughout PARC, Valliant not only attacks the “Brandens” as if they were one person, but also links them with various (and generally unnamed) “friends.” (These friends are apparently a subgroup of Rand’s “critics.”) Valliant argues that because the Brandens’ “friends” and fellow “critics” allegedly share the same interest in portraying Rand in a negative light, their accounts of Rand should be trea