every philosophical system is fair game for criticism. Rand herself complained to Bennett Cerf that she did not have enough criticism from those she admired. She was clear that she did not touch on many areas in the development of Objectivism. One that springs to mind is the science of economics. She was clear much work needed to happen in that field. She was also clear that there were many unsettled areas of science that would benefit from a Objectivist approach. "closed" implies "dead" to me anyway

No: not knowing them, and not believing what their detractors say, one would not conclude that there was a "cult", nor believe that the so-called "inner circle" was any more than a rationally closed group that met frequently to discuss Rand's ideas. There is nothing that warrants criticism of Obj.ism.

I agree. It was clear in the book that Francisco suffered a lot of pain as a result of the strike, and Dagny did as well. If I were Dagny, I would feel very betrayed by Frisco's lack of honesty. I would feel he owed it to me to tell me and then it would be my decision what I did with the information. Except that he was convinced that Dagny would betray the strikers. I think Frisco did the only thing he could do, but it was still a betrayal.

Rand's life was reality...Atlas Shrugged was fiction.

Many fiction writers would never attempt to live the same kind of lifestyle, depicted in their own books. A portion of the writer's personality is infused, of course, but we must remember to separate fantasy from reality.

you had a personal relationship with Barbara? You were her friend, close associate?

that under Objectivism and individualism would not need to give itself a name like "the inner circle." How you are commenting in this thread, is exactly why many are critical of Objectivism. Somehow it is not enough to study the philosophy, but that you need a secret "in" in order to comment on a public persona. It is kind of like protectionism. Brilliant indidivuals and their work should stand up to scrutiny without someone always asking "did you know them? Well, then, if you did not know them, your thoughts on who they were should not be voiced." I am not saying this is your opinion, but it certainly is coming off like that.

it was a betrayal to their long standing friendship. It was one of those difficult moral decisions that no one else can stand in your shoes to make. BUt it was definitely a betrayal.

I agree. He decided that telling her would cause her more pain than not telling her

You can get some insights into why she thought she had to try it at the time from her personal journals, reported in James Valliant's The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics.

Regarding the general question, she later emphatically rejected trying to have two such relationships at the same time. In the late 1970s (or maybe around 1980) at Ford Hall Forum in Boston she was asked about this. (I don't think I have ever seen a transcript of this particular Q&A.)

A hush fell over the audience because everyone knew what was rumored about her at the time, but she took the question seriously as always and answered it seriously, with characteristic earnestness in wanting her listeners to understand. She took the question literally as it was asked, and did not discuss her personal situation.

She strongly recommended not to do it, with a brief explanation. "Don't try it!". She gave an example of how it might conceivable come up legitimately as an extremely unusual situation, but definitely opposed it in general. Whatever her full reason for getting into it herself much earlier, multiple relationships were definitely not part of her principles of romantic love and ethics.

I think she loved and admired O'Connor to a point, but knew that he was no Rearden. and no matter how much she might have wanted him to be, Branden was no Galt. If she had met her equal, or the equals of her own heroes, I think she would have looked no further. as it was, she looked.
Dagny looked for Galt her whole life, consciously, and several passages discuss her despair that she will never find him. I think that was actually Rand's despair. Dagny's lovers were the closest to that ideal as she could find at that time, but she continued to yearn for "him". Having found him, she looked no further.

Yeah, he left her hangin', but he couldn't tell her either. They weren't committed so it wasn't a betrayal really. She wasn't ready to know the truth, what else could he do?

It's Rearden. What did I stretch?

But most Obj.s do not speculate without evidence.
The 'gaps" are merely small segments of her life that should be of little interest to, and are unknown to others.

No shame intended; just had to object to such bromides as "cult."

You are really stretching. She did not even realize he was real until toward the end; he was never a replacement for Reardon until she fell in love with Galt. I have seen too many misunderstandings of AS and AR herself here.

Did you know her, or are you just taking the word of bitter past associates? Never a cult, just an intelligent study group.

She chose not to for reasons, not the least of which is that she was not deceptive/coniving.

don't leave me out!

Atlas is fiction not history even if the characters seem real. Thus, the characters are useful fictional devices used by the author. When I first read the book I was reading for the story and was convinced that Francisco was Galt until I got to that part of the story.

There is reason to think that Miss Rand lavished much care and effort on Francisco since he was the image of almost every young girl's early fictional crush and possibly every boy's daydream. We don't lose these early loves, only find that they are simplified and don't include the rest of life. They often give us a vision to fuel us for a life time.

As to her affair with Nathaniel, he was as close to a intellectual companion as she was able to find. There were few men of genius able to follow her ideas let alone add to them who were not older or too different to let her lead. Nathaniel was younger and learned from her before he could add new ideas.

Reading the Branden's books when they first came out, I was angry because it appeared that they bought out the worst in Miss Rand (my hero). Later, I began to see it was a tragic affair that harmed everyone.

Yes, Ayn Rand loved her husband but because she had the view of a wife common to the time she could not totally accept him in that role even if she filled the traditional role of the man. Thus, she had to cook and the like. We don't know everything but details show she was quite human and a woman not totally beyond her time. Thus there was something missing for her that the younger intellectual seemed to fill.

The tragedy is that what should have been a life long friendship, intellectual partnership, and business relationship was sacrificed to a sexual relation that by its nature could not last over a life time. Perhaps, if she had been the younger it would have lasted longer but even then it was too much to crowd onto a single relationship and might well have been even if there had not been other spouses. That and the hiding from the public were final blows. And when the sexual ran out unfortunately he lied and she lost her temper. It is hard to blame either of them for such human reactions to a painful situation. But they and the rest of us paid a terrible price. They each lost their best friend and lover. The world lost NBI and faced the contempt of the public who did not understand. Some of us at the wrong age lost the innocence of believing in romantic notions divorced from the trials of the world. Sad. The best argument against such incestuous affairs. They pile too much on fragile relationships.

Galt had nothing to do with it other than Branden was more like Galt than Francisco or Rearden where Frank O'Connor was more like Roark.

Thanks for the chance to put this in words for someone else. I've thought about it for a long while.

Ah, yes. I remember that now.
On the other hand, I have known drug addicts who had overly active sex drives...
Hmmm...

Thanks, k

As to the sleeping, remember she was dependent on amphetamines
Edit:sp

Obviously Frank O'Connor didn't have the self-esteem to immediately break up the marriage as soon as she asked for permission to see Branden.

"Took advantage"... "subservient"... I don't think so, but at this point I'm thinking it's kind of weird that we're dissecting a marriage and it's inner workings when it's not ours to be concerned with. Not our business. It obviously worked for them, whatever the case may be...and I will drink to that fact and let it alone. Cheers!

I think you're right about Branden, but I think she took advantage of Frank in that he appeared subservient to her and had to acquiesce to her intentions while he took advantage of her as the breadwinner who supported him. But in the long run, this has very little to do with what she accomplished.

I find this to be inconsistent with her philosophy and reject her premise. I find many women sexually attractive and for entirely different reasons. I would not consider sleeping with just anyone but if it were just my feelings involved, there are more than one partner that I would be happy to be with regardless of the future longevity of the relationship. Perhaps it is a major character flaw but I have never been able to have a "just friends" relationship with a woman. If I like them they become attractive and unless there are barriers a physical relationship develops. I would allow any such person to stand for my character and value judgment.