PARC is Out of Print


Robert Campbell

Recommended Posts

Except for his gratuitous attack on the Brandens, I agree entirely with Mayhew's review of Burns. Her understanding of Rand's essential positions is superficial and her criticisms are conventional and weak, given that they attack not Rand's actual fundamental arguments, but, at best, her enemies' characterization of her positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 173
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I haven't read Burns's book, so I don't know if Mayhew's review and critique is valid, but I like the fact that he doesn't do what Peikoff did and say "I refuse to read thos g**d*** biographers".

Instead he dispassionately lists in outline form a number of objections and argues to them. He doesn't call her scum or spend a whole piece launching insults or moral condemnations at her (as opposed to NB and BB).

This is a lesson that a lot of people on this site would do well to learn.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burns' work is useless as analysis. Anyone who reads her and is unfamiliar with Rand will believe that Rand holds standard, weak, unintegrated and conventional positions. Not once does Burns provide a criticism of Rand and then respond that this is how Rand, from her own unique standpoint, would respond to such a criticism. She is entirely unaware of what the stolen concept is, for instance. Does anyone think you can understand Rand without understanding the stolen concept?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except for his gratuitous attack on the Brandens, I agree entirely with Mayhew's review of Burns.

Ted,

That's like saying that except for your sharp disagreement with the essential core of Mayhew's review... you agree entirely with Mayhew's review.

Aren't Mayhew's two main points

(1) the perfection of Ayn Rand and the Satanicity of TheBrandens?

(2) the supposed need for anyone who writes about Ayn Rand or her ideas to agree with all of those ideas?

I mean, I am on the same page with Mayhew about Song of Russia being a piece of Communist propaganda (it was propaganda for a wartime ally—which just happened to be the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin).

It doesn't follow that I entirely agree with him, except when he goes after TheBrandens...

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read Burns's book, so I don't know if Mayhew's review and critique is valid, but I like the fact that he doesn't do what Peikoff did and say "I refuse to read thos g**d*** biographers".

Instead he dispassionately lists in outline form a number of objections and argues to them. He doesn't call her scum or spend a whole piece launching insults or moral condemnations at her (as opposed to NB and BB).

This is a lesson that a lot of people on this site would do well to learn.

Phil,

Sounds like faint praise for the guy.

Mayhew doesn't come across as demented, and he actually read the book that he's reviewing... so now he's a role model or something.

Would you have recommended that Mayhew put that quotation from Wilde at the top of his review?

Since you haven't read Goddess of the Market, you may not be aware that in it Burns says that two books that Mayhew edited—The Art of Nonfiction and Ayn Rand Answers—are neither reliable nor historically accurate, because they have been "substantially rewritten."

Don't you think that Mayhew ought to have mentioned this criticism in his review?

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except for his gratuitous attack on the Brandens, I agree entirely with Mayhew's review of Burns.

Ted,

That's like saying that except for your sharp disagreement with the essential core of Mayhew's review... you agree entirely with Mayhew's review.

Aren't Mayhew's two main points

(1) the perfection of Ayn Rand and the Satanicity of TheBrandens?

(2) the supposed need for anyone who writes about Ayn Rand or her ideas to agree with all of those ideas?

I mean, I am on the same page with Mayhew about Song of Russia being a piece of Communist propaganda (it was propaganda for a wartime ally—which just happened to be the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin).

It doesn't follow that I entirely agree with him, except when he goes after TheBrandens...

Robert Campbell

No, he only mentions them as evul biographers in the first three paragraphs, presumably to establish his orthodox credentials, then once again at the end only as the subject of the affair, about which Mayhew believes Burns wrote to much. Follow the link I provided. The review in its assessment of Burns is accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the book is quite valuable in situating Rand historically among the conservative actors of the time she was alive.

Intellectually, the perspective is not from an Objectivist one, but from a mainstream point of view. By mainstream, I mean here the view of an average American consumer.

I believe this was Jennifer's intent, too.

There are some minor flaws within that intent, and it is true that this is not a good book for evangelizing Objectivism.

(Several Objectivists hate it for this different perspective and focus, and one libertarian I know hates it for presenting the mainstream view of libertarianism as an offshoot of conservatism instead of a libertarian view.)

