Mayhew throws down the gauntlet


9thdoctor

Recommended Posts

Edited to add links to related material, and for The Doctor's gratuitous commentary:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/7532

On Ayn Rand Answers

by Robert Mayhew

In the early 2000s, I edited and prepared for publication a selection of Ayn Rand's answers to questions, mostly from question periods following a number of her lectures. The result was Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A (Penguin-New American Library, 2005).

100% true. So far so good.

In her "Essay on Sources", in Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right (Oxford University Press, 2009), Jennifer Burns writes that Ayn Rand Answers is among those works that "are derived from archival materials but have been significantly rewritten"; and like Journals of Ayn Rand, she says, "they should not be accepted at face value" (pp. 292-93). She does not explain or illustrate what she means by "significantly rewritten".

If she prepared the kind of side by side comparisons Robert Campbell has created here on OL, would she have gotten Peikoff's permission to publish the material? She notes that she wasn't allowed to publish everything she wanted.

http://www.jenniferb...ers-and-diaries

Burns was not the first to comment negatively on Ayn Rand Answers. For instance, on June 23, 2008, Roger Bissell posted on the forum "Objectivist Living" a side-by-side comparison of what purported to be a transcript of one of Rand's Q&A and the rendering of it in Ayn Rand Answers. The differences were glaring. The problem, however, was that what he presented as a transcription of the original material was nothing of the kind. Nevertheless, his ineptness enabled him (in his own mind) to score a big hit against me and my scholarship. Not willing to let incompetent dogs lie, over a year later (Sept. 21, 2009) Dr. Robert Campbell (Professor of Psychology, Clemson University) decided to repost this inaccurate comparison on another forum ("SOLO Passion").

http://www.objectivi...indpost&p=52287

Vs.

http://www.objectivi...indpost&p=83549

"nothing of the kind"?????

Campbell saw no need to check the source himself--until Tore Boeckmann pointed out the gaffe. So prompted, Campbell listened to the relevant tape, and a week later (Sept. 28, 2009) perfunctorily apologized for not double-checking. One would have thought that Campbell had learned a valuable lesson--a lesson useful to scholars--namely, always to check one's sources oneself. But that was not what he picked up from this experience, as we shall see. Rather, what he discovered in the first-hand checking that he did undertake was that I had edited some Q&As, and omitted others. Of course, he could have gleaned that from the cover of the book--from "edited by Robert Mayhew" and "The Best of Her Q&A"--or from the preface; but to him, this was a revelation.

Well now, seeing that checking sources is exactly what he's been doing…

So, armed with a sense of righteousness (and an indifference to copyright law), Campbell made it his mission to demonstrate on "Objectivist Living" the extent of my sins (see here). I spent an unpleasant couple of hours the other day reading his 'work', and the sycophantic and malevolent comments that followed most of his 'revelations'. I won't be returning.

Well, I feel free to visit both ARIan and heretic sites. I wonder which policy leads to being better informed?

Now it is worth pausing at this point to ask something that Campbell (and other critics) never stopped to ask: Why would Leonard Peikoff have approved of my editing such a collection? What was his aim? Surely this is necessary for an objective evaluation of Ayn Rand Answers.

When I asked Dr. Peikoff what Ayn Rand's wishes were regarding this and other unpublished material, he answered that she had told him to do whatever he wanted with it--whatever he thought was best.

And this is documented where? Next to the Intellectual Heir clause in the codicil that's stuffed inside Russell's teapot?

And he thought it best to make this material available to the broadest audience possible: to those who read Rand's novels and non-fiction, and would be interested in the additional information that such a collection contained, namely, her views on a wide variety of issues, many not discussed elsewhere.

Indeed, and difficult questions are raised in consequence. The best example: Rand's notorious 1971 comment about homosexuality having "psychological immorality at the root". Mayhew just left that one out.

http://www.objectivi...indpost&p=82477

On a related point, Penguin Books would not have published and widely distributed a complete, unedited transcript of the Q&A (nor would any other non-academic publisher). Moreover, such a transcript would not be terribly accessible or as appealing to the general reader--to a typical fan of her novels. And since the book was aimed at such a reader, Dr. Peikoff also wanted to limit its contents to those Q&A that he knew to be consistent with her explicit philosophy, and in some cases to have them edited accordingly. I made this clear in my preface; I did not hide the fact that such editing was done.

