The Passion of James Valliant’s Criticism, Part II


Neil Parille

Recommended Posts

~ "The 'kind'...?" Depending on how myopically that Rorschacian phrasing is interpreted, then, literally, that's true...

John,

That is not only literally. That is Rand's own words: "a selective recreation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments" is her definition of art. Her heroes are art.

Do you apply your phrase "how myopically that Rorschacian phrasing is interpreted" to Rand's own words? I don't see her definition as myopic or Rorschacian.

Read the whole post. If you think I exclude "firefighters" and so forth from having similar character traits, what on earth do you think I mean by "facets"? My point was that her characters are for inspiration and they are thematic, thus incomplete. They are not for worship and using them as a mold for one's life is dangerous unless the thematic element is kept in mind. Here is an example. If you want to learn a new skill and use Francisco D'Anconia as your mold, you will condemn yourself bitterly for not being able to learn a complicated body of knowledge effortlessly like Francisco did with everything. I could go on and on.

If perchance you wish to worship Rand's heroes (and I am not saying you do), feel free. I don't worship them.

There are real Rand-haters out there. You don't need to fabricate them here.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 218
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Michael:

~ I must admit that you seem to really have a 'thing' (akin to Baal's re Aristotle) about this 'moral perfection' subject. You seem to bring it up wherever/whatever is discussed about Rand. It's really starting to stand out (with a little continuous help from R. Campbell.)

~ I understand the reasons already given (and given, and given, and given); but, hasn't this horse been, satisfactorily for all concerned, beaten dead yet? Or, is that a silly question?

~ I mean, other than self-styled "Rand is a 'moral' Saint'" beatifiers (none from ARI's 'officialdom', if I understand correctly) who argue in blogs/forums/usenet-grps/whatnot, supposedly arguing this (a quote would be nice, about now)...straw-man representation of her (spare me her over-quoted "And I mean it" argument-cliche), who actually called her a 'moral' saint? Her defenders (re this: not me) or, her denigrators (necessarily adding 'supposed', of course)?

LLAP

J:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William,

I am a bit confused by your manner of referencing Neil's criticism of Valliant on ifeminists.

That's okay. It's a mistake, and someone must choose:

1. "Um, mistakes were made, maybe (but not by me!)."

2. "You got me. I was not attentive in January. I stupidly thought this was a new summary."

3. "I was golfing on Venus; I remember mumbling 'Neil could have sent me a Telex.'"

4. "Carol Tavris says you are right to take things personally. I am an idiot."

5. "I am not gay
wrong
. I have never been gay
wrong
. I blame Senator Craig and the Airport."

6. "Oops. I laid a trap, and you fell in. Took you four minutes and forty-three seconds. Now what will you do?"

7. "How am I going to learn anything if you don't slap me around?"

8. "It's a matter of proportion. I usually tie my shoes before I tie the witch to the gibbet."

9. "That depends on measurement omission, or the principle of charity. Or something."

10. "I was in a shared coma with some other people at the hospitce"

Depending on which choice, I may melt. I'll go with 2.

As they say in the big comic books, Quasi Eat Daemonsrandum. I am just not as smart or even-handed as I think I am.

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

~ I must admit that you seem to really have a 'thing' (akin to Baal's re Aristotle) about this 'moral perfection' subject. You seem to bring it up wherever/whatever is discussed about Rand. It's really starting to stand out (with a little continuous help from R. Campbell.)

John,

That is totally incorrect and unfair to boot. You must not be reading the site. Would you like me to point to some of my discussions of Rand where the theme of moral perfection is not raised? They are all over the place on OL and in the vast majority. I am surprised you missed them.

For the record, I don't have a problem with Rand. It's the Church of Rand led by some of her followers who bother me, and even they would not if they kept their peace. But they do not. They sponsor trash like PARC and call people names without provocation. Others with more class than I have prefer not to address them. I prefer to give it back the way I get it. Not always, but enough to be inconvenient to their scapegoating agenda.

Also, if you insist on using snarky language and misrepresenting what a person writes (like "how myopically that Rorschacian phrasing is interpreted" for the most recent example), it is reasonable to expect a response.

EDIT: You must have missed the game that is being played by the Church of Rand. It goes like this. They SAY that Rand was not perfect, but they ATTACK anyone who points to her flaws, regardless of how innocent the motive. It is the constant hypocrisy and cult-like behavior that I object to—saying one thing and doing another, i.e., using the BIG LIE (including airbrushing) for rhetoric—not anything dealing with Rand. Once again, the problem is with some of her followers, not with her.