But if you can switch intellectual gears and read it through "mainstream" glasses, this is a very good book for getting an honest disinterested view of Rand and her times.

It creates more interest in Rand so that people will go to her works to find out more, and that is always a good thing.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Follow the link I provided. The review in its assessment of Burns is accurate.

Ted,

Do you think I haven't read the review?

I posted about it when it first came out.

Then posted the link again recently when the review was brought up on this thread.

Goddess of the Market is not an exposition of Objectivism. In order to succeed in its aim (which was to situate Ayn Rand in the development of American political thought and political movements, mid-20th century) it didn't need to be.

There is still a need for an intellectual history of Objectivism and/or an intellectual biography of Ayn Rand (these are not entirely identical projects). Neither the Burns book nor Ayn Rand and the World She Made provide that intellectual history; in fact, it wasn't either author's objective.

Robert Campbell

PS. In order to understand Objectivism or to give an accurate and informative account of Objectivism to others, must one be in substantial agreement with it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except for his gratuitous attack on the Brandens, I agree entirely with Mayhew's review of Burns.

Ted,

That's like saying that except for your sharp disagreement with the essential core of Mayhew's review... you agree entirely with Mayhew's review.

Aren't Mayhew's two main points

(1) the perfection of Ayn Rand and the Satanicity of TheBrandens?

(2) the supposed need for anyone who writes about Ayn Rand or her ideas to agree with all of those ideas?

I mean, I am on the same page with Mayhew about Song of Russia being a piece of Communist propaganda (it was propaganda for a wartime ally—which just happened to be the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin).

It doesn't follow that I entirely agree with him, except when he goes after TheBrandens...

Robert Campbell

No, he only mentions them as evul biographers in the first three paragraphs, presumably to establish his orthodox credentials, then once again at the end only as the subject of the affair, about which Mayhew believes Burns wrote to much. Follow the link I provided. The review in its assessment of Burns is accurate.

What is evul? I did a dictionary.com search and was unable to find any results.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I simply suggest that those who want to see whether Mayhew's review is primarily concerned with the Brandens judge for themselves by reading the entire review, not your odd description of it, Robert.

I am no fan of Mayhews'.

Of course one need not be an Objectivist to explain the essential points of Objectivism. But one does need to understand them. I can explain Stoicism and Epicureanism and Spinoza, and even Catholicism and Marxism and Existentialism if I have to. Burns could have explained Objectivism in five pages, had she been able. Objectivism lends itself to easy exposition. Did she ask David Kelley, for example, to explain to her the essentials of what makes Objectivism unique? She neither explained the hierarchical nature of concepts nor the fallacy of the stolen concept nor the metaethical argument presented in the indestructible robot thought experiment. She simply didn't get these things or even see that she needed to get these things.

Yes, Burns puts Rand in the broad concrete context of her times. I did not dispute that. She states the bare facts of who met whom and when and where. This has some value, but in the end very little if you don't "get" Rand.

Perhaps the only good and lasting thing Burns did was confirm the need to cast a skeptic eye on ARI affiliated editors of Rand's works. Any competent scholar should have done so.

No one who has read Burns but has not read Rand could claim from Burns to understand Objectivism, although Burns will probably make them feel they know all they need to know having read her. I don't agree with Binswanger that Burns is a threat to beginning Objectivists who might become confused. The threat from Burns is that she will convince those who read her that they need not read Rand herself to see what Rand is about.

Edited by Ted Keer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted,

Mayhew states his expectations as follows (I've put the key portions in bold):

What readers might have expected—what such a book could have been—is a presentation of the development of Ayn Rand's political thought and its basis in her more fundamental philosophy, a history of her political activities and interactions with others on the right explained largely in terms of her philosophy, and a discussion of how she compares to others on the right in terms of essentials. The successful execution of such a project would not require agreement with Rand's philosophy or political views; but it would require at least a basic understanding of, and interest in, her philosophical fundamentals and her arguments for her political ideas.

Well, what was Rand's fundamental philosophy as she was developing her political thought?

Was it always the same?

