Wendy McElroy on PARC

[9thdoctor]

http://lfb.org/blog/name-your-favorite-ayn-rand-flaw/

There's a new piece by Wendy McElroy on the Laissez Faire Books site that, on the whole, I agree with, but which had a little part that left me peeved. So I added a comment, which now "awaits moderation". Before I forget about it I thought I'd put it here on OL.

"In my early twenties, and still fresh with adrenaline from reading her while a teens, I was disillusioned by stories of Rand in which she seemed petty or cruel. Many of the stories came from some former admirer or ex-member of her ‘inner circle’ – the ones who acted as prosecutors or jurors when court was in session. Gradually, I came to question key aspects of the accounts. I did not and do not doubt that such trials or other pettiness occurred, nor do I dismiss the flaws that they spotlight.

But I deeply doubt the slant of the facts. Why? Because the tellers of tales never seemed to take responsibility for their own roles in any unpleasantness.

"

I can't fathom how anyone who has actually read Nathaniel Branden's memoir can make such a statement. Utter nonsense!

Look below and you'll find an appreciative comment from none other than James Valliant. Wendy's review of PARC, back in the day, was quite positive, so, well, yech.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy80.html

[Selene]

"In my early twenties, and still fresh with adrenaline from reading her

while a teens,

..."

Apparently, proofreading is not one of her strengths...

[9thdoctor]

Apparently, proofreading is not one of her strengths...

But! I doubt LFB is employing editors for articles like these.

[Selene]

Apparently, proofreading is not one of her strengths...

But! I doubt LFB is employing editors for articles like these.

Dennis:

I did not mean the folks at the publication, I meant Wendy...that is a pretty glaring oops.

At any rate, I do like the way she opined in this paragraph:

People seem to expect a creative genius to be pedestrian in all other areas of life, especially their personal

conduct.

Genius is an extreme aberration that makes its possessor process the world in a markedly different

manner than other people. It is not a minor difference, like color blindness, but a fundamental one in which all

the information of life is filtered through aberrant brilliance. How else can it flash out with the brightness of pure

light into art and literature, science and music?

This represents the way I view Ayn. I never expected her to be in Kansas, rocking on a front porch swing and looking out over a peeling white picket fence.

She was intellectually edgy and I expected nothing less from her way of living in reality.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Who knows the motives of McElroy?

Her endorsement of PARC, embarrassing as it was, got her some attention in the Objectivist and libertarian subcommunity back when she did it. (And Valliant and his gang crowed like drunk roosters.)

People talked about her. And, as evidenced by this thread, they still do--at least once in a while.

Maybe that's what she was after.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Her endorsement of PARC, embarrassing as it was, got her some attention in the Objectivist and libertarian subcommunity back when she did it. (And Valliant and his gang crowed like drunk roosters.)

But she's a libertarian. Those people hate libertarians. So it was either bad strategy or, perish the thought, sincerity. Meaning she couldn't see through Valliant. Neither interpretation reflects well on her.

[william.scherk]

I nominate Wendy for an award in the category Sweeping Claims, subcategory No Warrant.

Her gush about genius typifies -- for me -- the basement philosopher. State your opinions, obscure the fact that it is an opinion, and then wait for applause from the Echo Chamber. Clap echo boom clap clap. Sigh.

Knowing that Wendy is already a hurried, distracted and sloppy shopper in the Truth Warehouse, none of this surprises me. But do we not put her gush to elementary tests? Should we not?

Like, my favourite since I became evul at six years old "How do you know?" What the fuck would you know about genius, Wendy, besides what you have cribbed?

-- in other news, would anyone like to read my essay on Regimist Lap-Dancers?

[Brant Gaede]

I nominate Wendy for an award in the category Sweeping Claims, subcategory No Warrant.

Her gush about genius typifies -- for me -- the basement philosopher. State your opinions, obscure the fact that it is an opinion, and then wait for applause from the Echo Chamber. Clap echo boom clap clap. Sigh.