And for the record, no, I don't intend to stay silent so long as their hypocrisy results in attacks on me and people I value. If that bothers you, don't read it. I am simply not going to let them get away with it without response. For example, it looks like PARC is being discredited big time. That is intentional on my part (and others who think like I do). More is coming.

I am just not as smart or even-handed as I think I am.

William,

That's more than all right. Neither am I at times. (And I was not being snarky or playing gotcha. I was genuinely confused, thinking there might be something I am not aware of.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William:

>I am wondering if anyone has picked up Carol Tavris's recent book "Mistakes were Made (but not by Me)."

Just had a look, sounds good. Daniel Goleman's excellent "Vital Lies, Simple Truths: An Anatomy of Self-Deception" is on the same tip it seems.

James Heaps Nelson:

>Changing gears, I had a two-week exchange with James Valliant on solopassion awhile back that struck me as odd.

James, you are the master of understatement! Valliant is way beyond odd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William; I am right now reading "Mistakes were Made. She has a really great chapter about the police jumping to conclusions in criminal matters. I will probably make some comments on my OL blog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried.

I really did.

But in the immortal words of Oscar Wilde (The Picture of Dorian Grey, Chapter II), "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it."

There is more operating here than simply a personality thing (other than Perigo's foolish vanity and victim mentality I just mentioned—and I mention him, poor thing, to give him some attention, because his real value to the Objectivist community has turned into being merely the host of the place where Valliant posts).

Recent post on SLOP (Aug 30 2007) by Bill Visconti, hardcore ARI student.

Without James V. or Casey this forum would have little value.

Heh.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William; I am right now reading "Mistakes were Made. She has a really great chapter about the police jumping to conclusions in criminal matters. I will probably make some comments on my OL blog.

I look forward to that -- when I was hobbyhorsing 80s/90s therapy madness, one of the craziest cases was Paul Ingram. Does she mention that false confession case?

I like how she lets us know that 'everyone' has the bias in-built: we tend to ignore things that clash with our self-concept. We all self-deceive, the more important the deception/belief is to our self-worth, the harder it is to remove.

In Canada over the last ten years, the Crown has reversed several longstanding murder convictions. What made it so hard and take so long was the institutional dissonance -- once the suspect was in police hands, the die in some cases was set: "we don't make mistakes" . . . makes me wonder how may innocents were hanged before we did away with capital punishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William;

You might want to look at my OL blog. I have several comments on your oldest case. Crown Vs Steven Truscott which ended so happily last Tuesday.

I would appreciate any comments.

I think Canadians can be proud of their records in these cases.

Edited by Chris Grieb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Individualism requires that individuals come to their own conclusions about the things that matter to them. Part of this is an information gathering exercise. The other part is a recognition that the movement issues, although worth addressing, are small compared to what needs to be done. A closed-in, paranoid, nonadaptive philosophy will not change minds. I hope that people will repair to Rand's concept of the men of unborrowed vision in the world. This is what appealed to me in Rand when I read her as a youngster. It still appeals to me now.

Well said, Jim. I would like to echo this with a saying I deciphered in my daily newspaper's "Cryptoquote" puzzle yesterday:

He who never walks save where he sees men's tracks makes no discoveries. -- Josiah Gilbert Holland

Now, this is not to deny the obvious truth that many important discoveries and advances in human history have been made by those who "stand on the shoulders of giants." But there is a difference between standing on the shoulders of giants so that one sees what even those giants could not see -- Rand's notion of "unborrowed vision" -- and clinging fearfully to the back of a giant, timidly "chewing" and repeating what the giant has told you. I see far too much of the latter in the world, including the World of Objectivism.

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an update I posted on the thread to Neil's Part 1.

Wendy McElroy has now removed Neil's article (August 31, 2007).

It stayed up three whole days. I wonder if she ever read it to begin with.

I heard on the grapevine that certain of her new interests were not being served by featuring Valliant's incompetence. Her orientation is to bash the Brandens, not Valliant. Boy, did she screw up!

It's all about rational passionality or something like that...

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil-

I think your two articles on the serious flaws of PARC have been excellent. While I doubt they will have any affect on the 'true believers', I would hope they have some affect on those who might be more open minded, and prehaps might change the mind of some who think it an ok work.

I've read thru the comments on this thread regarding the publisher of this work and how that is of important. I had mentioned that in my previous comments on-line regarding PARC. I feel that it has some significance. If PARC is so very valuable to the 'orthodoxy', why would they allow it to be published by what seems to be almost a vanity press? If they couldn't get a more legitamate publisher, at least a small press would have been better then a vanity (or near vanity) press.

