Talk:Patrecia Scott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The line: He and Patrecia moved to California and married. She was becoming noticed in theatrical circles when a drowning accident ended her life. does not define "He" and therefore makes no sense.

[edit] Claim that Patrecia precipitated Branden split with Ayn Rand

After further review -- particularly of Nathaniel Branden's book My Years with Ayn Rand, it's clear that the relationship with Patrecia Scott was the core reason that Branden was "excommunicated" from the Objectivist movement.

To wit:

• "Barbara proceeded to tell Ayn that I had been lying about my relationship with Patrecia, that we had been in love and having an affair since 1964, and that for the past two years Barbara had known about it and collaborated with me in deceiving Ayn." (Page 341-342)

• "What a loathsome creature you are!" she [Ayn] said, and I watched her carefully as the tirade began. She poured abuse on abuse, drowning her suffering in self-righteous anger. "You have rejected me? You have dared to reject me?" (342)

• "Your whole act is finished! I created you, and I'll destroy you! You won't have your career or money or prestige!... You would have been nothing without me, and you will be nothing when I'm done with you!" (343)

• "In the days that followed, Ayn reversed her decision about writing only a single paragraph about our break. She decided to publish a long denunciation aimed at completely ruining my reputation.

"To detroy me, Barbara later told me, had become Ayn's obsession. She spoke of little else..." (353)

• '"Some weeks earlier, when I saw that my own relationship with Ayn was spinning toward final dissolution in precisely the way that I had foreseen, I telephoned Allan Blumenthal and told him, "Here is what is coming next. I want to go on record as saying this now-- before it begins. Ayn will soon by saying, and then the rest of you will be saying, that I never originated anything, never contributed anything, that every idea of mine is really Ayn's" (354)

• "You've got to understand," Barbara beeseched me, "that Ayn wants you dead! The Ayn out there now is not the Ayn you were in love with. The craziest, worst side of her is now totally in control..." (355)

Addendum: while I was doing this search (using Amazon's amazing online reader), an anon editor added this link from the Objectivism Research Center, which further substantiates the claim.--Leflyman^Talk 20:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That claim is refuted by Rand's own journal entries, which you can find in the book The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, by James Valliant. Endlessmike 888 00:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I'm sure one can go "he said, she said" with the point, but I think it's fairly clear. Both Nathaniel and Barbara Branden wrote about the split, at the time, in response to the article Rand wrote "To Whom It May Concern" in The Objectivist May 1968. Their responses are reprinted at: http://barbarabranden.com/answer-nathaniel.html and http://barbarabranden.com/answer.html. In particular, Nathaniel wrote,

"Several years ago, I found myself in an agonizing personal dilemma, which I saw no way to resolve. The solution I ultimately chose was wrong, because it involved resorting to a falsehood. It entailed, among other things, withholding from Miss Rand certain information about my personal life — specifically, my relationship with a young woman, with whom I was and am deeply in love.

Miss Rand suggests that her discovery of this falsehood was the final step in convincing her that it was necessary to repudiate me publicly. But the fact is that her decision was made when, approximately a month earlier, she learned only of my present feeling for the young woman, and before she learned of the past relationship or of any falsehood on my part..."

--Leflyman^Talk 02:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a contentious issue at best, and the Branden's account is quite controversial. We should qualify the statement with "according to Nathaniel Branden..." 70.181.156.58 07:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If you leave out the part about jealousy, it's not so bad. BTW, if it is only a he said she said, why are you only including the 'he said?' Branden's claims would have no more viability than Rands. I dispute it is a he said she said, however. Rand's journal entries were written during the months leading up to the split, and provide a less biased snapshot of what actually did cause the split. In other words, they are a more reliable source than the 20+ year old memories of the Brandens. Endlessmike 888 17:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Look again. Those weren't the 20+ year memories of the Brandens -- they were written in mid-October 1968, immediately after Rand published her denunciation of Nathaniel in The Objectivist. They were sent out to all subscribers. I have no problem with the qualifier, and the note that the description is disputed by others, so long as it's sourced to a published work.--Leflyman^Talk 20:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Which only makes it more contentious. Writes Branden "Miss Rand suggests that her discovery of this falsehood was the final step in convincing her that it was necessary to repudiate me publicly. But the fact is that her decision was made when, approximately a month earlier, she learned only of my present feeling for the young woman, and before she learned of the past relationship or of any falsehood on my part..." That is flat out false, as Rand's own journal show. (Her journals show that she was, in fact, willing to give Branden numerous second chances, and in fact suggested Branden have an affair to help him with his sexual problems.) Using the Brandens as a source for Rand's state of mind (eg Rand was jealous) is inappropriate given Rand's own personal journals contradict their interpretation. Endlessmike 888 20:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is, "His account, however, is disputed in James S. Valliant's book The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics," is much too mild. The best available evidence of Rand's state of mind at during this period are her journal entries, which contradict the Branden story at every turn; it's not just Valliant disputing the claim, but Rand herself. Endlessmike 888 20:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• You're free to disagree, but I consider that to be the most neutral means of presenting the two "sides". Remember, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (as per WP:V.) Incidentally, an extensive critique of Valliant's claims is available at http://objectiblog.blogspot.com/ which has been turned into a length essay-- I won't attempt to summarise it here, but suffice it to say there's apparently plenty to dispute about his own conclusions. As another source, I just came across an article on Jeff Bitting's biography Ayn Rand in the London Review of Books, which posits "But when he finally confessed in 1968 that he was in love with a young NBI student called Patrecia and no longer wanted to sleep with his mentor, he was immediately anathematised, his books banned, his contributions to audiotapes dubbed over."[1] --Leflyman^Talk 22:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Rand's journal entries are not verifiable? I'm not referencing Valliant's interpretations, rather I'm referencing Rand's own words published in that book, which contradict the interpretation you give. So the criticism you cite is not relevent, unless it disputes the authenticity of those journal entries. Also, I thought blogs were not an valid source. Also, the review you cited merely repeats the claim found in Branden's book; it's not a new source. Rand's journal notes are a primary source. Endlessmike 888 01:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)