The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism, Part V


Neil Parille

Recommended Posts

For the one or two people still interested in PARC, I thought they might find this quote from Casey Fahy from 2005 funny:

would . . . those who are splashing around in the shallow water to discredit the publisher, which is 1) not a vanity press 2) never was 3) that canard* has long been exposed as a libel*, 4) the publisher is thrilled at the sales that have exceeded all expectations, which, as a nonfiction hardback of this sort of book is astonishing and the publisher is eager for subsequent editions and the paperback to be released 5) the book was, of course, rigorously edited by the publisher's editors and 6) Valliant never paid the publisher a dime for anything. And of course all of this has let the "Critics" avoid any of the content in the book, yet again.

Yes, you read that right. PARC was "rigorously edited" by two, if not more, editors.

-Neil Parille

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is interesting, in respect to Rand's 1968 statement:

"A half-truth, in many issues, is more misleading than an outright lie; it is more of a distortion. Therefore if a reporter cannot reveal the whole truth in a given issue, he should not touch that issue at all."

Objectively Speaking, p. 68.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the one or two people still interested in PARC, I thought they might find this quote from Casey Fahy from 2005 funny:
would . . . those who are splashing around in the shallow water to discredit the publisher, which is 1) not a vanity press 2) never was 3) that canard* has long been exposed as a libel*, 4) the publisher is thrilled at the sales that have exceeded all expectations, which, as a nonfiction hardback of this sort of book is astonishing and the publisher is eager for subsequent editions and the paperback to be released 5) the book was, of course, rigorously edited by the publisher's editors and 6) Valliant never paid the publisher a dime for anything. And of course all of this has let the "Critics" avoid any of the content in the book, yet again.

Yes, you read that right. PARC was "rigorously edited" by two, if not more, editors.

-Neil Parille

It's not really important if a book is vanity published or not. What matters is what is published. Considering all the crap put out by mainstream publishers it's onlt a prestige and maybe a marketing thing. Because of computers and the Internet authors can self-pubish too.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is interesting, in respect to Rand's 1968 statement:

"A half-truth, in many issues, is more misleading than an outright lie; it is more of a distortion. Therefore if a reporter cannot reveal the whole truth in a given issue, he should not touch that issue at all."

Objectively Speaking, p. 68.

Is this an "Objectivist" quote?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand and the World She Made is set for November 3 and the page count is 576:

http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display...n=9780385513999

-Neil Parille

"Her readers know little about her life." That's because they don't want to know. They can always go to the library and check out "The Passion of Ayn Rand" by Barbara Branden. I know they'll find it because I donated a copy.

This sounds like Heller is going to do all she can to ignore the Brandens, but maybe not. It is only a publisher's blurb. I'm sure she picked up the phone and had extensive conversations with the Brandens--and wrote them many letters of inquiry about this and that. I'm sure she advertised for people who knew Rand to contact her. When Barbara was researching her biography she advertised in "The New York Times Book Review."

I predict the new bio will be mostly good for the pictures and Rand in Russia.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy cow Brant, why the negativity dude?!?

1. I'm sure Miss Heller has been interviewing everyone who will talk to her. There may even be people who wouldn't talk to Barbara who might talk to Heller. (I don't know, just guessing.) I recall watching David McCullough on TV about his Truman bio. He said that when he was interviewing the White House doorkeeper he said "sorry, you must be tired of so many interviews." The doorkeeper said this was the first time anyone interviewed him.

2. There are probably archives and other things that have recently become public. The blurb hints at this.

3. I saw a posting by Heller in which she was asking for information about Frank O'Connor's teacher, Robert Brackman, so I imagine she's leaving no stone unturned.

4. I doubt Heller is responsible for the blurb. I imagine her publisher has to sell the bio as providing new information.

5. The quote above is from a Rand interview.

-Neil Parille

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not really important if a book is vanity published or not. What matters is what is published.