Knowing that Wendy is already a hurried, distracted and sloppy shopper in the Truth Warehouse, none of this surprises me. But do we not put her gush to elementary tests? Should we not?

Like, my favourite since I became evul at six years old "How do you know?" What the fuck would you know about genius, Wendy, besides what you have cribbed?

-- in other news, would anyone like to read my essay on Regimist Lap-Dancers?

But the words! The near poetry!

--Brant

how do we know Rand was a genius--or Einstein?

[Jonathan]

http://lfb.org/blog/...-ayn-rand-flaw/

There's a new piece by Wendy McElroy on the Laissez Faire Books site that, on the whole, I agree with, but which had a little part that left me peeved...

I read McElroy's piece as her thinking ahead and creating content to be found in the future by her eulogist:

"All of us who knew Wendy know that she was flawed, but, as Wendy herself once wrote, 'From that first crack of doubt, I arrived at long last to my final and current conclusion: I like many of her flaws. I like my Ayn Rand to be more imposing that life, colorful, brash, argumentative, clutching a cigarette-holder, wearing a cape, pronouncing judgments and dripping with eccentricity. I would not be as drawn to an entirely sane Van Gogh; I revel in the cruelty of Dorothy Parker’s wit; W.C. Fields’ alcoholism is part of his charm; and, a drug-free Edgar Allen Poe may never have written The Raven.'

"Likewise, we should embrace and celebrate Wendy's minor flaw, because her willingness to take credit for another's work was part of her charm and genius -- a plagiarism-free Wendy would have never claimed to have written The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to Intellectual Survival. Her intellectual thievery wasn't a bug but a feature!"

J

[Robert Campbell]

ND's comment is now visible on the LFB site.

In any event, the rapprochement between Wendy McElroy and Jim Valliant won't last.

She would have to come around to his view that Rand owed nothing of importance to Isabel Paterson—and I don't see that happening.

Robert Campbell

[Dennis Hardin]

My comment posted in support of Ninth Doctor's (on the Wendy McElroy essay at the Laissez Faire Books site):

now "awaiting moderation"

For The Record:

Barbara Branden:

“The ultimate responsibility for the suffering of Ayn’s friends lay neither with Ayn nor with Nathaniel. Her friends—including myself—were free; no gun was held to our heads. . .We could have left and found our separate ways to life.. .We did not leave…” (The Passion of Ayn Rand, p. 304)

Nathaniel Branden:

“As I contemplated the chain of events I had set in motion, changing all four of our lives forever, the voice began to pound louder and louder in my head: What have you done? What have you done? What have you done?” (My Years with Ayn Rand, p. 151)

“Ayn did not create this atmosphere on her own. We all actively contributed. In every respect, I was a full and willing partner to whom the rightness of what we were doing felt close to self-evident…”

(p. 227)

“. . .almost always it was I who took on the role of prosecutor [for transgressions by members of the collective]. I am appalled at remembering my ruthless behavior on such occasions.” (p. 235)

“In offering them [his former students] a better understanding of emotion. . .and in emphasizing the supreme importance of self-acceptance, I hoped to undo some of the harm I might have caused them…”

(p. 369)

[Dennis Hardin]

Wendy’s response:

Thanks for the comments. When I came to the conclusion that I discussed re: Rand and the responsibility of her inner circle for their own actions, I was in my twenties and memoirs had not been written. That is to say, at the point in time that I am referencing, no one had come forward to take responsibility for their own actions. Thus, I reached the conclusion I did, and I would do so again under the same circumstances. It speaks well of those who took responsibility subsequently and I give them a nod of respect for doing so.

Oh really. She was speaking in the past tense, huh. Sure. That’s why she said “I deeply doubt (present tense) the slant of the facts,” and then attributed her present doubt to the steadfast refusal of the tale-tellers to take responsibility for their role in the madness. Now she says she gives them a “nod of respect” for having taken responsibility. I give her a shrug of contempt for voicing a lot of stupid, irresponsible opinions without bothering to check sources that have been available for two decades.

