Defending Ayn Rand

Carolyn See’s review of “The Passion of Ayn Rand” echoes Barbara Branden’s implication of moral debauchery, specifically an illicit love affair. The real issue is the difference between voluntary consent and conscious deception. Rand never did engage in deception. If what Branden says happened was agreed upon by all parties, why does she regard that as a significant revelation, unless she seeks to shock us all in the sensationalism of her accusations.

In May, 1968, Rand publicly repudiated both Barbara Branden and Nathaniel Branden “totally and permanently, as spokesmen for her and for Objectivism.” Since then neither has offered even one original idea or theory. This biography is further professional exploitation of Rand’s name and ideas. This time it had to wait for her death. If you read “Requiem for Man” or any of her novels, you will know the real passions of Ayn Rand.

SHEILA SEITZ

Van Nuys