Was it always what, in the mid-1950s, was given the label Objectivism?

It's clear from Rand's earlier published writings—and from her diaries, even as Harrimanized—that over time she gradually drilled down from politics and socio-cultural matters, first to ethics, then to metaphysics and epistemology. And this is hardly an unusual progression, developmentally speaking.

And Objectivism continued to develop for some time after its official branding. Some pieces of the epistemology, I have become convinced, were not even originated by Rand, though she endorsed some version of them after others put them forward.

It follows that, at the very least, much of the development of Rand's political thought was not driven by an explicit epistemology of the sort that she claimed to still be working on in 1981. She didn't even start work on that epistemology until 1945.

If you want to argue that the epistemological presuppositions of her political thinking were always congruent with the Objectivist epistemology as it emerged later on, be my guest—but you've got your work cut out for you.

By the way, from what I know of Robert Mayhew and his work, the third passage that I put in bold should not be accepted at face value. If you think that, as a rewriter of Rand's words who credits Leonard Peikoff with teaching him how to edit, he really believes what he says, then you should identify one individual who, according to Mayhew, does not agree with Rand's philosophy but nonetheless has attained a basic understanding of it.

Robert Campbell

PS. Another point of agreement between Mayhew and me: Jennifer Burns is not a Lit Crit person, and her judgments of literary style and aesthetics are nothing special. Mayhew calls them "lamentable," but then he has opined that most of Ed Younkins' collection of essays on Atlas Shrugged is "lamentable"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One subject at a time; no reading in of a wider 'subtext'

> Don't you think that Mayhew ought to have mentioned [burns's] criticism [of him] in his review? {Robert C]

I like the idea of 'full disclosure' that is often advocated in mainstream journalism. Showing your cards or any connections that are relevant or might sway you. If you have a history with someone you are reviewing, it's a good idea in general to just mention that. Perhaps something like: "She has criticized me on X and, while it is an unrelated issue, look here [link] for my detailed response to that..."

> Mayhew doesn't come across as demented, and he actually read the book that he's reviewing... so now he's a role model or something.

Robert, don't read overstatements like "role model" into what I say. I really hate that. I'm usually quite precise in my praise and laserlike in my writing (Phil pats himself on the back) and my statements limited to exactly the points I wish to praise. Mayhew does something that should be normal, should be a lesson to many people on this board was my central point.

If I wanted to discuss the things he does people should -avoid- (rewriting Rand in his own books) that would be the subject of an entirely separate post. And, you may recall, I have in fact done so. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand: whether there are flaws in Burns's perspective on Rand. And neither do Mayhew's silly attacks on NB and BB. Which is why I only mentioned them in passing. (Note: I'm hardly likely to become an "orthodox" ARI/Mayhew person any time soon; just like I'm not an orthodox TAS-ian.)

To blend in too many subjects in one post is a mistake, as is constantly bringing up another subject that one is passionate about in every context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course one need not be an Objectivist to explain the essential points of Objectivism. But one does need to understand them. I can explain Stoicism and Epicureanism and Spinoza, and even Catholicism and Marxism and Existentialism if I have to. Burns could have explained Objectivism in five pages, had she been able. Objectivism lends itself to easy exposition.

Ted,

Maybe you and Phil Coates could hold a little colloquy on that subject. :)

For what it's worth, I agree that Objectivism is relatively easy to net out, though I think it would take more than five pages.

Did she ask David Kelley, for example, to explain to her the essentials of what makes Objectivism unique? She neither explained the hierarchical nature of concepts nor the fallacy of the stolen concept nor the metaethical argument presented in the indestructible robot thought experiment. She simply didn't get these things or even see that she needed to get these things.

What did she need to get these things for?

What role did the hierarchical nature of concepts play in Rand's political thinking in 1917? 1928? 1935? 1942?

How important a role did it actually play even after she had enunciated the notion? (Date not clearly known, but presumably c. 1950.)

For what period of time did the indestructible robot example guide any of Rand's thinking?

Yes, Burns puts Rand in the broad concrete context of her times. I did not dispute that. She states the bare facts of who met whom and when and where. This has some value, but in the end very little if you don't "get" Rand.