Brant,

Durban House (the publisher of PARC) is not a vanity press, but it is (or at least was when I looked things up) "pay to play" as is amply proven all over the Internet. The correct term is "subsidy press." (See here and other threads in the PARC section for more information.)

As a general rule, I agree with you that the content is vastly more important than the publisher. But when half the book is unpublished material by a best-selling author like Ayn Rand and the book is receiving the blind support of her heir and the organization he founded that bears her name, I think using a minuscule author-financed publisher (involved in several scam-like public controversies to boot) speaks volumes about the intent and competence of those involved.

btw - I just looked up the new site for Durban House. Apparently it is no longer using its own domain+hosting and is hosting the publisher's site with Apple Me (a "me.com" site). If I understood correctly, even the domain name is now assigned to Apple. This is kind of like using a Blogger blog, but a little more sophisticated, say like adding Flickr to it. The bottom line is (1) that this service is either free (anyone can sign up for a free account) or very very very cheap (because of the domain name), and (2) Apple (Mac) calls the shots. If one day they get ticked at DH, they simply pull the plug and DH is bye-bye.

What this basically means is that DH ain't got no money. It's using other people's free stuff for its main web presence.

What's great about the Internet, though, is that beggars (like DH) can be choosers. There are a lot of free third-party hosted site options: Me (which is what DH uses), Weebly, Wet Paint, Webs, Bravenet, Google Sites, etc.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy cow Brant, why the negativity dude?!?

1. I'm sure Miss Heller has been interviewing everyone who will talk to her. There may even be people who wouldn't talk to Barbara who might talk to Heller. (I don't know, just guessing.) I recall watching David McCullough on TV about his Truman bio. He said that when he was interviewing the White House doorkeeper he said "sorry, you must be tired of so many interviews." The doorkeeper said this was the first time anyone interviewed him.

2. There are probably archives and other things that have recently become public. The blurb hints at this.

3. I saw a posting by Heller in which she was asking for information about Frank O'Connor's teacher, Robert Brackman, so I imagine she's leaving no stone unturned.

4. I doubt Heller is responsible for the blurb. I imagine her publisher has to sell the bio as providing new information.

5. The quote above is from a Rand interview.

-Neil Parille

Neil; I loved the quote about the doorkeeper at White House.

I am interested in Heller's book and I hope it is successful.

Edited by Chris Grieb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy cow Brant, why the negativity dude?!?

-Neil Parille

Leonard Peikoff and his ilk.

I'll buy and read the bio, of course.

--Brant

As far as recall, she is not associated with Peikoff.. indeed, wasn't she was one of the speakers at the Atlas at Fifty conference where the Brandens were there as well, and Ed Hudgens and Snyder and Smith?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

Do you mean: (1) lack of access to the Archives; and (2) unwillingness of ARI types to be interviewed?

If so, then I think you have a point. But my guess is that there is more information out there.

-Neil Parille

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy cow Brant, why the negativity dude?!?

-Neil Parille

Leonard Peikoff and his ilk.

I'll buy and read the bio, of course.

--Brant

As far as recall, she is not associated with Peikoff.. indeed, wasn't she was one of the speakers at the Atlas at Fifty conference where the Brandens were there as well, and Ed Hudgens and Snyder and Smith?

Anne Heller spoke at the 50th conference.

Bill P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil -

Thanks for hanging in there and documenting the shoddy scholarship and argumentation in The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics.

A question for you: Has Valliant ever made a list of a FEW things he would hold up to be the most serious misdeeds each of the Brandens? I ask because every time I try to run an accusation to ground, I find something like:

1) He has made an amazingly obtuse interpretation of something said by one of the Brandens.

or

2) He has decided to take the evidence - the preponderance of which is against his conclusion in PARC - and ignore all evidence against his case.

I'm thinking you are probably more familiar with the details of PARC than anyone, including Valliant, so I ask you.

Regards,

Bill P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure there will be much of interest in the Heller bio.