[9thdoctor]

I might be totally wrong here, but I just looked at the paragraph in question again, and I think it's been changed. The weird shifts in tense seem strange, I don't recall that. But I might not have read it so carefully the first time.

I suppose the next step would be to look up Branden's "Thank you and goodbye" interview in Reason, to see if he discussed it then, but I'm just not interested enough.

[studiodekadent]

I know there are (completely valid) reasons for the negativity towards McElroy, but when dealing with this piece (and her review of PARC) we should try to at least be charitable (I am not excusing Ms. McElroy's conduct with respect to The Reasonable Woman but I am asking we try to look at her argument on its own merits (and yes, for the record I believe we should treat all arguments this way, irrespective of the arguer)).

First, in McElroy's review of PARC, she didn't exactly give the book an uncritical look. Here's a quote from her: "Valliant's book is not a scholarly work that aims to provide a balanced view; nor does it pretend to be. Valliant's book is not written in a "popular" manner that seeks to entertain; nor does it pretend to be. The Passion is best viewed as a legal brief, with all the strengths and weaknesses inherent in that sort of document.

"Valliant, a real-life district attorney, has taken on Rand as a client whom he defends against the Brandens' accusations. And the best defense is an offense, with the Brandens becoming "the accused." Like a good attorney, he does not credit both sides; he does not give the opposition any benefit of the doubt. He advocates for his client" (McElroy 2008, link: http://wendymcelroy.com/plugins/content/content.php?content.30).

In other words, McElroy is explicitly conceding Valliant is biased and thus implicitly admitting the book isn't to be considered "the truth about how Ayn Rand really was." She also sharply criticizes Valliant's use of various Objectivist theories of psychology to analyze Branden, owing to strong disagreements with the theories.

She isn't defending PARC as factually true and her review isn't an endorsement of PARC from an historical angle.

So, why is she giving (limited, qualified) praise to the book? From her review: "the truth (Rand's journals which mentioned the affair) is important to those who admire Rand, especially to those who have been personally transformed through her influence.

"I am one of them. As such, I would like to understand an important event in my life. At 15-years-old, I became an Objectivist through reading We the Living and, then, everything I could find by Rand. Her impact on my life was profound and benevolent. At 15-years-old, I needed a role model; I needed an ideal at whom I could look up and toward whom I could climb." (Brackets mine)

A futher quote: "At that point, I had already developed significant political disagreements with Rand; specifically, I was a Rothbardian and an individualist anarchist. Rand had ceased to be a desperately needed ideal and, so, the impact on me was dulled.

"But I've wondered how the 15-year-old I used to be would have reacted. I think the news would have been devastating. I also wonder how many other teenagers are deprived of the chance to use Rand as a role model due to accounts of "the affair."My point is not that Rand's personal life or character should be whitewashed for the greater good; truth is the greatest good. But if the facts have been presented incorrectly or in a manner that renders Rand pathetic, then I want the record corrected so that other 15-year-olds regain the opportunity to admire Rand both as a woman and as a philosopher."

A final quote: "The Passion accomplishes one of the psychological goals Valliant intended. To a significant degree the book restored to me and (I believe) others a better opinion of "Rand the woman.""

In other words, McElroy's praise of PARC came from a psychological angle, and (for the most part) not a factual one. The book helped fulfill a psychological need of hers; to be able to remember the great things about Rand.

Intellectual tribalism, and the deification of the founder, and the whole "seeing an attack on Rand's personality as an attack on Objectivism" complex, have done tremendous damage to Objectivism. But this desire to feel close to that which one admires and values is a natural thing; after all, it is one of the reasons people create heroic fictions.

