I don't think it was over with Rearden until she met Galt.
I think Rand was always looking for her intellectual equal and thought she found that in ( ugh... what's his name?! Barbara's husband. Lol Gah! No memory... oh! Branden!!) But he turned out to not be in the end. Here's the point, Rand did love her husband, very much so. She got his permission to have an affair Branden. (From Barbara too.) There was no deceit. They are the only ones who need to understand that arrangement... it's not anybody's business.

I would say it simply was not one of her finest moments and strongly suspect Ayn Rand regretted the affair in the end -- e.g., listen to some of her last recordings about Frank before she died.

Good question. I wish we could ask her now how she feels about it.

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.

Hi, L.S.
I think Rand fell in physical love with O'Connor, but not intellectual love. Truth be told, he was a very handsome man and she was no beauty by any stretch of the imagination. He turned out to be a person of low intellectual capacity. But he was an excellent gardener, and a good handyman, which was his limitation. He sacrificed his job(s) for her and devolved into a pleasant dependent. Who knows what actually went on in his mind. Brandon and Barbara came to her just as her star was rising and later explode upon the scene. They were young, fresh and had great intellectual capacity. Branden enhanced A.R.'s fame by spreading her philosophy through the Nathaniel Branden Institute and putting out classes and a newsletter.He never did her any harm as he was entranced certainly not by her looks but by her mind. They had an affair, actually two affairs with each other while both were married to someone else. What's the very worst that he did? He had another affair with someone else and was afraid to tell her and when she found out, her rage was way over the top. Keep in mind, that all of that has nothing to do with the fruit of her mind. The greatness of her novels, the brilliance of her philosophy will live on long after we are but memories.

Personally I never gave it more than a moment’s thought.
Life is complicated and the heart wants what it wants.

Just because she was a Genius doesn't mean she was perfect.
She thought she could avoid the moral sin by doing it openly. But she was wrong. People were hurt. Of course.

It was not a mutually agreed arraignment. Those on the outside were coerced to agree by their love for their spouse. The bottom line was "accept it or else".
An open marriage is fine so long as it is entered into knowingly by both sides. Hell, it might even work for some.

But I've never held it hard against her. Who among us is sinless.
I'm not saying it's impossible - only that I've never met one.

Atlas is a work of fiction. Life doesn't always stick to the script.

I have wondered about that myself. But,from what
I understand, there was no deceit by her, at least.
Maybe she thought she was in love with Branden,
but didn't want to send Frank O'Connor out into the
cold to live. And, maybe, once she was done with Branden, she realized that O'Connor was
the right man for her after all.--It does not affect
the truth of the ideas in her philosophical ideas; if they
can be demonstrated to be true, then they are
true.---Personally, I wish it had not happened;
I think it was a bad mistake; I believe in monogamy,
and lifelong monogamy is what I would want
for myself.

When I first read AS, I was in High School - and quite naive. It seemed to me that Dagny used her lovers as stepping stones to reflect the stage of her own character development: Fransisco, Rearden and finally Galt. For each 'step', the prior lover was no longer adequate to be a good match: An equal seeking an equal.

Insofar as Ayn's real life affairs are concerned, I find nothing reprehensible about her having multiple consensual lovers overtly. It is only the need to be sneaky and deceptive and covert that is demeaning. Certainly, our own culture is developing in the direction indicated in Ayn Rand's novels...having a series of lovers was much more scandalous in the 1950's than it is now.

Jan

Let's look at Ayn Rand ONLY and not be distracted by the book.

Based on her Objectivist principals, Ayn Rand and the two men involved apparently had a specific set of pre-defined values, and by value I do not mean morals, but a value for value exchange in how their relationships benefited each other.

All were consenting, all must have believed there was a value each was receiving that satisfied themselves.

Did you ever read where the two men openly complained about their "value" in the relationship?

Also Reardon satisfied Dagny's desire, and she satisfied Reardon's. When she met Galt, Dagny found more value in Galt, than Reardon,and Reardon accepted his value proposition to Dagny was not as much.

"Failure...when your best just isn't good enough."

I'd love to hear what Gulchers think

I don't find it at all strange that a person with the amount of internal investigation and thought experimentation such as Rand would explore her relationships and would venture beyond cultural moral values. Look at Einstein as a comparison. I think the key to understanding Rand's relationships was her apparent honesty.

And I've never been convinced that Rand wrote herself into any of the characters of AS.

Actually, without realizing it, Rand was one of the early polyamorists.