The most important people in Rand's life from 1950-1968 were her husband and Nathaniel and Barbara Branden. If this isn't acknowledged and properly dealt with all the value in the bio will be in its bits and pieces.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure there will be much of interest in the Heller bio.

The most important people in Rand's life from 1950-1968 were her husband and Nathaniel and Barbara Branden. If this isn't acknowledged and properly dealt with all the value in the bio will be in its bits and pieces.

--Brant

That's a comment quite applicable to more than a few publications on Rand with publication dates after 1968.

Bill P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

Valliant believes that the claims made by Rand in her 68 statement are true and the Brandens' responses false. Thus in standing by their statements they are continuing to lie to this day.

In particular, he seems to think some of the worst are:

1. Nathaniel Branden's denial that he was losing interest in and supporting Objectivism was false; and

2. Nathaniel Branden implicit denial of the amount of counseling that he received from Rand, later revealed in the diaries, was false.

3. The "insuperable barrier" line in 1968.

4. The Brandens implying that Rand would not continue with a purely business relationship after NB's July letter.

Two of these (nos. 2 & 4) are based for the most part on Rand's diaries, which I've spent less time on. Other things being equal, contemporaneous diaries are more reliable sources of info than later memoirs. However, it is certainly possible that Rand was writing to justify her conduct to herself and perhaps later readers.

-Neil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is from a 2000 article by one Andrew Lewis of the ARI:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=566

Miss Rand smoked for many years, until her doctor told her to quit. She put the cigarette out in his office and never smoked again.

This is what Barbara reports in her biography. As I recall, Peikoff said something to the effect that he and Rand decided to quite smoking because they were persuaded of the connection between smoking and lung cancer.

-Neil Parille

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is Peikoff:

Q: If Ayn Rand were still alive, would she smoke?

A: No. As a matter of fact, she stopped smoking in 1975. When the Surgeon General in the 50s claimed that smoking was dangerous, he offered nothing to defend this view but statistical correlations. Ayn Rand, of course, dismissed any alleged “science” hawked by Floyd Ferris, nor did she accept statistics as a means of establishing cause and effect. Statistics, she held, may offer a lead to further inquiry but, by themselves, they are an expression of ignorance, not a form of knowledge. For a long period of time, as an example, there was a high statistical correlation between the number of semicolons on the front page of The New York Times and the number of deaths among widows in a certain part of India.

In due course, when scientists had studied the question, she and all of us came to grasp the mechanism by which smoking produces its effects—and we stopped. Doesn’t this prove, you might ask, that she was wrong to mistrust the government? My answer: even pathological liars sometimes tell the truth. Should you therefore heed their advice?

http://www.peikoff.com/q&a.html

On page 380 of PAR, Barbara Branden reports that Rand put out the cigarette in the doctor's office upon being told that she had a "malignancy" in her lung.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is Peikoff:
Q: If Ayn Rand were still alive, would she smoke?

A: No. As a matter of fact, she stopped smoking in 1975. When the Surgeon General in the 50s claimed that smoking was dangerous, he offered nothing to defend this view but statistical correlations. Ayn Rand, of course, dismissed any alleged "science" hawked by Floyd Ferris, nor did she accept statistics as a means of establishing cause and effect. Statistics, she held, may offer a lead to further inquiry but, by themselves, they are an expression of ignorance, not a form of knowledge. For a long period of time, as an example, there was a high statistical correlation between the number of semicolons on the front page of The New York Times and the number of deaths among widows in a certain part of India.

In due course, when scientists had studied the question, she and all of us came to grasp the mechanism by which smoking produces its effects—and we stopped. Doesn't this prove, you might ask, that she was wrong to mistrust the government? My answer: even pathological liars sometimes tell the truth. Should you therefore heed their advice?

http://www.peikoff.com/q&a.html

On page 380 of PAR, Barbara Branden reports that Rand put out the cigarette in the doctor's office upon being told that she had a "malignancy" in her lung.