McElroy's gratitude to PARC comes from a context where people talked about Rand's sex life and character flaws as a way to impugn Objectivist ideals. In essence, after seeing Rand's name be dragged around in the mud, she was starving for spiritual fuel.

I should make an important clarification: I do not believe Barbara Branden (I have not read Nathaniel's account yet but I suspect I'll have a similar evaluation of his account to my evaluation of Barbara's) dragged Rand's name through the mud. Passion was a very heartfelt, sympathetic, loving portrait of Ayn. But Rand's actual critics (not BB or NB, but those that sincerely hate Objectivism) do use Rand's eccentricities to discredit her ideas by proxy.

As I read McElroy, what she praised PARC for was that it served as an antidote to the more venomous, cruel and vicious portraits of Rand pushed by the haters. It served her psychological need to reinforce Rand's admirable side; to keep Rand's virtues as much a part of her concept of Rand as Rand's flaws.

This isn't a glowing, ringing endorsement. She isn't saying "this book is perfect truth." She's saying that, for her, it served as a corrective against the very unflattering popular portraits of Rand (portraits which, I must add, are not ones that the Brandens can be fairly blamed for), and thus was psychologically beneficial.

Okay, now onto the article about favorite Rand flaws: note the title. She's bluntly admitting that Rand's character flaws were actual flaws. Contrast this against Peikoff and Valliant, who both basically do their best to prove that Rand's conduct was perfectly rational and moral. Quoting from Kelley's Contested Legacy,

"The contradictions and equivocations I have pointed out at length reflect an effort to read Ayn Rand's personality into her philosophy, to twist the principles of Objectivism into a rationalization for her flaws" (Kelley, p92).

In other words, Valliant is arguing that Rand was absolutely justified in her eccentricities and flaws. McElroy, on the other hand, is saying that we should tolerate Rand's eccentricities and flaws in the same way we tolerate eccentric madcap artistic types and praise their craziness as a product of the fine line between genius and insanity.

Valliant is arguing for Rand's perfection, and McElroy is arguing for us to accept Rand's imperfection (just as we accept the imperfections of many geniuses).

These are very different arguments.

[Jonathan]

McElroy's gratitude to PARC comes from a context where people talked about Rand's sex life and character flaws as a way to impugn Objectivist ideals. In essence, after seeing Rand's name be dragged around in the mud, she was starving for spiritual fuel.

I should make an important clarification: I do not believe Barbara Branden (I have not read Nathaniel's account yet but I suspect I'll have a similar evaluation of his account to my evaluation of Barbara's) dragged Rand's name through the mud. Passion was a very heartfelt, sympathetic, loving portrait of Ayn. But Rand's actual critics (not BB or NB, but those that sincerely hate Objectivism) do use Rand's eccentricities to discredit her ideas by proxy.

As I read McElroy, what she praised PARC for was that it served as an antidote to the more venomous, cruel and vicious portraits of Rand pushed by the haters.

Will you give some specific, real-life examples of attempts by people to discredit Rand's ideas by proxy? Who are the "haters," and exactly what did they do that you call "venomous, cruel and vicious"?

It served her psychological need to reinforce Rand's admirable side; to keep Rand's virtues as much a part of her concept of Rand as Rand's flaws.

Why should anyone give a shit about McElroy's psychological needs? Why should anyone care that she needs to interpret certain things in certain ways?

This isn't a glowing, ringing endorsement. She isn't saying "this book is perfect truth." She's saying that, for her, it served as a corrective against the very unflattering popular portraits of Rand (portraits which, I must add, are not ones that the Brandens can be fairly blamed for), and thus was psychologically beneficial.

Whose portraits of Rand is she talking about? Are they real portraits, or are they ones that McElroy imagined out of a psychological need to have enemies at that point in her life? Who the fuck knows? If one is going to write about Rand's attackers-by-proxy, why not identify them and give a few brief examples of the unfairness that one is griping about? Isn't that what a genius would do?