Thus leaving it to "non-ARI-affiliated" sources to set the record straight.

And of course, I knew that the transcripts and recordings were available at the Ayn Rand Archives (and that many of the recordings would become available online). I'll add, finally, for what it's worth, that Rand herself (in her 1969 non-fiction writing course) said of her answers to questions: "Sometimes, I may give an answer that's almost publishable--but not quite. It might be good for a first draft, but it would still need editing."

Editing? Ideally yes, by her. Since she didn't, every move Mayhew makes is subject to scrutiny and criticism. Fair enough?

As to the Ayn Rand Archives, if Anne Heller or Barbara Branden wanted to do research there, what kind of reception would they get? Cast out on ear and set dogs on...?

Campbell ignores any such considerations, and simply assumes that what the Estate should have done (if anything) was publish a complete and unedited transcript of the Q&A. This is clear from the level of editing that he regards as objectionable. The following is Campbell's transcription of one answer, followed by the edited version in Ayn Rand Answers. I've placed in bold the differences between the two. They are minor.

"I think Mr. Kissinger is the most disgraceful and disastrous Secretary of State [applause] that we've ever had [more applause]. Mainly because of his philosophical views, if you know that he is an admirer and a follower of Metternich, which was the worst of the European approach to foreign policy and to power."

"I think Mr. Kissinger is one of the most disgraceful and disastrous secretaries of state that we've ever had--mainly because of his philosophical views. He is an admirer and follower of Metternich, who represents the worst of the European approach to foreign policy and to power."

http://www.objectivi...indpost&p=82902

Campbell comments: "Why Dr. Mayhew toned this judgment down is known only to him." Actually, it is not known only to me (see below).

Ahh, foreshadowing. He has evidence we haven't seen yet! I'm getting excited.

In any case, Campbell clearly objects to anything beyond mere transcription. If he were more scholarly, he could have attempted to level an objection--with civility and arguments--to the very idea of editing this material, and make clear what he thinks should have been done with it. But he does not. Instead, he proceeds as if I were presenting a transcript--one that I have surreptitiously and grotesquely warped.

Has he really read the Rewrite Squad thread? Each post is followed by a discussion, however brief, of what the changes were and what (if anything) is objectionable about Mayhew's editing. Mayhew's batting average hasn't been zero. But, one would expect that Campbell has concentrated on the material where there's been objectionable editing, otherwise why name the thread as he did?

That a mere transcription of all the Q&A would not get a wide distribution or have a popular appeal, and that such material is already available to scholars at the Ayn Rand Archives, does not occur to Campbell.

Mayhew sure has the inside track on what does and does not occur to Robert Campbell. Speaking for myself, I'd buy a mere transcription, and won't buy an edited one.

Instead, he discerns the motives for my editing in what he sees as my personal defects. He assumes that I dishonestly and presumptuously tried to pass off as Rand's my own thoughts and words, and that I omitted--without explanation, and owing to evasion ("blank out", he says)--any material that I decided was embarrassing.

I don't think this has gotten personal until now. Institutional yes, personal, no.

In his view, I undertook this editing to hide or sanitize what Ayn Rand really said. As I am affiliated with the Ayn Rand Institute (Campbell calls me an ARIan, thus comparing me to a Nazi), my sole or primary concern is rewriting history to construct a barrier between the world and the flawed reality that is Ayn Rand. That I'm trying to do so despite the fact that much of this material is available (and all of it exists in the Archives), just shows (I guess) that I'm stupid as well. But I've met my match in Campbell: again and again (as he tells it) he catches me trying to pull a fast one.

See my discussion of the Nazi thing below, I find that assertion disgusting. If I thought it meant that, I wouldn't use it.

Campbell and many others (e.g., see George Reisman's Amazon 'review') see no difference between Ayn Rand's Estate hiring a person to edit her unpublished extemporaneous remarks, after her death, and someone changing the wording of Rand's published works without her permission while she was alive. Of all the context dropping committed by these people, this may be the worst. Ayn Rand was not alive to edit this material (with a few exceptions--more on those shortly). I regarded the aims of the Estate as laudable, and so I undertook to prepare this material for publication in the way described, under the guidance of Leonard Peikoff (the person alive most qualified to oversee such a project).