When I was in junior high school '56-'58 the music teacher took a puff of cigarette smoke into his mouth and blew it out through a facial tissue leaving behind a visual residue. Can you imagine, he said to us, what this does to your lungs over the years? I always knew smoking was bad for you commonsensically even tho I did smoke for about 5 years. I think if Rand had been more my age she would have stopped smoking sooner in her life.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She was a high-strung, hard hitting author. Hunter Thompson and her, even, in that respect, share that quality. Both associative smokers, as I call them.

There are different kinds of smokers. There are those who incorporate it as a habit to replace empty, pregnant pauses in life. Then, there are the ones that actually like the taste of tobacco. Then, there are the ones who are both. It doesn't run through writers: it gallops.

I don't care what she said or didn't say about it. In any event, it was no different back then than it is now other than being cheaper to do. Any good smoker knows it is bad.

But then you go on a tear, maybe a long, savage burn. Maybe late at nite, maybe days. They become your steadfast friend, and like most friends, there's some kind of cost involved. If there are no real friends to be had, and you are in the middle of one of these operations, there is no substitute.

Funny thing the other day... <---my way of saying I am going off track)

I'm a lifelong martial artist, and studied Bruce Lee my whole time there in that world, still do. I always liked Bolo Yeung (He's in "Enter The Dragon," many other films), I tracked him down and he's still around. Well anyway during the course of this kind of research I found He and Lee (both non smokers) met and were fast friends.

They met on set filming a Winston commercial. I haven't found that yet but that's some freaky shiq right there if you think on it.

OK, I'm done talking about smoking. Camel No. 9's right now, just way less of them.

rde

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All references to Valliant's book, PARC, are now being cut from Wikipedia for PARC not being a "reliable source." See the following in "Cross-Talk for Ayn Rand and Objectivism Articles" on the Wikipedia site:

Proposed removal of references to James Valliant and The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics

Following several discussions calling into question the work of James Valliant as a reliable source (e.g. 1, 2.., 3), I propose that all references to it be removed from Wikipedia until such time as it is shown to satisfy the criteria for reliable sources. If there is consensus to do so, I will begin in one week's time. Skomorokh 15:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm in favor of removing them. J Readings (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

By fire be purged. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I followed the links and it's not pretty. It felt good to see Valliant correctly identified by nonpartisan editors using rational criteria. The charge of PARC not being a reliable source is even open to correction by them (by explicit statement) if the criteria can be met. But for now, according to Wikipedia, PARC is not a reliable source. I expect that to endure. I certainly wouldn't advise anyone holding their breath waiting for Valliant (or his supporters) to satisfy the reliability standards.

Also, apparently the busy busy busy efforts of one "IP 160" to pollute Wikipedia with references to PARC in all kinds of places was finally caught. I wonder who that was?

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All references to Valliant's book, PARC, are now being cut from Wikipedia for PARC not being a "reliable source." See the following in "Cross-Talk for Ayn Rand and Objectivism Articles" on the Wikipedia site:
Proposed removal of references to James Valliant and The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics

Following several discussions calling into question the work of James Valliant as a reliable source (e.g. 1, 2..., 3), I propose that all references to it be removed from Wikipedia until such time as it is shown to satisfy the criteria for reliable sources. If there is consensus to do so, I will begin in one week's time. Skomorokh 15:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm in favor of removing them. J Readings (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

By fire be purged. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I followed the links and it's not pretty. It felt good to see Valliant correctly identified by nonpartisan editors using rational criteria. The charge of PARC not being a reliable source is even open to correction by them (by explicit statement) if the criteria can be met. But for now, according to Wikipedia, PARC is not a reliable source. I expect that to endure. I certainly wouldn't advise anyone holding their breath waiting for Valliant (or his supporters) to satisfy the reliability standards.

Also, apparently the busy busy busy efforts of one "IP 160" to pollute Wikipedia with references to PARC in all kinds of places was finally caught. I wonder who that was?

:)

Michael

Michael -

Absolutely amazing! Good deal.

Bill P

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