I also wanted to commend about this list of 'failings' of PAR that MSK had quoted.

James Heaps-Nelson,
1. Rand was dragged through a bogus psychological counseling charade that the Brandens did not come clean about in their books.

2. Nowhere in Nathaniel Branden's memoir or in Barbara Branden's biography can you find any significant discussion of Rand's development of the Objectivist philosophy in the 1960's. (Both Branden pieces focus on Ayn Rand as novelist to the exclusion of Ayn Rand as philosopher save the philosophical passages in Atlas.)

3. No discussion of the written explication of the Objectivist Ethics in Rand's title essay for VOS or the University of Wisconsin talk unveiling it.

4. No discussion of the articles that would become the Introduction Objectivist Epistemology.

5. No discussion of the material that went into the Romantic Manifesto.

6. It was really only possible for Barbara Branden to render one side of the story. Her research pool only consists of those who split with Ayn Rand.

7. Barbara's biography is entitled The Passion of Ayn Rand, but Rand's passion was only one facet of her personality. Her commitment to reason and rationality looms large as the other major component.

my comments.

1. Sorry, don't agree. Frankly, we may not get the full and factional story of what went on here.

2. NB's work is a memoir. Why should you expect this to be here? BB work is a biography, and focuses on the person, not the development of her philosophy. I've read other bios of similiar people and do not recall similiar information being covered.

3,4,5. Same comments as for #2. While we might want this info, I rarely see this covered in biographies.

6. Since those who didn't split with Rand probably wouldn't talk with BB, is this a failing of her work? Sadly, this is usually a problem with biographies that don't have the 'approval' and 'endorsement' of the subject or those close to the subject. But this usually means that since the work is not 'approved/endorsed', that it can touch on subjectc that the approved/endorsed work will not.

7. whatever. Can not AR be passionate about reason and rationality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was posted today by Russell Madden on the A2 list with the subject heading

"[atlantis_II] World-level ignorance abounds..."

Russ didn't give a URL for the list from which he got these comments.

I should like to know how "the Brandens" are responsible for the views of Rand expressed. (And notice, her sex life isn't mentioned even once in the quotes.) ARI's ways of trying to sell Rand, however, I think might be contributive to the very negative image of her these folks have.

Here are some views of Rand/Objectivism on a list discussing the new

BioShock game. Amazingly how ill-informed so many are about Rand, in

particular, and libertarianism, in general. So many disagree with

what doesn't even exist:

> Rand is a quite simply, a crackpot. She's also not terribly original.

> She's essentially a Nazi hiding behind a term she made up so that

> she wouldn't get blasted for being a Nazi.

> Sorry, I just really can't stand how insane Rand is.

> Read Rand and read Lenin; it's always wise to understand where the

> crackpots and nutjobs get their inspiration from.

> Played out to its logical extreme, an Objectivist system ultimately

> fails for lack of both foresight and hindsight.

> my guess is that they would confirm that the Bioshock narrative

> shows just how bankrupt a Randian philosophy was. "Randian

> goodness"? Is there such a thing? After all, she was arguing for a

> form of capitalism that would make Social Darwinism sound like

> socialism. Rand spouted survival of the fittest in its most

> grotesque Cold War form.

>

> I wasn't even aware that anyone today thinks Rand's philosophy is

> something worth thinking about, except for some of the more extreme

> neoconservatives,...

>

> ...Again, I'm not convinced that Bioshock is an affirmation of

> _Atlas Shrugged_; if anything, Andrew Ryan is proof that it was a

> big stinky pile of Cold War poop.

> Fair observation that Objectivism isn't often much of a talking

> point. Indeed, it doesn't come up in informed discussion that much.

> In fact, I'd wager that much of the time that it comes up, it's in

> the context of explaining to someone who isn't familiar with its

> nuances why it's a load of hooey.

> But since you brought it up, one area where Objectivism does come

> up is in theregards to political libretarianism. Libretarianism,

> when followed to its logical extreme, suffers from the same

> problems as Objectivism. One might even contest that extreme

> libretarianism is Objectivism. Personally, I'm of the opinion that

> the responsible libretarian is burdened with the task of tempering

> their idealism with reality such that the unlikely implementation

> of their notions does not end in Objectivist dystopia. (Of course,

> isn't all political science is a question of balancing the ideal

> with the reality that the ideal is impossible?)

