Leonard Peikoff Edited The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics?

[Neil Parille]

This is what Valliant says.  I recall Valliant saying he and Peikoff weren't close friends.  Does anyone recall where Valliant said (or denied) anything like this?

(7) James Valliant on Peikoff - TDO 352 | Jonathan Hoenig, Nikos & James Valliant - YouTube

It's about 14 mins in.

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, Neil Parille said:

This is what Valliant says.  I recall Valliant saying he and Peikoff weren't close friends.  Does anyone recall where Valliant said (or denied) anything like this?

(7) James Valliant on Peikoff - TDO 352 | Jonathan Hoenig, Nikos & James Valliant - YouTube

It's about 14 mins in.

All I can say about this is Peikoff is a much, much better writer than V.

--Brant

at least when Rand helped him

[Peter]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

All I can say about this is Peikoff is a much, much better writer than V.

--Brant

at least when Rand helped him

I thought OPEC was quite good. Helped or not.

[Neil Parille]

Peikoff pod cast 76 from 2009.  https://peikoff.com/2009/08/24/do-you-approve-of-the-intellectual-battle-waged-by-jim-valliant-and-diana-shaw/

_______________

Now I have another question from the same person about two individual objectivists with a public profile.  In a long question, he wants to know what I think of them, do I agree with them and my answer is I thoroughly approve of the intellectual battle waged by Jim Valliant and Diana Shay Shaw [Hsieh].  I admire the work of both to the extent that I know it.

_______________

I wouldn't get from this that he and Valliant are such close friends and that he even helped write The Passion of Ayn Rand's Cricits.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

10 hours ago, Peter said:

I thought OPEC was quite good. Helped or not.

Peter,

It depends on the era in history and a lot of foreign considerations. After all, the the oil market can be complicated.

Oh... did you mean OPAR?

   

Michael

[Peter]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Oh... did you mean OPAR?

Aaaarrrrggg! I did.

[Neil Parille]

Casey Fahy in 2005,

__________

When he published that part, on my own website, we both believed that doing so would jeopardize what relationship he had had with Leonard Peikoff. I can personally vouch for the fact that Jim did not consult with Peikoff or anyone else associated with ARI about the content of his book—at all, ever. As proof of this, when Dr. Peikoff did make Rand's papers available to him, Peikoff told Jim that his first reaction to the very idea of the project was, and I quote, "Am I gonna have to pick a fight with Valliant now?" And, it was reading those original essays alone that convinced Peikoff to make Rand's notes available. Period.

___________

In the comments to this article both James and his wife commented without correcting this egregious error.

[N. Parille]

In case it gets deleted, here is my SOLO P post:

___________________________________________________

As partisans of the “PARC wars” may recall, James Valliant claimed that The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics (2005) was “heavily edited” but never named the editor.

Yesterday, James stated that when Leonard Peikoff learned of the draft of PARC that was on the internet 1999-2000, he called James and said that Rand's notes corroborated what he wrote. Further, "he helped me edit the Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics."* Please tell me that Peikoff wasn't responsible even in part for the editing of this horrible book.

Can anyone here who was involved in the PARC wars recall James saying that Peikoff helped him edit the book?

In fact, on Rebirth of Reason, Valliant’s collaborator and friend Casey Fahy denied that Leonard Peikoff had any role in PARC “at all, ever.” In the comment section to the same article, James and his wife (the "Magenta Hornet") commented and failed to correct Casey on this mistake.

Lest anyone think that I'm making this up, here is Casey:

"The repeated claim that this book represents the 'official' position of the Ayn Rand Institute is particularly amusing to me. When Valliant, a good friend of mine, wrote Part I of the book, he knew that the Ayn Rand Institute took a dim view of even mentioning the Brandens. When he published that part, on my own website, we both believed that doing so would jeopardize what relationship he had had with Leonard Peikoff. I can personally vouch for the fact that Jim did not consult with Peikoff or anyone else associated with ARI about the content of his book—at all, ever. As proof of this, when Dr. Peikoff did make Rand's papers available to him, Peikoff told Jim that his first reaction to the very idea of the project was, and I quote, 'Am I gonna have to pick a fight with Valliant now?' And, it was reading those original essays alone that convinced Peikoff to make Rand's notes available. Period."**

Best I can tell, Peikoff has never said he was involved in the editing of the book. In 2009 (after PARC was published), Peikoff was asked about Valliant (and Dr. Diana). His response:

"Now I have another question from the same person about two individual objectivists with a public profile. In a long question, he wants to know what I think of them, do I agree with them and my answer is I thoroughly approve of the intellectual battle waged by Jim Valliant and Diana Shay Shaw [Hsieh]. I admire the work of both to the extent that I know it."**

According to James, PARC will be republished by Fred Weiss next year with a new preface.

