PARC is Out of Print


Robert Campbell

Recommended Posts

Valliant is the most perfect randroid in the world. A honest man will admit his error when he's shown to be wrong. But has Valliant ever ever ever ever ever admitted that he had been wrong on some point? Of course not! When confronted with irrefutable evidence of him being wrong, he'll always evade, sidestep, try to muddle the question by switching to some irrelevant detail, making a counterattack, claiming that he's answered the accusation already, or take some other evasive maneuver, but the very last thing he'll say is "yup, I goofed there". How can anyone take such a person seriously? The comical reaction of his admirers is now saying that such issues "are not important". No, perhaps they aren't really. But now the million dollar question: who has made them so important after all?

All that is more than why I am waiting to see if he ever publishes his next book, which he said was going to be taking on the Old Testament.

I mean, that's gonna be some funny stuff, right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 173
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

All that is more than why I am waiting to see if he ever publishes his next book, which he said was going to be taking on the Old Testament. I mean, that's gonna be some funny stuff, right there.

Thomas Paine did this to my own satisfaction in his Age of Reason. Never out of print in two centuries, though long out of copyright.

To paraphrase Hugo (in a quote favored by Rand), if you must have such a dissection, read "lions, not lice."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All that is more than why I am waiting to see if he ever publishes his next book, which he said was going to be taking on the Old Testament. I mean, that's gonna be some funny stuff, right there.

Thomas Paine did this to my own satisfaction in his Age of Reason. Never out of print in two centuries, though long out of copyright.

To paraphrase Hugo (in a quote favored by Rand), if you must have such a dissection, read "lions, not lice."

The Old Testament is a well traveled land but I guess when you have your own publisher being original isn't necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As of today, Amazon shows 2 new copies of PARC remain available, at $161.12 and $161.13 apiece (plus 3.99 S&H). Used copies from $48.99!

I'd drain my PayPal account and go for it just so we could have a Desecration Party, but after all, 400 bucks buys a helluva lot of contraband--and a man has to stand by his Principles<tm>....

Ah, like great artists, no one appreciates great books so much as after they are dead...rolleyes.gif

Campbell, MSK...anyone? Belly up to the bar, boys--buy this man a couple more rounds of golf!

But We Remain Ever Hopeful in Our Faith...in this case that The Passion of St. James V. will get completed and rock the Theo-philosophical world.

I just hope it has lots of cool scary pictures in it. May I suggest a cover concept...:

holygrail049.jpg

Suggested Cover Art--might be too close to the author shot, by now...

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As of today, Amazon shows 2 new copies of PARC remain available, at $161.12 and $161.13 apiece (plus 3.99 S&H). Used copies from $48.99!

I'd drain my PayPal account and go for it just so we could have a Desecration Party, but after all, 400 bucks buys a helluva lot of contraband--and a man has to stand by his Principles<tm>....

It's still listed here for $21.95

http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=AR93A

Somewhere I read that "they" plan to put it out in paperback. Also, you can read a lot of it if you visit Jabba's palace. Syrup of ipecac will get you the same result, without financially supporting evil. puke.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ND,

I heard about the paperback plans from "Karen L." at what's left of Durban House.

How many copies does the Ayn Rand Book Store have in inventory?

If it's enough to last ARBS till 2100 maybe Durban House should cancel its plans.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the looks of things, PARC won't need to be republished. Perigo is putting up random parts in a steady stream, as if they were some kind of salvos against some bad guys or whatever for the everlasting truth.

Rand's part, of course, is not going up. Just Valliant's.

I doubt anyone is going to read that mess, but having it up, even in limbo like that, is not a bad thing. The curious will be able to see the awfulness of PARC for themselves. And the Branden-haters will get their ding-a-ling rung.

More like a tinkle than an outright ding, but hey, you can't beat the price.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When and if PARC becomes difficult to obtain, my response will be similar to the following:

Lord Coke was a celebrated common law jurist and legal philosopher in 17th century England. After he died, his wife said at his funeral: "We shall never see his likes again. Praise the Lord!"

Coke was apparently a better legal philosopher than he was a husband. 8-)

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, they have, at this writing, gone up to 180.40.

Wow, and here I thought there was profit to be had in pork futures.

http://www.amazon.co...+passion+of+ayn

You shouldn't go by prices that you might find on Amazon. Used copies in fine condition can be had on AbeBooks.com for as little as $16.95. And that's just the first place I checked. See:

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=James+Valliant&sts=t&tn=Passion+of+Ayn+Rand%27s+Critics&x=0&y=0

Incidentally, this copy is signed by the author, James Valliant. That probably reduced the price by at least fifty percent, so maybe this isn't a representative example. 8-)

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Incidentally, this copy is signed by the author, James Valliant. That probably reduced the price by at least fifty percent, so maybe this isn't a representative example. 8-)

Ghs

Valliant’s inspirational inscription probably didn’t help…

“To Choncey, Best Wishes and remember, it’s never too late to try to drag a good man’s reputation through antiquated, arcane muck…”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Someone should print Rand's diaries in a stand-alone book. Almost the only good thing about PARC was the diaries and Valliant practically ruined them with all his insertions. Since there appear to be diaries that Valliant didn't include (Burns mentions Rand's comments about Frank) these should be included as well.

BTW, what happened to Valliant?

-Neil Parille

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, what happened to Valliant?