> The problem was she was so tied to the American project to

> discredit the Soviet political-economic system as to render her

> philosophy today more of a historical relic than a living,

> breathing system of thought.

>

> I don't know, maybe I just don't hang out in the right circles, but

> I rarely come across Rand in the way one comes across other

> American political philosophers of the period, as much as they too

> were corrupted by the Cold War system.

> I really, really dislike her philosophy. I had to read Atlas

> Shrugged for a class...wow that was rough. I won't get into the

> details of it, but I disagree fundamentally with her on many

> points, and her antipathy for communism is so ridiculously intense

> it colors everything she writes

> both Objectivists and Libertarians both do all they can to

> obfuscate their central tenet of "do what you want, when you want"

> to give it the illusion of complexity. [mercifully redacted several

> sentences here about Anarchism, phases of Libertarianism, and Ayn

> Rand's haircut]

> no one takes it seriously, cause she was a b-list writer and a c-

> list philosopher. Objectivism hinges on altruism being the ultimate

> human failing; so as far as i can gather beyond Rapture being an

> obvious Randian dystopia (i.e. failed state cause of the emptiness

> of the ideology) the whole 'save the little sister' thing is the

> ultimate refutation of Rand's thinking since it pays off down the

> road.

> Of all the horrible things Stalin did, one of the worst was to

> unleash Ayn Rand upon the world.

----

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen, I'm afraid you just don't grasp the extent of the deviousness of "the Brandens." Is it not obvious that we induced the people you quoted to denounce Rand without mentioning any of the personal issues discussed in our books. Our evil purpose, of course, was to further the progress of Rand-denouncing while simultaneouly making a liar out of Valliant. Pretty clever, eh?

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil,

Thank you for exposing Valliant's incompetence so mercilessly. It is a mark of shame on Objectivism that ARI (and Peikoff) decided to choose such an inept writer to so-call "defend Rand." Setting aside the countless instances of intentional dishonesty, this guy makes mistakes that would not pass an inner city public high-school exam.

That's the "hero" ARI chose to fight its battles?

Heh.

At root, they must not think too highly of Ayn Rand's personal life to entrust her journals to such a poor writer and researcher. I cannot believe that they are all as incompetent as Valliant. Some are accomplished writers. So they have to see Valliant's ineptitude. They have to. A is A and you keep putting things side by side, so they have to see it. That's why there has to be another reason, like contempt for Rand herself (say, for having the affair in the first place).

The obvious question is why did they allow a project to be butchered as badly as Valliant did? Why was there no quality control? And why promote it after the research and writing mess became so evident? What is to be gained?

One thing is for sure. Rand gained nothing. She only lost.

Michael

If anyone thought Rand needed bolstering, they must surely now note that Valliant was an utter failure at that task. Poor writing, poor documentation, silly errors of argumentation.

Rand only needed bolstering for those who are unable to conceive of her being anything other than perfect in each and every dimension. I stand in awe of her accomplishments - as, obviously from their writing, do the authors of The Passion of Ayn Rand and My Years With Ayn Rand. Anyone who can read either The Passion of Ayn Rand or My Years With Ayn Rand and not conclude that the respective author is an intense admirer of Rand is using a method of exegesis with which I am not familiar!

Alfonso

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

A very interesting post was made by Robert Bidinotto on RoR. He was responding to one more round of the charge that crops up among the orthodoxy that Barbara Branden's biography of Rand, The Passion of Ayn Rand, was motivated by malice toward her and was a form of payback (for whatever). Neither poster was orthodox, however. One poster thought the so-called malice was a bad thing and another thought it was a good thing (extolling the virtue of revenge).

Recently, TAS posted a video on You Tube of the talk given by Barbara at TAS's 50th anniversary tribute to Atlas Shrugged in Washington DC. The talk was given at the Cato Institute and I mention it here because Robert mentioned it in his post, which, at any rate, was on a thread devoted to announcing the video. Here are the You Tube links for easy reference.

Although Robert's post does not directly deal with PARC, it does cover the gist of the boneheaded assertions made in that book and the petty mentality behind it. It also gives a much different view of The Passion of Ayn Rand and a glowing endorsement of Barbara's admiration for Rand and Barbara's integrity in general. There will be readers of this thread in the future (especially after the film of Atlas Shrugged comes out) seeking information on the controversy, since I predict Valliant will make use of the publicity of Rand and Objectivism the movie will prompt to promote his book. I think Robert's post will be of great interest to them.

Regarding posts #3 and #4: You guys just can't let this go, can you?