McElroy, on the other hand, is saying that we should tolerate Rand's eccentricities and flaws in the same way we tolerate eccentric madcap artistic types and praise their craziness as a product of the fine line between genius and insanity.

As I said earlier, I took McElroy to be saying that we should tolerate McElroy's flaws and take them as signs of her genius.

J

[caroljane]

In addition, extramarital affairs and coverups are flaws which many geniuses have exhibited. Plagiarism is not a flaw but a specific act of fraud, and geniuses hardly need to indulge in it.M cElroy will have to find a sturdier comparison for her rationalizations ,

[studiodekadent]

Will you give some specific, real-life examples of attempts by people to discredit Rand's ideas by proxy? Who are the "haters," and exactly what did they do that you call "venomous, cruel and vicious"?

Read any of the left's major hit-pieces on Rand for a great example. They ALWAYS go on, at length, about Hickman. They distort Rand's ideas into bad parodies of Nietzsche. And they do this so casually, without any regard for truth. If you want to see some good examples of Rand bashing, the blog Classically Liberal has a great series of takedowns of Rand-bashing (with links to the original posts). See: http://freestudents....abel/Ayn%20Rand

I can also point out the previous experience I had with the website TVTropes. I wrote a Useful Notes page on Objectivism; one which was endorsed by several other Objectivists (some on the site, some offsite, including MSK). Naturally the page was regularly sabotaged to insert long digressions about Ayn Rand's personality problems, invariably used as a springboard to discredit her ideas. Eventually I was edit-banned from that page, even though the page was a purely neutral summary of what Objectivism argues (and several non-Objectivist members agreed with me there).

Every other page that mentioned her in any way did this. From what I know, last time I looked at the site, she's cited as an example of "The Social Darwinist" (a complete distortion of her ideas).

I am no Randroid and I am quite comfortable with admitting Ayn Rand's flaws. But when "she f**ked Nat!" is used as the standard rebuttal to any single philosophical statement she made (and this is not an unfair characterization of how Rand's haters conduct discourse about Objectivism), I get tired of seeing it. I don't like seeing someone I respect and admire (even when, like in Rand's case, the respect and admiration is not uncritical) get dragged through the mud, accused of being a Hickman-fellating Poor-starving Speed Freak Welfare Queen Fascist.

Why should anyone give a shit about McElroy's psychological needs? Why should anyone care that she needs to interpret certain things in certain ways?

As I said earlier, I took McElroy to be saying that we should tolerate McElroy's flaws and take them as signs of her genius.

I had a long reply typed out but it got lost when I accidentally left the page. Anyway, you're missing the point I was making. I wasn't talking about Wendy McElroy. I wasn't discussing the Reasonable Woman scandal. I was looking at two issues: 1) whether her review of PARC constituted uncritical agreement with it, and 2) the truth value of the article she wrote about Ayn Rand flaws.

And, for the reasons stated in my original post, I came to the conclusions that I did.

If Wendy's article on Rand flaws was just some sort of psychological coping mechanism to make her feel like people should tolerate all her flaws and accept all her actions, that's Wendy's issue, but it has no bearing on the truth value of the proposition she made in the article.

[George H. Smith]

Wendy’s response:

Thanks for the comments. When I came to the conclusion that I discussed re: Rand and the responsibility of her inner circle for their own actions, I was in my twenties and memoirs had not been written. That is to say, at the point in time that I am referencing, no one had come forward to take responsibility for their own actions. Thus, I reached the conclusion I did, and I would do so again under the same circumstances. It speaks well of those who took responsibility subsequently and I give them a nod of respect for doing so.

Oh really. She was speaking in the past tense, huh. Sure. That’s why she said “I deeply doubt (present tense) the slant of the facts,” and then attributed her present doubt to the steadfast refusal of the tale-tellers to take responsibility for their role in the madness. Now she says she gives them a “nod of respect” for having taken responsibility. I give her a shrug of contempt for voicing a lot of stupid, irresponsible opinions without bothering to check sources that have been available for two decades.