I would say most disqualified, but to make that case here is beyond what I'm trying to do.

Now I mentioned before that Campbell did not learn from his experiences always to investigate sources himself. This failure is especially clear in a few cases (most notably the long Q&As on Solzhenitsyn and on the mini-series Roots) in which he seemed to detect radical additions and departures without parallels in the original recordings. Campbell could have done a more thorough check, looked into the possibility that there was some other source, or sent me an e-mail asking what was going on. (I would not respond to such an e-mail now.)

Oh puhleeze, Mayhew wouldn't have ever replied. As editor of JARS, Campbell is L'Alpha Bête Noire, reference Andrew Bernstein's sackcloth and ashes routine after writing JARS a brief letter. And the consequences for him and Objectivism in academia from that episode. They sure know how to build a movement over there in Irvine.

Not Campbell. He accepts one of the policies he falsely attributes to his enemies (the ARIans), at least in the case of his enemies, namely, that wherever there is (what he takes to be) error, the motive must be dishonesty or some other flaw (like arrogance or slavish devotion to A.R.I.). As he explains these revisions, I simply took it upon myself to speak for Ayn Rand--to invent whole sentences and give her the words she was unable to find herself. He could conceive of no other possibility.

Again Mayhew sure has the inside track on what possibilities Robert Campbell can conceive of. I'd refer him to Rand's article on psychologizing, but it's not one of her best.

In fact, in these few cases I made use of The Objectivist Calendar (twenty issues, June 1976 to June 1979), in which Rand occasionally published (with her own edits, cuts, and additions) some of her Q&A. (Incidentally, the revised version of the above Kissinger-answer comes verbatim from this source.) In retrospect, I should have mentioned this in the preface or in a note. But as Ayn Rand Answers is a publication aimed at the general reader, and not a transcript for historians and other scholars (nor for the many pseudo-scholars who inhabit the Objectivish internet underworld), I regard this as a minor error--surely it pales in comparison to what passes for scholarship in the mind of Robert Campbell.

Wow, so here's Mayhew's GOTCHA moment. Let's let him enjoy it. Yeah, it's just a minor error, that Mayhew didn't cite a source. Not a "breach of the most elementary scholarly standards", no, to suggest that is just not called for. So, Campbell didn't check a source you didn't cite. Have your victory lap, clown.

And I can't help but wonder whether these Q&A were the ones Dr. Burns (who spent years at the Ayn Rand Archives) was referring to when she declared that this material was "significantly rewritten".

Oh for chrissake, read the damn book! She mostly writes about the Journals book, it's on pages 291-292. She gives an example about Frank Lloyd Wright. It's too much to transcribe here.

Dr. Campbell is scheduled to give a lecture at the Atlas Society's 2010 summer conference. It's title is "Who's Answering: Ayn Rand or Robert Mayhew?" This speaks volumes about his seriousness as a scholar--and about the stature of the Atlas Society.

Mayhew seems to think he's made an airtight case. Someone will have to let me know if I'm overusing this quote:

"Ma gavte la nata…It's Turin dialect. It means, literally, 'Be so kind as to remove the cork.' A pompous, self-important, overweening individual is thought to hold himself the way he does because of a cork stuck in his sphincter ani, which prevents his vaporific dignity from being dispersed. The removal of the cork causes the individual to deflate, a process usually accompanied by a shrill whistle and the reduction of the outer envelope to a poor fleshless phantom of its former self."

Umberto Eco, Foucault's Pendulum, pp 494-495

==========================

Note from MSK: Doubts? Buy

Mayhew's book and see for yourself.

My affiliate code is included at no

extra cost to you.

<iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=kelstumiccom-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0451216652&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Some of what Mayhew says here would be a credible defense of his practices had he said it before he (and Peikoff and Harriman and Berliner and Beckmann and Smith and Ghate) were called on their liberties with the text and with historical facts. It still wouldn't excuse his crediting Rand as the author of "Counterfeit Individualism" and Smith's attributing Branden's ideas and his most famous aphorism to Peikoff (not necessarily a complete list).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's more that can be said—and will be, sooner or later.

But no, this post does not mount an adequate defense of any of Robert Mayhew's practices.