Okay, I'm compelled now to weigh in in Barbara Branden's defense.

I've said before: I really loved Barbara's biography of Ayn Rand, and I really loathed the lurid, prurient "Showtime" film that focused on only one tiny aspect of the events chronicled in that biography: the Affair.

I just can't fathom how anyone extracts, from the actual text of the biography (not from the movie, over which Barbara had little control), any hint of "hatred" and "revenge" motives. I've known Barbara for some years, and I have never detected a flicker of malice toward Rand. In my opinion, anyone who watches her video tribute and can still claim that Barbara is motivated by hostility, is smoking something weird.

I'd invite those of you who do, to conduct an honest, private little thought experiment:

You are married to someone. All of a sudden, you begin to see that there's a growing attraction between your best friend and your spouse. You are rattled emotionally to the foundation of your being.

Then one day they come to you and present you with an incredible proposal: You are asked to tolerate an extra-marital sexual relationship between the two of them -- and you're also asked to remain married to your spouse.

Try to conceive of the shock you would experience. Try to imagine your actual feelings. These are the two people you adore and admire most -- people closer and more important to you than anyone else on earth. One is a genius and a philosopher; the other is a brilliant, skilled psychologist. Now, you are very intelligent; but you are also quite young, naive, and intimidated by these personal icons. They have been your inspirations, your intellectual mentors, and your constant companions since your teens. They are the two people in the world who have helped to forge who you are -- the two to whom you've entrusted your life, future, and happiness.

Now -- using every bit of their combined genius and emotional influence over you -- they offer up a host of "reasonable"-sounding philosophical and psychological arguments to get you to accept this "arrangement." They, the very authors of the moral and psychological principles to which you are dedicated, cite these very principles in the arguments they raise against you. And to clinch the deal, they appeal to your idealism and self-image: They tell you that because you are a "moral giant," just like them, you will, of course, understand and accept this arrangement.

Now, what would YOU have done in the face of this kind of pressure from Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden?

Yes, Barbara made the wrong choice. But that wrong choice, under those bizarre circumstances, I for one find perfectly understandable. Indeed, most people cave in and make mistaken choices in life under pressures a lot less compelling.

So now, let's fast-forward twenty years or so.

You are now writing an account of the life of that philosophical and artistic genius. And you reach the part of the history that concerns the devastation wrought in your life -- and to the entire movement led by your book's subject -- by that arrangement, and by those two people whom you had idolized.

How would you feel?

What would you now say about it?

It's clear that any honest biography of Rand (especially one written by an intimate participant in its events) had to tread on this uncomfortably private territory -- if only to make intelligible the destruction of the fast-growing, then-unified Objectivist movement of the 1960s. Prior to Barbara's book, the very suggestion of the existence of that Affair was denied heatedly, and those even hinting at it were damned and ejected from the Objectivist movement. Barbara's biography for the first time revealed the truth and made those nightmarish days intelligible.

In doing so, her book embodied an honesty not in evidence in the officially sanctioned, hagiographic documentary Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life. Where the Showtime movie distorted (and evaded) heroic facts of Rand's life in order to transform her into a manipulative neurotic, the "approved" documentary rationalized (or evaded) less-than-heroic facts of Rand's life in order to transform her into a flawless goddess.

Sense of Life, with a running time of 145 minutes, condensed the entire 18-year relationship of Ayn, Nathaniel, and Barbara -- including the whole history of the NBI period -- to just three minutes of screen time. And those minutes consisted solely of a vague, fact-free narrative by Leonard Peikoff and his ex-wife rationalizing the Affair. Incredibly, the very existence of Barbara Branden and NBI were not even mentioned! For a biography claiming "objectivity," this airbrushing of eighteen years of its subject's life was utterly disgraceful.

By necessity -- and by an honest historian's requirement to make those painful years intelligible -- Barbara took a different route. What is extraordinary is not that she revealed her emotional anguish and conflicts about those years, or that she voiced a few criticisms of Ayn Rand. What is extraordinary is how utterly devoid of bitterness her account actually is: how few and mild the criticisms are, and how extraordinarily generous and admiring she is toward the person who had such a traumatic impact on her marriage. Many reviewers outside the Objectivist movement have marveled at her generosity, bigness of spirit, and lack of bitterness -- characteristics that are in short supply in most memoirs.

But that positive view of Barbara Branden is not shared by those who are emotionally wedded to the idea that Ayn Rand must be presented as a flawless being -- at all costs.