Now a growing number of people are coming to realize that sexual monogamy is quite irrational and that very often (I would even go as far as to say fundamentally and inherently) it is just a method of emotional control and coercion. Just like God, Fiat Money and Democracy, Monogamy is another one of those things the world has been brainwashed about.

Also, I believe the word "affair" implies cheating and dishonesty. This wasn't at all the case with Rand's completely ethical and honest polyamorous relationship.

Rand was a trailblazer in many ways, some which she isn't quite credited for yet even by her fans! She seems to have independently invented ethical polyamory. She was obviously quite immune to brainwashing and was able to see things for what they actually were. To her, and in reality, there's simply nothing wrong with having multiple romantic / sexual relationships at the same time as long as one is honest about it.

The culture, undoubtedly stemming from religious teachings, is sex simply for its own sake is inherently bad in and of itself—something to be allowed only to express love or for procreation. Procreation and love are separate issues from just having a good time. Once we can control pregnancy and disease, what is wrong with an orgasm among friends?

Rand made many mistakes in her writings, and she was internally inconsistent at times. For example, Rand’s more explicit sex scenes seem to be rape fantasy oriented, including the initiation of the use of force. The theme is clear in both “The Fountainhead” and “Atlas.”

Wikipedia says ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_fantas... ): “Studies have found rape fantasy is a common sexual fantasy among both men and women. The fantasy may involve the fantasist as either the one being forced into sex or as the perpetrator. Some studies have found that women tend to fantasize about being forced or coerced into sexual activity more commonly than men.”

Maybe Rand portrayed her rape fantasy in her writing and acted out her animal desire for sexual variety with Branden and others not yet known or whose identities were suppressed to keep the idol from having clay feet. I suppose it depends upon the fantasy of the participants.

Rand and Brandon were honest. I believe any fault is with their spouses who willingly agreed to the arrangement. Rand did the right thing. The spouses signed on to the arrangement. I wouldn't. Imagine the internal sense of ethics one must have to be that honest and risk everything. She put her value system to use on this. I always felt Brandon took advantage of her and profited off Rand. Barbara's book put her down about not be able to drive and on and on.
Sorry I am back and I quit. I just thought this was an interesting subject.

I once had a brief conversation with Branden. I started by telling him that I admired his work and thanked him for its influence on me. I then stated that had I found myself in his position at a young age I would likely not have survived it. (My self-esteem early in life was shallow, illusory, and was more representative of one of Rand's villains than her heroes). He nodded but did not smile.

I then stated that it was truly sad Rand had not seemed to find anyone in life who could influence her to, as she so often admonished others, "check her premises." He asked, "what do you mean?" I then asked him in view of his current knowledge and what subsequently transpired from their initial relationship, would he now choose to respond to her desires differently than he had at the time? He then pointedly asked, "have you read my book!?" I indicated I had. His tone and manner then indicated that the conversation was over........

It is my judgment that Rand allowed her imagination to create "personal realities" that conflicted with existential reality. She at times acted on, as we all at times do, desires that are in conflict with facts. Her marriage to Frank O'connor is one example. Further, the manner in which her ideas and work were received must have been as crushing a blow as anyone might ever experience. It certainly had its "enduring" effect on her. She was, just as are all of us, subject to error.

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.

I think it was more like Kira in We the Living, where she had two men each of whom gave her something, than Dagny in Atlas Shrugged, where Galt gave her everything she was after. Rand's husband was most definitely not her intellectual equal - and I can understand how she could need a partner who provided that.

Don't forget, Ayn Rand's stories are about idealized principles and NOT about true human nature. It shouldn't surprise anybody to discover that there are areas where she fails to practice what she "preaches". She's only human.

That was the one thing I couldn't understand about the relationships among these four. Barbara Branden narrates this in detail in "The Passion of Ayn Rand." I will defer to Mrs. Branden's recollections of her attitudes and actions, and of the judgments she made.

I think Rand overthought sex, otherwise I find her views to be an excellent philosophy. I believe sexual partners need to be responsible for the outcome of their actions but other than that, it is just sex. Religions defined a moral basis because clerics were trying to control the behavior of the illiterate masses and to bind parents to raising their offspring. I do not believe that strict monogamy is natural or a value to be pursued. I don't think Rand ever came to terms with her philosophy and sexuality. It would be helpful to separate it from intellectuality and realize that sex is just sex.

Because she could

She can love more than one male.

I wonder if she gave it much thought. Perhaps her attraction to him was keeping her preoccupied and she thought that by acting on it, maybe she could get past it. And then she simply lost track of time. Life is funny that way. Lord knows I have a past, but I'll never regret it.