Maybe if we don’t talk about him anymore, he won’t reappear. Now there’s a corollary of social metaphysics that appeals to the whim-worshipper in me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone should print Rand's diaries in a stand-alone book. Almost the only good thing about PARC was the diaries...

-Neil Parille

I doubt there would be much of a market for it. After the first reading, most people rip the binding apart and toss out everything but Rand's diary entries anyway. Who wants to waste perfectly good bookshelf space for the worthless, tiresome speculations of a blind, vituperative fool?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe if we don’t talk about him anymore, he won’t reappear. Now there’s a corollary of social metaphysics that appeals to the whim-worshipper in me!

It might be the case. If you buy any of the Abraham/Hicks "Law of Attraction" work, there's no doubt about it. rolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pardon my skepticism, but I would like to see independent corroboration that the pages in PARC claiming to be from Ayn Rand's diaries actually ARE from that source - and had not been subjected to "creative editing" of original documents that seems to have become a trademark of many ARIans. After all their transparent and facile attempts to re-write Objectivist history, I want more than just their assertion that they are being straight.

For example, if they had been photo-copied pages, all in her own handwriting (Rand wrote-out practically everything longhand in her later years - even Atlas Shrugged), that would have lended more credibility to their accuracy. As far as I know, Jennifer Burns is the only independent scholar that has actually seen or reported on the contents of Rand's diaries, or parts of them, and I don't think she made a line-by-line comparison with PARC.

Of course, even if they are accurate copies (which has not been proven) of her diaries, that does not necessarily provide any credence to the rest of Valliant's text (as has already been demonstrated in many posts in OL).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since PARC is so sloppy I think some skepticism is warranted on the accurarcy of the journal transcriptions. That being said, Valliant seems such a true believer that I don't think he finds anything Rand wrote to need cleaning up (contrary to Mahew, etc.).

-Neil Parille

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, if they had been photo-copied pages, all in her own handwriting (Rand wrote-out practically everything longhand in her later years - even Atlas Shrugged), that would have lended more credibility to their accuracy. As far as I know, Jennifer Burns is the only independent scholar that has actually seen or reported on the contents of Rand's diaries, or parts of them, and I don't think she made a line-by-line comparison with PARC.

Jerry,

I agree that proof of the reliability of Jim Valliant and Casey Fahy's editing would require scans of the original handwritten journal pages.

There is no reason to take Jim Valliant's word for it. Where a great many related matters are concerned, his word has proven worthless.

All of this means that we won't know for sure any time soon.

My understanding is that Jennifer Burns saw some of the 1967-1968 journal pages. Dr. Burns' book wasn't intended to focus on Ayn Rand's affair with Nathaniel Branden, so she didn't make a close study of these journal entries. (Anne Heller presumably would have done so, had she been granted access—but of course that is one reason why she wasn't granted access.)

On top of that, a line-by-line comparison with PARC would be a rather thankless exercise for anyone allowed to see the originals in the Archives. If there were any discrepancies between the original entries and Valliant's renditions, the Estate wouldn't give permission to quote the originals.

For some time to come, anyone who wants to quote the diary entries will be stuck quoting Valliant's out-of-print book instead.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On top of that, a line-by-line comparison with PARC would be a rather thankless exercise for anyone allowed to see the originals in the Archives. If there were any discrepancies between the original entries and Valliant's renditions, the Estate wouldn't give permission to quote the originals.

For some time to come, anyone who wants to quote the diary entries will be stuck quoting Valliant's out-of-print book instead.

Robert Campbell

Thus Valliant must be considered at best a secondary source. Or, Ayn Rand as quoted by J.V. in PARC.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On top of that, a line-by-line comparison with PARC would be a rather thankless exercise for anyone allowed to see the originals in the Archives. If there were any discrepancies between the original entries and Valliant's renditions, the Estate wouldn't give permission to quote the originals.

For some time to come, anyone who wants to quote the diary entries will be stuck quoting Valliant's out-of-print book instead.

Robert Campbell

Thus Valliant must be considered at best a secondary source. Or, Ayn Rand as quoted by J.V. in PARC.

--Brant

If Valliant was given the liberty to edit Rand's diary entries to support his silly interpretations, wouldn't we be able to see some connection between what she said and what he said? He would have to be retarded to not do a better job than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On top of that, a line-by-line comparison with PARC would be a rather thankless exercise for anyone allowed to see the originals in the Archives. If there were any discrepancies between the original entries and Valliant's renditions, the Estate wouldn't give permission to quote the originals.

For some time to come, anyone who wants to quote the diary entries will be stuck quoting Valliant's out-of-print book instead.

Robert Campbell

Thus Valliant must be considered at best a secondary source. Or, Ayn Rand as quoted by J.V. in PARC.

--Brant

If Valliant was given the liberty to edit Rand's diary entries to support his silly interpretations, wouldn't we be able to see some connection between what she said and what he said? He would have to be retarded to not do a better job than that.

I'd guess--emphasis on guess--that he merely left out material that didn't match up with his thesis.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus Valliant must be considered at best a secondary source. Or, Ayn Rand as quoted by J.V. in PARC.

Brant,

This is the only accurate way to think about this.

Until people can openly verify the original source, and given the editing habits of ARI inner-circle people and the shoddy quoting habits he exhibits in his writing, PARC is Valliant's book--and only Valliant's book--with space given to his own paraphrases of Ayn Rand's journals.

Michael

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