How many sentences would he have had to add to the introduction to his volume, in order to explain that in a few cases Rand issued her own edited versions of a few answers? One or two?

In any case, he didn't put those sentences in.

Most likely it was because he saw no need to explain his practices any further. Those very few who, in his opinion, needed to know how he was operating already knew. And no one else needed to be told anything or afforded the opportunity to ask anything.

Now that's a recipe for communication breakdown, if ever there was one.

Besides, most of the alterations are not in answers that Rand ever edited. For instance, did her 1969 comments about marijuana, cyclamates, and tobacco appear in edited form in the Objectivist Calendar? Was the 1971 answer about the immorality of homosexuality kept out of the collection because she had repudiated it in writing somewhere?

If Robert Mayhew wants to make a constructive contribution to this discussion, he should come to ObjectivistLiving and post here. I doubt that Michael Stuart Kelly would prevent him from posting his original piece here, as the invective is directed at me, not at Barbara Branden. Meanwhile, I am currently banned from SOLOP and have no intention of ever applying for reinstatement. I am permanently banned from NoodleFood.

Robert Campbell

PS. Jennifer Burns almost certainly did not have the examples that I have been posting here in mind when she stated that much of Rand's unpublished material had been rewritten. I believe her research goals led her to concentrate on Rand's journals much more than on her latter-day Q&A sessions. But Dr. Burns is in the best position to address those issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Campbell calls me an ARIan, thus comparing me to a Nazi

I’m pretty peeved by Mayhew’s claim that ARIan is a slur against the Orthodox, which likens them to Nazis. I don’t know where ARIan originated, but my interpretation has always been that it’s a reference to the Arian heresy in the early pre-Catholic church. The Council of Nicea was called by Constantine to resolve a controversy over the nature of the trinity started by Arius of Alexandria. After the Nicean council those who continued to hold the ideas of Arius were considered heretics and were persecuted. Arius himself was exiled. Power shifted back and forth, but eventually the Arians lost out. To this day Catholics recite the Nicene Creed at every mass, and debate over one word, filioque, is at the root of the split between the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire has a lot of material on this, the body count over the Nicene Creed is staggering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius

Why compare ARIans to Arians? For the same reason Rand’s original inner circle was called the Collective. It’s funny and ironic, they should have been the Individualists, and the Orthodox should be called, well what else besides the Orthodox? The papists? Reference Leonard Peikoff’s statement to the effect that he wants libertarians, “tolerationists” etc. to leave Objectivism and Ayn Rand alone. My way or the highway. Like the Council of Nicea did to Arius and his followers. It didn’t work out then, both the Goths and Vandals who later sacked Rome were Arians. It’s no exaggeration to say that this schism brought down the Roman Empire, it was a major factor at the least.

As compared to Aryanism? Where’s the tie-in there? Aryanism was a racist ideology, and unless you’re Mel Brooks it’s hard to make anything about it funny. I know this isn’t the place to run a poll, but I’m wondering how many people who use the term have heretofore thought that ARIan meant Nazi? Maybe I’m nuts, I know Peter Taylor thinks so.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGp0hCxSg98&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGp0hCxSg98&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGp0hCxSg98&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The comment thread on Diana Hsieh's posting is informative.

About half of the comments are directed at George Reisman, who never gave a single comparison of Rand's unedited words with Mayhew's edited rendition.

Ms. Hsieh wants Michael Stuart Kelly to take down the essay that ND posted, allegedly for copyright reasons, but complains that she doesn't know how to get in touch with "the odious" MSK.

These people are not used to being criticized. They sure don't seem to like informed criticism, on the rare occasions when it comes their way.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ND,

If Robert Mayhew has never heard himself and his fellow affiliates called ARIans, he's led a remarkably sheltered life.

Maybe he's just now discovering that the people for whom he so regularly expresses disdain aren't completely thrilled with him, either?

I can't really remember when I first heard it (I'm thinking around ten years ago, but it could have been longer). I don't know who came up with it. It probably has no single originator, as it's an obvious formation from ARI. So obvious that the founders of that organization might have considered the derivational morphology of the English-language name and initials that they were choosing...

I thought from the git-go that it sounded like Arian, the once-persecuted Christian heresy, and Aryan. But I've never encountered anyone who thought the resemblance to Aryan more than a bit of silliness.