Value to whom and for what?

Perhaps the only good and lasting thing Burns did was confirm the need to cast a skeptic eye on ARI affiliated editors of Rand's works. Any competent scholar should have done so.]

I agree with you about the "should." And the level of competence required to achieve this is well short of world-historical. But who else has had both the interest and the opportunity? Until Burns came along, those who had the interest lacked the opportunity and those who had the opportunity lacked the interest.

No one who has read Burns but has not read Rand could claim from Burns to understand Objectivism, although Burns will probably make them feel they know all they need to know having read her. I don't agree with Binswanger that Burns is a threat to beginning Objectivists who might become confused. The threat from Burns is that she will convince those who read her that they need not read Rand herself to see what Rand is about.

I agree with the statement I've put in italics.

I don't see where you're getting the clause I've put in bold.

Rand was a best-selling writer. Her books are still selling. Nothing that purports to be in her words has gone out of print... well, except for the book commemorated in this thread. Anyone with a modicum of curiosity or intellectual drive would, upon finishing the Burns book, want to read Rand and find out for himself or herself.

As for those who might be looking for an excuse not to read anything by Rand, there have been such people as long as Rand had any of her work in print. Have they been waiting till 2009, for Goddess of the Market?

Robert Campbell

PS. You haven't made any comparisons or contrasts with the Heller volume here, but Will Thomas says that he taught Anne Heller Objectivism, and I see no reason to dispute him on this. Do you think that people who read Heller's book, and nothing more, will come out of it understanding Objectivism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course one need not be an Objectivist to explain the essential points of Objectivism. But one does need to understand them. I can explain Stoicism and Epicureanism and Spinoza, and even Catholicism and Marxism and Existentialism if I have to. Burns could have explained Objectivism in five pages, had she been able. Objectivism lends itself to easy exposition.

Ted,

Maybe you and Phil Coates could hold a little colloquy on that subject. :)

For what it's worth, I agree that Objectivism is relatively easy to net out, though I think it would take more than five pages.

Did she ask David Kelley, for example, to explain to her the essentials of what makes Objectivism unique? She neither explained the hierarchical nature of concepts nor the fallacy of the stolen concept nor the metaethical argument presented in the indestructible robot thought experiment. She simply didn't get these things or even see that she needed to get these things.

What did she need to get these things for?

What role did the hierarchical nature of concepts play in Rand's political thinking in 1917? 1928? 1935? 1942?

How important a role did it actually play even after she had enunciated the notion? (Date not clearly known, but presumably c. 1950.)

For what period of time did the indestructible robot example guide any of Rand's thinking?

Yes, Burns puts Rand in the broad concrete context of her times. I did not dispute that. She states the bare facts of who met whom and when and where. This has some value, but in the end very little if you don't "get" Rand.

Value to whom and for what?

Perhaps the only good and lasting thing Burns did was confirm the need to cast a skeptic eye on ARI affiliated editors of Rand's works. Any competent scholar should have done so.]

I agree with you about the "should." And the level of competence required to achieve this is well short of world-historical. But who else has had both the interest and the opportunity? Until Burns came along, those who had the interest lacked the opportunity and those who had the opportunity lacked the interest.

No one who has read Burns but has not read Rand could claim from Burns to understand Objectivism, although Burns will probably make them feel they know all they need to know having read her. I don't agree with Binswanger that Burns is a threat to beginning Objectivists who might become confused. The threat from Burns is that she will convince those who read her that they need not read Rand herself to see what Rand is about.

I agree with the statement I've put in italics.

I don't see where you're getting the clause I've put in bold.

Rand was a best-selling writer. Her books are still selling. Nothing that purports to be in her words has gone out of print... well, except for the book commemorated in this thread. Anyone with a modicum of curiosity or intellectual drive would, upon finishing the Burns book, want to read Rand and find out for himself or herself.

As for those who might be looking for an excuse not to read anything by Rand, there have been such people as long as Rand had any of her work in print. Have they been waiting till 2009, for Goddess of the Market?