Wendy and I moved in together when she was 25, or thereabouts. We had many discussions about the Rand/Branden split. She knew very well that NB was taking much of the responsibility -- too much, in my opinion -- at that time and for years before. The same is true of Barbara. I had discussed the split with both Nathaniel and Barbara since 1971. Both always showed Rand the greatest respect in personal conversations, and neither ever denied their own responsibility for the mess.

Ghs.

[George H. Smith]

As I mentioned some time ago (probably on the plagiarism thread), Wendy's semi-favorable review of PARC came as no surprise to me. When I broke the plagiarism scandal in 1998, Barbara came down on my side. Indeed, she was especially pissed-off because Wendy had gotten her to write a favorable blurb for TRW, which appears on the back cover. I can only imagaine how I would feel if someone I regarded as a friend asked me to endorse a book that was heavily plagiarized from another friend.

Given this schism, Wendy had nothing to lose in regard to Barbara. Had they still been friends, she never would have written the review of PARC that she did. Wendy has always been keenly aware of the "political" advantages to be gained by writing certain types of articles and reviews. I don't know for sure whom she was hoping to impress or win over with her review of PARC, since she surely knew that ARI would never touch her. My hunch -- and that's all my conclusion is based on -- is that she used the review as an opportunity to impress readers with her independent judgment, by not embracing either extreme in regard to PARC.

Ghs

[Robert Campbell]

In other words, McElroy's praise of PARC came from a psychological angle, and (for the most part) not a factual one. The book helped fulfill a psychological need of hers; to be able to remember the great things about Rand.

Andrew,

We could just as easily say that The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics helped to fulfill a psychological need of Jim Valliant's: to establish the moral perfection of Ayn Rand, once and for all.

But I've thought, perhaps naïvely, that fidelity to the facts matters more than whether the ensuing portrait of Ayn Rand meets the personal psychological needs of either Wendy McElroy or Jim Valliant.

Besides, Wendy McElroy hadn't just fallen off a turnip truck when she wrote that review. She was and is perfectly capable of discerning how badly written and dishonestly argued Valliant's book is. She chose not to bring any of that up.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Andrew,

How do The Passion of Ayn Rand and Judgment Day/My Years with Ayn Rand support the uses presently made of Rand's brief fascination with William Hickman?

How do they lend aid and comfort to claims that Rand was a Social Darwinist?

How do they support the notion that Rand was a speed freak? (Nathaniel Branden didn't mention that issue in his memoirs; Barbara Branden downplayed it significantly, as you'll see right away if you compare her coverage of Rand's amphetamine use to either Burns' or Heller's.)

According to Jim Valliant, TheBrandens ™ keep under lock and key the trove of All Bad Things to Say about Rand.

You know that that isn't true.

Wendy McElroy knows that it isn't true.

Jim Valliant may or may not know that it isn't true. If he does know, he spies benefit in pretending that he doesn't.

Robert Campbell

[George H. Smith]

In other words, McElroy's praise of PARC came from a psychological angle, and (for the most part) not a factual one. The book helped fulfill a psychological need of hers; to be able to remember the great things about Rand.

Andrew, We could just as easily say that The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics helped to fulfill a psychological need of Jim Valliant's: to establish the moral perfection of Ayn Rand, once and for all. But I've thought, perhaps naïvely, that fidelity to the facts matters more than whether the ensuing portrait of Ayn Rand meets the personal psychological needs of either Wendy McElroy or Jim Valliant. Besides, Wendy McElroy hadn't just fallen off a turnip truck when she wrote that review. She was and is perfectly capable of discerning how badly written and dishonestly argued Valliant's book is. She chose not to bring any of that up. Robert Campbell

Robert,

You are correct. There is no way that Wendy would not have understood what a hatchet job PARC is. She may be devious, but she is not stupid.