Robert Campbell

PS. On the other hand, Ms. Hsieh, currently in hot pursuit of MSK for posting the whole piece by Mayhew, has equated critics of the Ayn Rand Institute with Holocaust deniers. No silliness detectable on those occasions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ms. Hsieh wants Michael Stuart Kelly to take down the essay that ND posted, allegedly for copyright reasons, but complains that she doesn't know how to get in touch with "the odious" MSK.

I would think Hsieh would be pleased that ND was taking the Gospel to the Land of the Heretics.

These people are not used to being criticized. They sure don't seem to like informed criticism, on the rare occasions when it comes their way.

What a shock.

In 1968, I started a Students of Objectivism club at the University of Arizona. After I got NB's course on Objectivism from Academic Associates, I played a lecture at each meeting.

Among the club's many members was an attractive woman in her mid-30s who was taking some classes at UA. She used to hang around with the younger students, but, as an archetypal Randroid, she was clearly uncomfortable at times, as we joked about such matters as the schism between the Eastern Orthodox and Western Reformed branches of the Objectivist Church.

Anyway, after I sent out the first flyer announcing NB's lectures on Objectivism, I got a call from her. Here, nearly verbatim, is how our conversation went:

"Mr. Smith, I understand that you will be playing Nathaniel Branden's lectures on Objectivism."

"That's right."

"Are you aware that Miss Rand has issued a statement regarding those lectures?"

"Yes."

"Well, what do you plan to do about it?"

"Uh, not invite you to attend?"

Click....

8-)

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ms. Hsieh wants Michael Stuart Kelly to take down the essay that ND posted, allegedly for copyright reasons, but complains that she doesn't know how to get in touch with "the odious" MSK.

I would think Hsieh would be pleased that ND was taking the Gospel to the Land of the Heretics.

These people are not used to being criticized. They sure don't seem to like informed criticism, on the rare occasions when it comes their way.

What a shock.

In 1968, I started a Students of Objectivism club at the University of Arizona. After I got NB's course on Objectivism from Academic Associates, I played a lecture at each meeting.

Among the club's many members was an attractive woman in her mid-30s who was taking some classes at UA. She used to hang around with the younger students, but, as an archetypal Randroid, she was clearly uncomfortable at times, as we joked about such matters as the schism between the Eastern Orthodox and Western Reformed branches of the Objectivist Church.

Anyway, after I sent out the first flyer announcing NB's lectures on Objectivism, I got a call from her. Here, nearly verbatim, is how our conversation went:

"Mr. Smith, I understand that you will be playing Nathaniel Branden's lectures on Objectivism."

"That's right."

"Are you aware that Miss Rand has issued a statement regarding those lectures?"

"Yes."

"Well, what do you plan to do about it?"

"Uh, not invite you to attend?"

Click....

8-)

Ghs

I took the tape BPO course in Tucson in the Spring of 1968 at the home of Mr & Mrs Peter Beatson. I interrupted it and left Tucson for NYC in April.

I don't know what happened to the Beatsons. I didn't like her too much; her pivoting dining room chairs were too precious to her. Not that I really knew them, though, so I could have liked her a lot, maybe.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

Diana Hsieh likes to bully people by threatening them with meritless copyright litigation.

Even when her bullying seems to working against her own interests...

She went after Mike Renzulli a couple of years ago when he proposed to play her Introduction to Objectivism lectures that she had given at The Atlas Society at meetings of his local organization.

The target of her wrath in that case was apparently The Atlas Society.

You lose track of the double-think after a while.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I took the tape BPO course in Tucson in the Spring of 1968 at the home of Mr & Mrs Peter Beatson. I interrupted it and left Tucson for NYC in April.

I don't know what happened to the Beatsons. I didn't like her too much; her pivoting dining room chairs were too precious to her. Not that I really knew them, though, so I could have liked her a lot, maybe.

The Beatsons -- I recall hearing about them, but I don't think I ever met them.

It seems we have one of those "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" things going on here, Brant.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

Diana Hsieh likes to bully people by threatening them with meritless copyright litigation.

Even when her bullying seems to working against her own interests...

She went after Mike Renzulli a couple of years ago when he proposed to play her Introduction to Objectivism lectures that she had given at The Atlas Society at meetings of his local organization.