Any depiction or discussion of Rand that even hints at the slightest personal criticism provokes the ugliest forms of psychologizing and moralizing imaginable. The substantive facts of such criticisms are completely evaded, by means of diversionary ad hominem attacks that focus instead on the (alleged) motives and morals of those raising the questions or criticisms. In the psychologizers' script, such people are portrayed as envious mediocrities trying to find "feet of clay" on a heroine, as a rationalization for their own (allegedly) blighted lives. Never are they regarded as people who simply might have honest criticisms of rare mistakes or isolated flaws in a person whom they otherwise admire tremendously.

Such self-proclaimed "defenders of Ayn Rand" have advanced the moronic proposition that the validity of Objectivism itself is tied intimately to the character of Ayn Rand: If she was not completely perfect, then her philosophy is not practicable. Therefore, to criticize her person in any way, to any extent, on any count, no matter how minor, is to undermine Rand's entire case for rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, and pride.

This is nonsense standing on twenty-story stilts.

The validation of ideas does not depend on the character of their advocates. The validation of ideas depends solely on their relationship to reality. Objectivism does not need the example of Ayn Rand (and I do believe that she was a GREAT example) to establish its connection to reality. Objectivism's validation requires only the rationality of anyone who cares to grapple with its ideas, and to trace them back to their roots in the facts of reality.

A forthcoming biography by Anne Heller promises to reveal fascinating new material about Ayn Rand the visionary thinker, artist, and achiever -- and I may read it for those new insights. I am indeed interested in how the experiences and influences in a giant's upbringing and personal growth may have contributed as incentives (either positive or negative) to that person's extraordinary idealism and incredible achievements.

But as for the facts about Ayn Rand's intimate life, I have made clear elsewhere my indifference to the topic, for the reasons given above. I've made clear to Anne Heller herself that the truly private stuff doesn't interest me in the least. My desire for psychological enlightenment about the genesis of human greatness not translate into a desire to know every intimate detail of a great person's private life.

That Ayn Rand was a great woman -- intellectually, artistically, and morally -- I have absolutely no doubts. But on these counts, neither does Barbara Branden have any doubts, either. That was clear in the closing two chapters of her book, in which she gave her summary verdict on Rand's life.

And, in my opinion, anyone who views her extraordinarily moving tribute to Ayn Rand on that YouTube video cannot have any rational doubts about her love and admiration for Ayn Rand, either.

That was one hell of a post.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert; The last paragraph of your post and Barbara's tribute at the 50th Atlas event makes one see Barbara as a truly great person. My watching Barbara's tribute

reminded me that Ayn Rand is a great person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have been studying Rand's The Art of Nonfiction (edited by Mayhew) and I came across a passage (p. 61) that is pertinent to the publication of Rand's journal entries in PARC:

Someone asked me the following question: Should you have all your ideas thought out before you begin the first draft, or can you learn as you are writing? And my answer is that you can sometimes do the second accidentally—but God help you if you attempt to do it deliberately. Do not try to do your thinking and your writing at the same time. A clear outline helps you avoid this problem. While you are writing, it allows you to focus your attention exclusively on conveying your thoughts in an objective, grammatical form.

These are two separate jobs: the job of thinking and the job of expressing your thoughts. And they cannot be done together. If you try, it will take you much longer, and be much more painful, than if you did each one separately—because you are giving your subconscious contradictory orders. You are saying: "I have to express something—but I do not know what."

It is true that you might start writing with a full understanding of your subject, and some new aspect suddenly occurs to you. You might put down a certain formulation, which then raises a question you never faced before. That is a normal process. And it would be perfectly appropriate to stop writing and think this question over. Or you might even inspirationally get the answer right away. But never start with a question mark in your mind.

I have heard others say often that Rand did not intend for her private journal to be published, but I think it is reasonable to imagine she did want it published after her death (along with other parts of her journal that did not deal with the affair, i.e., the bulk of it). I admit that this is speculation, but I think it is reasonable to speculate both ways.

From Valliant's account in PARC (if it is to be believed), he did not include the outlines of some of the longer entries. And if Rand made outlines, then these entries were part of what she would call "writing" (as opposed to making notes or something like that). As far as I know, Rand did not write polished pieces (or ones from outlines) only for herself, unless they were notes to a larger work like Atlas Shrugged.

And, for as much as I take into account that she used outlines for the longer entries published in PARC, I still cannot help get the feeling that she did not take her own advice and actually was doing her thinking and her writing at the same time (at least to some extent).

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I finally got around to reading The Ayn Rand Cult by Jeff Walker.