Robert Campbell

PS. You haven't made any comparisons or contrasts with the Heller volume here, but Will Thomas says that he taught Anne Heller Objectivism, and I see no reason to dispute him on this. Do you think that people who read Heller's book, and nothing more, will come out of it understanding Objectivism?

No.

As for your earlier "questions," they are rhetorical and contrarian. Nor am I interested in joining in some childish "let's pick on Phil" game, even by default. What I have said speaks for itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Mayhew doesn't come across as demented, and he actually read the book that he's reviewing... so now he's a role model or something.

Robert, don't read overstatements like "role model" into what I say. I really hate that. I'm usually quite precise in my praise and laserlike in my writing (Phil pats himself on the back) and my statements limited to exactly the points I wish to praise. Mayhew does something that should be normal, should be a lesson to many people on this board was my central point.

Phil,

Gimme a break.

What is "a lesson to many people on this board"?

Not to condemn without reading, à la Peikoff?

Who among the regulars here either condemns books without reading them, or considers such conduct acceptable when others condemn without reading?

Mayhew's review meets minimum professional standards (if you overlook his failure to disclose Burns' criticism of his rewriting).

He doesn't deserve commendation for that.

The review is not particularly well written or reasoned, it contains at least one hypocritical concession (I doubt that Mayhew really believes anyone can understand Objectivism without accepting and endorsing it)—and it overtly compares Ayn Rand with Jesus Christ.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for your earlier "questions," they are rhetorical and contrarian. Nor am I interested in joining in some childish "let's pick on Phil" game, even by default. What I have said speaks for itself.

Ted,

"I'm going to take my ball and go home" is generally understood to be a childish game.

And if you believe, even for a minute, that questions about the sequence in which Rand's thought actually developed are "rhetorical and contrarian," all you are doing is confessing a lack of genuine interest in the subject.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is "a lesson to many people on this board"?

Not to condemn without reading, à la Peikoff?

Who among the regulars here either condemns books without reading them, or considers such conduct acceptable when others condemn without reading?

I can think of two cases where Phil has lectured about other’s reaction to a Peikoff podcast, having not yet listened to the podcast in question prior to commenting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Burns is simply respecting the division of labor. She is a historian / biographer whose job is to present historical particulars, leaving philosophical interpretation to others. The only other philosopher biography I've read is Ray Monk's Wittgenstein, and he works the same way. Composer, author and scientist biographies do this, too, and they are probably better for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're undertaking a composer biography and you have the requisite skill to write about both the person and the music, more power to you.

But such combined skill sets are scarce, and if you don't possess both it's best to focus on what you are able to write about.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Update:

I received a call from Jeff Britting today at 4:15 p.m. He was very friendly and offered me the following link:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/DocServer/volume3.pdf?docID=123

Additionally, I was told that he would send me a copy of their researcher's agreement, if I ever wish to discuss gaining access to the archive in the future. Mr. Britting also stated that a new article regarding their policies will be published in the next week or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted, I'm glad you do have a sense of humor. Do you have a cat?

I am a fan of lolcats, not so much in-the-flesh cats. I am quite allergic, and my eyes burn immediately upon entering all but the cleanest cat-owners' houses. I am offended by owners who let their cats roam free outside - but the owner is to blame, not the cat. As a teen I was babysitting a neighbor's child and the reaction I had to their cat was so bad I had to have him dial the phone for help. Thank god he was a very smart first grader. I generally dislike cats as stupid and aloof, but have enjoyed a few whose owners took the time to train them well, like dogs, as an old girlfriend did.

Edited by Ted Keer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Britting also stated that a new article regarding their policies will be published in the next week or so.

Randall,

I'm glad you heard from him.

And it's about time that the Archives updated a 10-year-old policy (I've seen that Archives Annual from 2000) which they weren't actually following in the first place.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

I wonder whether the article that Randall mentioned has in fact appeared.

After the McCaskey affair, are the Archives really going to be opened to a wider range of scholars?

Meanwhile, Jim Valliant's book remains out of print.

Today, a new copy will set you back at least $106.61, if you buy it from a vendor who lists with amazon.

That's a steep price to pay for a legendarily bad piece of writing.

And PARC's book sales rank is down to 1,238,055th at amazon.

Robert Campbell

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