The target of her wrath in that case was apparently The Atlas Society.

You lose track of the double-think after a while.

Robert Campbell

I didn't know anything about Hsieh until I heard about her despicable campaign against Chris Sciabarra, during which she published excerpts from his private correspondence. There is little doubt in my mind that she did that to gain favor with the ARI crowd. What a bi...uh... what an unpleasant person she is.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I took the tape BPO course in Tucson in the Spring of 1968 at the home of Mr & Mrs Peter Beatson. I interrupted it and left Tucson for NYC in April.

I don't know what happened to the Beatsons. I didn't like her too much; her pivoting dining room chairs were too precious to her. Not that I really knew them, though, so I could have liked her a lot, maybe.

The Beatson's -- I recall hearing about them, but I don't think I ever met them.

It seems we have one of those "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" things going on here, Brant.

Ghs

I don't think you played those records in '68, George. AA couldn't have got up to running that fast. The "Break" was in early Sept. '68 I suspect it was '69.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you played those records in '68, George. AA couldn't have got up to running that fast. The "Break" was in early Sept. '68 I suspect it was '69.

--Brant

I started the UA Students of Objectivism late in 1968. We didn't get the BPO course until the following year. My girlfriend and future wife purchased a set right away; the first box was numbered, and her number was something like 23.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you played those records in '68, George. AA couldn't have got up to running that fast. The "Break" was in early Sept. '68 I suspect it was '69.

--Brant

I started the UA Students of Objectivism late in 1968. We didn't get the BPO course until the following year. My girlfriend and future wife purchased a set right away; the first box was numbered, and her number was something like 23.

I purchased my set in 1972. Several records were defective--on one side you got Branden, on the other Ceasar Chavez and the farm workers union. I sent those back for an exchange. Consequently I have several cases whose blue doesn't match the blue on the rest of the set.

--Brant

worthless trivia: brain's going down the drain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diana Hsieh likes to bully people by threatening them with meritless copyright litigation.

Even when her bullying seems to working against her own interests...

Now I've added commentary, I wonder if they like seeing it that way better. Did Mayhew not expect it to be discussed here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ND,

You've shown a real flair for Valliant-style intrusive commentary :)

They surely won't like it any better this way.

The entire process of communicating with the unworthy is so difficult for them...

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor Leonard ought to be having second thoughts about what instructions he should leave in his will regarding who gets the rights to publish his many lecture series. Considering the editing jobs that were done by the ARIans to Ayn Rand, imagine what liberties might be taken with Peikoff's material! Just thinking about that fate ought to keep him up at nights.

I suppose that this could be viewed as "poetic justice," considering that Peikoff allowed these guys to edit and publish material that Rand never approved for publication, and then allowed them to botch-up the job. It is to these "scholars" at ARI that we can thank for the disastrous choice of material (e.g., references to William Hickman) that was included in "The Journals of Ayn Rand," a name that Peikoff chose for notes that she never wanted published.

I don't often visit Noodlefood. If I want to see examples of thought reform, with public "confessions," denunciations of former colleagues, and history rewrites, etc., I can always read Orwell. However, the level of hysteria and ferocity exhibited on that site in their denunciations of Robert Campbell and George Reisman for committing the apparently inexcusable sin of daring to criticize Mayhew's editing methodology in Ayn Rand Answers, is a wonder to behold.

After quickly toadying to Mayhew, they turned on Reisman, a member of Rand's Inner Circle, or "Collective," (and therefore in a position to know when she is being misquoted). They neglected to mention the real reason that he was expelled from ARI events - that he dared to question the academic credentials and the technical expertise of Peter Schwartz on topics that he wished to lecture on at the ARI Objectivist Graduate Center. Apparently unable to give a satisfactory reply to Reisman's challenge, Schwartz had him thrown out and banned from future ARI events. Never mind his long association with Ayn Rand. Nevermind that he was their most knowledgeable economist and a popular lecturer and draw at ARI events. And never mind the fact that, as a student of Rand, Rothbard, and von Mises, that he had built upon their framework and had just published Capitalism, the first (and still, the only) major economic treatise applying Objectivism to economics. Twenty years later, he is still persona non grata to the ARIans. And that status still applies to his books.