One of Walker's bits of carelessness sheds further light on one of Jim Valliant's most notorious misrenderings. As Neil noted:

Another misreport involves the issue of Frank O’Connor’s drinking habits. Branden says that “each week” Rand’s housekeeper went to Frank’s studio and “found no new paintings, but instead, rows of empty liquor bottles.” (PAR, p. 366.) Valliant changes this to “’rows of empty liquor bottles’ . . . which Rand’s housekeeper is said to have found there after O’Connor’s death.” (PARC, p. 144.) This is particularly significant given the importance Valliant places on attempting to undermine Branden’s claim that O’Connor drank excessively.

Although it becomes clear pretty quickly to readers of Walker's book that he writes sloppily and fails to give attributions for a lot of his juiciest allegations, I was still surprised to come across this passage:

Barbara Branden relates [in an interview with Walker] that toward the end when people came into Rand's apartment, "the first thing they smelled was alcohol, and Frank had clearly been drinking," even in the morning. Now "Frank would fly into rages over nothing." After he died, his studio was found littered with empty liquor bottles. (The Ayn Rand Cult, p. 264, my bolding)

In Walker's incomplete endnotes, there is a citation to his 1992 interview with Barbara Branden (for the quotations), but nothing for the liquor bottle discovery.

So Mr. Valliant apparently relied on another author's misrendering of Barbara Branden's book, instead of on the book itself.

Where did they find this guy?

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prof. Campbell,

Where did they find this guy?

What does it say about the ARI that they had to get a non-entity like Valliant to refute "the Brandens"? Apparently no one of any stature within the ARI had the courage to make the claim that Rand's only flaw was blowing her top once in a while.

-Neil Parille

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prof. Campbell,
Where did they find this guy?

What does it say about the ARI that they had to get a non-entity like Valliant to refute "the Brandens"? Apparently no one of any stature within the ARI had the courage to make the claim that Rand's only flaw was blowing her top once in a while.

-Neil Parille

PARC is a reductio ad absurdum of the entire anti-Branden crusade of the ARI.

Alfonso

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I don't want to start a new thread with something I found on my web surfing, but I do want to register it. Here is as good a place as any.

I have wondered what the impact of PARC is "out there" among people not associated with the Objectivist movement. I came across a small indication on a blog called Overcoming Bias of the University of Oxford Future of Humanity Institute. There is a an entry dated December 18, 2007 entitled Guardians of Ayn Rand by Eliezer Yudkowsky. Without going into the merits of the article, there were a couple of comments posted to it that I found interesting. A poster named "Vejay" posted the following question and qualification:

But what if the source of much of your material in this essay on Ayn Rand's life is itself inaccurate and untrue? Another author--James Valliant--who wrote on Ayn Rand's life studied her private journals (that were unavailable to Barbara Branden and Nathaniel Brandon). According to him, the air of cultishness was initiated and encouraged by Nathaniel Brandon, who monitored all of Rand's guests, visitors, and letters, to ensure that they were not antagonistic to Rand. Apparently, all this was done without Rand's knowledge until much later she found out, including Branden's continued deception of her.

As is standard for PARC supporters when they try to plug PARC at respectable venues, there is no way to discover who "Vejay" is. He gave no link or information about himself, just a pseudonym. More cowardly anonymous crap that I find tiring with certain orthodox Objectivists. But I do find it amusing that the plug was his only post (as of this writing). Those dudes on that blog appear to be very intelligent and do not appear to hold truck with a lot of nonsense. The impression given is that Vejay knows this.

btw - There is an inaccuracy. Contrary to the anonymous Vejay's assertion, both Barbara and Nathaniel actually did have access to Rand's journal entries. But this was back when she wrote them, not later after the break. In fact, Rand made a point of showing the papers to them and she comments on this and/or strongly insinuates it several times in the entries published in PARC. How Valliant (in the book) and PARC defenders have missed this as they claim the contrary is beyond me.

There was an answer, though, from a guy named Pablo Stafforini. It could not have been more dismissive.

A single anecdote should throw enough light on Rand's character to disprove this hypothesis. The libertarian economist Murray Rothbard was for a time part of Rand's circle of friends. But when Rand learned that Rothbard's wife was a Christian, she gave Rothbard six months to convert her to atheism, or else divorce her. Rothbard of course did neither, and was, accordingly, excommunicated soon thereafter.