I obviously don't know what Wendy was hoping to achieve by writing that review, but she had something in mind beyond the review itself.

I'm unclear about where the review originally appeared. Was it initially written for Laissiz-Faire Books? If so, then she would have felt obliged to say something positive about PARC, and we are not dealing with some great mystery. But if she wrote the review on her own initiative and for her own website, then something more was going on.

Ghs

[Robert Campbell]

I obviously don't know what Wendy was hoping to achieve by writing that review, but she had something in mind beyond the review itself.

I'm unclear about where the review originally appeared. Was it initially written for Laissez-Faire Books? If so, then she would have felt obliged to say something positive about PARC, and we are not dealing with some great mystery. But if she wrote the review on her own initiative and for her own website, then something more was going on.

George,

It wasn't written for Laissez-Faire Books.

As far as I know, the review first appeared on LewRockwell.com, where you can still find it today.

Robert Campbell

[studiodekadent]

Andrew,

We could just as easily say that The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics helped to fulfill a psychological need of Jim Valliant's: to establish the moral perfection of Ayn Rand, once and for all.

But I've thought, perhaps naïvely, that fidelity to the facts matters more than whether the ensuing portrait of Ayn Rand meets the personal psychological needs of either Wendy McElroy or Jim Valliant.

I should clarify that I am not supporting McElroy's review, nor am I supporting PARC. What I am doing is trying to clarify the issue of why, and to what level, McElroy supports PARC. From the review I read, I came to the conclusion she gave the book a limited endorsement for psychological reasons.

You are correct, and I agree with you, that the facts of the matter are the most important thing.

Incidentally, McElroy agrees (or at least she said so in her review). Quoting: "My point is not that Rand's personal life or character should be whitewashed for the greater good; truth is the greatest good."

Besides, Wendy McElroy hadn't just fallen off a turnip truck when she wrote that review. She was and is perfectly capable of discerning how badly written and dishonestly argued Valliant's book is. She chose not to bring any of that up.

I have no experience with McElroy apart from her writings, and I haven't read anything about PARC except for criticisms of it. So I don't regard myself as having sufficient information to judge this correctly. However, from her writings I am certainly tempted to presume you are correct and she is perfectly capable of recognizing intellectual dishonesty. But I think she made it clear in her review that PARC was not a levelheaded and dispassionate work of historical analysis.

Quoting: "Valliant's book is not a scholarly work that aims to provide a balanced view; nor does it pretend to be."

In other words, she has recognized the fact that PARC is indeed a one-sided, biased-to-all-hell hatchet-job.

How do The Passion of Ayn Rand and Judgment Day/My Years with Ayn Rand support the uses presently made of Rand's brief fascination with William Hickman? How do they lend aid and comfort to claims that Rand was a Social Darwinist? How do they support the notion that Rand was a speed freak?

Passion and JD/MYWAR clearly do not support the defamation of Rand we currently see. I openly stated that I loved Passion and considered it a very sympathetic portrait that dealt with Rand's flaws fairly.

I brought up the defamations of Rand because my argument is that McElroy's limited endorsement of PARC seemed to come from a psychological angle, that the book functioned as a counterbalance to the downright mean treatment Rand receives in popular discussions (by "popular discussions" I am not referring to Passion or JD/MYWAR).

According to Jim Valliant, TheBrandens ™ keep under lock and key the trove of All Bad Things to Say about Rand.

You know that that isn't true.

Wendy McElroy knows that it isn't true.

I agree. The idea that the Brandens are Rand's enemy is completely false. They certainly cannot be held responsible for the things that Rand's haters say about Rand.

[Robert Campbell]

George,

Quick addendum: Wendy McElroy's review of PARC couldn't have been written for Laissez-Faire Books. LFB refused to carry the book—I recall Jim Valliant complaining about the decision.

Robert Campbell