Edited by Jerry Biggers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry,

Yes, I noticed how many of them were more eager to jump on George Reisman than on me. There was a particularly nasty chime-in by Adam Reed against him.

So who do the ARIans have in economics since Dr. Reisman was pushed out? Richard Salsman?

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry,

I think the whole Reisman thing is pathetic. Especially the fact that ARI doesn't carry his book, comment on it etc. I hope that TAS, at some point, can find an economist to pen a thorough review of Reisman's book or run a summer seminar session on it.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some further thoughts about Robert Mayhew's recent tantrum.

When I asked Dr. Peikoff what Ayn Rand's wishes were regarding this and other unpublished material, he answered that she had told him to do whatever he wanted with it--whatever he thought was best. And he thought it best to make this material available to the broadest audience possible: to those who read Rand's novels and non-fiction, and would be interested in the additional information that such a collection contained, namely, her views on a wide variety of issues, many not discussed elsewhere.

I don't see how letting Rand speak for herself would stand in the way of reaching a broad audience.

Realistically, Rand's nonfiction will never sell nearly as well as her fiction.

And the posthumous collections have not sold as well as the collections that she put out in her lifetime.

On a related point, Penguin Books would not have published and widely distributed a complete, unedited transcript of the Q&A (nor would any other non-academic publisher). Moreover, such a transcript would not be terribly accessible or as appealing to the general reader--to a typical fan of her novels.

Dr. Mayhew assumes that this is what I had in mind. I haven't actually said what I consider the best way to present Ayn Rand's question and answer sessions. I'll get to it. For now, suffice it to say that it isn't what he imagines.

And since the book was aimed at such a reader, Dr. Peikoff also wanted to limit its contents to those Q&A that he knew to be consistent with her explicit philosophy, and in some cases to have them edited accordingly. I made this clear in my preface; I did not hide the fact that such editing was done.

Mayhew is so busy having a cow that this passage can easily be missed by the reader. Hence the emphases I've added in bold.

In his preface, Mayhew said he made some changes where what Rand said wasn't consistent with her explicit philosophy.

He didn't say that he decided he used consistency with her philosophy, as judged by Leonard Peikoff, as a criterion for including or excluding answers.

I think we now know how the 1971 answer on homosexuality was kept out of the book (and, by the way, this was the only case in which I referred to Mayhew's exclusion as a "blank out"). Dr. Peikoff didn't want it in, allegedly because it contradicted Rand's explicit philosophy. Hmm. Is that what Rand thought when she said it?

Mayhew also didn't say in his preface that Leonard Peikoff directed him to edit any particular answers for consistency with her explicit philosophy.

Rather, he made it appear that Leonard Peikoff gave him the assignment and didn't review the final manuscript, which implies a hands-off policy.

Did Leonard Peikoff actually direct him to remove references to smoking (as Mayhew did with the 1969 answer on cyclamates, marijuana, and tobacco)?

Mayhew's already revealed that a few answers were actually edited by Ayn Rand herself—after he failed to mention that they had been, and failed to mention where Rand published them.

What other secrets of the editorial process are yet to be imparted to us the unworthy?

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

I'm puzzled too. How many copies does ARI think this book is going to sell? It has a niche market of people already fairly interested in Rand. They would have been much better off fully documenting the edits.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Mayhew seems to think that the alternative to his species of ham-handed editing is ... a book of raw transcripts.

Campbell ignores any such considerations, and simply assumes that what the Estate should have done (if anything) was publish a complete and unedited transcript of the Q&A. This is clear from the level of editing that he regards as objectionable.

I provided a very close transcription of each answer because I was convinced that it was important to listen carefully to the recordings. I'm not sure that Mayhew always did so, judging from his occasional mistranscriptions of words or phrases. (The way he refers to the transcriptions alleged to be available in the Ayn Rand Archives, they could in fact have been the work of others. If others made them, did he check them himself? More secrets of the editorial process...)

My goal was to show what Mayhew's editing had started from.

I didn't propose my own edit of anything.

That doesn't mean that questions and answers should be published with every "ehh" and "uk" still in place.

I do think that editing should be quite light:

Cut out statements made between questions, byplay between Rand and Judge Lurie, etc., where these don't form part of an actual answer.