Two things stand out in this response. The first is that Pablo Stafforini gave his name and a link. One may like or dislike him, agree with what he stands for or disagree, but he has a name and is not hiding. Even his email address is given on the link (and it is a nominal, not anonymous, email address). The second thing is that the hypothesis—as stated by the hapless Vejay—was taken at face value. It was neither misrepresented nor given special consideration. Then it was subjected to the same standard any other hypothesis would be: consistency with known facts. The hypothesis was found inconsistent and properly dismissed.

It is true that Stafforini did not give his source, but it certainly was not the books by the Brandens.

PARC supporters are going to have to do far better than the mediocre Vejay if they want to be taken seriously. I think Stafforini's kind of response will happen more and more as time goes on until PARC fades into the oblivion of being a sorry obscure little footnote to Objectivism's cult-like beginnings. But I speculate... :)

It will be great when this cult phase is over with (and I am convinced this will happen).

Incidentally, as of this writing, David Kelly also made a comment on that thread. It is rare to see him post on a blog. Of course, David also had a name and a link. He is a real person and is not hiding.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to start a new thread with something I found on my web surfing, but I do want to register it. Here is as good a place as any.

I have wondered what the impact of PARC is "out there" among people not associated with the Objectivist movement. I came across a small indication on a blog called Overcoming Bias of the University of Oxford Future of Humanity Institute. There is a an entry dated December 18, 2007 entitled Guardians of Ayn Rand by Eliezer Yudkowsky. Without going into the merits of the article, there were a couple of comments posted to it that I found interesting. A poster named "Vejay" posted the following question and qualification:

But what if the source of much of your material in this essay on Ayn Rand's life is itself inaccurate and untrue? Another author--James Valliant--who wrote on Ayn Rand's life studied her private journals (that were unavailable to Barbara Branden and Nathaniel Brandon). According to him, the air of cultishness was initiated and encouraged by Nathaniel Brandon, who monitored all of Rand's guests, visitors, and letters, to ensure that they were not antagonistic to Rand. Apparently, all this was done without Rand's knowledge until much later she found out, including Branden's continued deception of her.

As is standard for PARC supporters when they try to plug PARC at respectable venues, there is no way to discover who "Vejay" is. He gave no link or information about himself, just a pseudonym. More cowardly anonymous crap that I find tiring with certain orthodox Objectivists. But I do find it amusing that the plug was his only post (as of this writing). Those dudes on that blog appear to be very intelligent and do not appear to hold truck with a lot of nonsense. The impression given is that Vejay knows this.

btw - There is an inaccuracy. Contrary to the anonymous Vejay's assertion, both Barbara and Nathaniel actually did have access to Rand's journal entries. But this was back when she wrote them, not later after the break. In fact, Rand made a point of showing the papers to them and she comments on this and/or strongly insinuates it several times in the entries published in PARC. How Valliant (in the book) and PARC defenders have missed this as they claim the contrary is beyond me.

There was an answer, though, from a guy named Pablo Stafforini. It could not have been more dismissive.

A single anecdote should throw enough light on Rand's character to disprove this hypothesis. The libertarian economist Murray Rothbard was for a time part of Rand's circle of friends. But when Rand learned that Rothbard's wife was a Christian, she gave Rothbard six months to convert her to atheism, or else divorce her. Rothbard of course did neither, and was, accordingly, excommunicated soon thereafter.

Two things stand out in this response. The first is that Pablo Stafforini gave his name and a link. One may like or dislike him, agree with what he stands for or disagree, but he has a name and is not hiding. Even his email address is given on the link (and it is a nominal, not anonymous, email address). The second thing is that the hypothesis—as stated by the hapless Vejay—was taken at face value. It was neither misrepresented nor given special consideration. Then it was subjected to the same standard any other hypothesis would be: consistency with known facts. The hypothesis was found inconsistent and properly dismissed.

It is true that Stafforini did not give his source, but it certainly was not the books by the Brandens.

PARC supporters are going to have to do far better than the mediocre Vejay if they want to be taken seriously. I think Stafforini's kind of response will happen more and more as time goes on until PARC fades into the oblivion of being a sorry obscure little footnote to Objectivism's cult-like beginnings. But I speculate... :)

It will be great when this cult phase is over with (and I am convinced this will happen).

Incidentally, as of this writing, David Kelly also made a comment on that thread. It is rare to see him post on a blog. Of course, David also had a name and a link. He is a real person and is not hiding.

Michael

Michael; VeeJay's point is wrong. Ayn Rand gave Nathaniel Branden permission to serve as her intellectual bodyguard. From a personal friend I have gotten the impression that people were kept away from Frank O'Connor.

I do wish this "cruel war" would be over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now