Cut out the false starts and the hesitation pauses.

If Rand appears to have made a slip (e.g., saying Henry Wallace when she meant George Wallace; there aren't a great many of these), correct the slip and footnote it with what she actually said.

Provide notes about allusions that Rand makes in an answer to current events or articles in her publications.

Provide the original question whenever possible (sometimes they are lost, though crude editing of broadcast tapes, or partly inaudible).

Leave answers intact instead of cutting them up, as Mayhew sometimes does.

Cross-reference other answers to provide context (Mayhew doesn't do enough of this).

I don't see a need to include every answer from the surviving recordings—a few are along the lines of "read my article on X"—but I would argue for keeping most.

Allowing Ayn Rand to speak to the reader extemporaneously, in her own words, will be marvelously effective. She knew what she was saying.

I am not of the opinion that changing a single word of Rand's would be sacrilegious. I do think that Rand was a damn capable speaker and neither Mayhew nor any of his colleagues could in a million years edit her words the way she would have done it.

And let's face it. There is a market, at least a modest one, for a book titled Ayn Rand Answers.

What's the market for Ayn Rand Answers as Robert Mayhew Believes She Should Have?

Or for Ayn Rand Answers, As Told to Robert Mayhew?

If the Estate of Ayn Rand doesn't think it would make a difference, they should ask Penguin to test-market Mayhew's book under either of the latter titles.

Robert Campbell

PS. Jerry is right. If Leonard Peikoff has any sense at all, he'll leave instructions in his will barring any of the present members of the Rewrite Squad from getting their mitts on his unpublished lectures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've shown a real flair for Valliant-style intrusive commentary :)

That was my intent, so I’ll take it as a compliment. It’s surprisingly easy, just silence any qualms about making cheap shots, and the material flows. I could probably put together the equivalent of PARC, only sliming Peikoff. I've already got the equivalent of the typewriter story, and it's something I haven't seen anyone write about yet.

I think we now know how the 1971 answer on homosexuality was kept out of the book (and, by the way, this was the only case in which I referred to Mayhew's exclusion as a "blank out"). Dr. Peikoff didn't want it in, allegedly because it contradicted Rand's explicit philosophy. Hmm. Is that what Rand thought when she said it?

And by what methodology did they determine that her position on the immorality of homosexuality was not her explicit philosophical position? I think she blew it on that one, but who are they to say she didn’t mean exactly what she said? Plus, there’s no record of her revisiting the subject or revising what she said.

In a jam like this one, there comes a point when you have to take a cue from religion: it’s revelation time. I nominate Harry Binswanger to have a convenient memory of a conversation, or of an unrecorded Q&A session, where she articulated a completely different position on homosexuality. If he’s reliable on the Hospers thing, why not use him here? Because it’s not his turn? Ok, then find someone else. Who's left?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just checked out the Noodle comments, and oh brother…I’ve taken #32, by Jeff Montgomery, and made a few substitutions just for fun:

David Miscavige,

Thanks for providing this explanatory essay. Although I don't put too much stock in anything from Xenu.net, Operation Clambake, or Wikipedia, I still found the whole matter perplexing, and a little disturbing in spite of it all. I'm glad to hear your side of it. I was confident there was a logical explanation.

Regarding false Scientologists,

It may not be apparent to those who are new to the Scientology online community, but there are some really destructive pretend "Scientologists" out there.

If a so-called "Scientologist" is hostile to the Church of Scientology and associated scholars, Tom Cruise, those on the ThetanBloggers list, or says things like "L. Ron Hubbard’s philosophy is great, but in his personal life he was a monster", you'd better be suspicious. You're probably dealing with someone whose primary interest and source of self-esteem is in cutting down real Scientologists with cynical, vicious nonsense, rather than living well and achieving understanding.

Anyone who is honest and wants to really learn and apply Scientology should ditch the above-mentioned sites and instead start browsing the ThetanBloggers list, or the Clear Scientologists blog roll, and check out the Church of Scientology. These are the people who are doing things to change the culture and our country for the better.

Comrade Sonia has repeated her complaint about Mayhew’s rant being reproduced here, never mind Fair Use. This from someone who posts private correspondence without permission. Back in the day, on MDOP, I thought she was just a twit. Now, hell, she’s beneath contempt.

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