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

** http://rebirthofreason.com/Art...

*** https://peikoff.com/2009/08/24...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

34 minutes ago, N. Parille said:

According to James, PARC will be republished by Fred Weiss next year with a new preface.

Neil,

Heh.

I didn't know Fred was so into charity.

Cause on the free market, he ain't getting his investment back.

Which brings up an interesting speculation. Who is actually funding the costs if a new edition actually happens? Valliant himself?

Michael

[Neil Parille]

Michael,

 According to JV, Weiss will be publishing a reprint of the 2005 PARC with a new introduction.  If Valliant owns the rights, then it probably won't cost much money for Weiss to print it.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, Neil Parille said:

Michael,

 According to JV, Weiss will be publishing a reprint of the 2005 PARC with a new introduction.  If Valliant owns the rights, then it probably won't cost much money for Weiss to print it.

 

Neil,

True if he does print on demand.

Not so true if he runs off an edition of 3,000 copies or so.

That cost is not huge, but it's still money and I seriously doubt unit sales will cover it for a long, long time.

But who knows? I might be wrong and PARC makes it to the NYT bestseller list this go around.

 

Michael

[Neil Parille]

I don't think Peikoff edited PARC, much if at all.  For example, Valliant says that Rand never met Barbara again after 1968.  Certainly Leonard would have heard of the 1981 meeting.

There is also the ethical issue of editing a book critiquing books you've sworn you'd never read.  Also, Jim mentions Brandens post -68 writings which I doubt Leonard read.

[Neil Parille]

If anyone wants to know what a brazen liar Valliant is, he repeated his claim that Durban House (the book's publisher) was independent. 

Here is "Durban House" reviewing David Kelley's Truth and Toleration on Amazon.

 

Customer Review

Durban House Publishing

1.0 out of 5 stars Wide Open Mind

Reviewed in the United States on July 21, 2002

 

Kelley endorses a concept of "tolerance" that includes the "toleration" of the comprehensive dishonesty of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden. A "Big-L" Libertarian is almost by definition one who uncritically embraces the Brandens or Rothbard in their dishonest slams on Ayn Rand, just as Kelley has now embraced the Brandens.
Politically, the valid concept is "rights." Morally, the concept of "tolerance" is meaningless. Debating, discussing or working with someone depends on having an honest colleague or rival to do it with, whatever you agree or disagree about. Nothing positive can come from cooperating with the dishonest. "Tolerating" the dishonest, in any non-political sense, means endorsing it -- voluntarily giving it the very credibility it does not deserve. Would Kelley debate flat-earth advocates or those who deny the Holocaust, if he found in a particular case, he wasn't totally sure whether the advocate was evading or not...?

22 people found this helpful

Amazon.com

WWW.AMAZON.COM

 

[Neil Parille]

James Valliant doesn't like me:

 

[Mark]

I don’t know enough biblical history and theology to follow the disagreement between Neil and Valliant but obviously Valliant isn’t exactly a class act.  From the video:

“What Neil Parille does, this is the jerk we’re talking about, the dishonest, lying, you know, stalker. I mean the guy’s got mental issues as far as I can tell, ah, huh, ha, huh, huh, huh, huuh.”

 

 

[Neil Parille]

I live 3,000 miles away from Valliant, have never attempted to call him on the phone, visit him, or send him a regular letter.  I guess that makes me a "stalker."

[Neil Parille]

For those who don't know, Valliant's theory is a version of Roman Provenance Theory, the idea that the Roman Emperors (or people close to them) created Christianity (or perhaps hijacked it for their own purposes).  This theory isn't given the time of day by anyone.  Even atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman has said "a sophomore with 2 semesters of New Testament can see through it," or words to that effect.

[Neil Parille]

One of the best known Josephus scholars discusses Valliant's theory (though not by name) at 3:13:30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvfPxFQCpCU&t=3:14:00

 

[Neil Parille]

I've submitted this to the ARCHN blog.

________________________________________

 

As long-time readers of the Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature blog might remember, one of the strangest incidents in the recent history of the Objectivist movement was the publication in 2005 of The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics (PARC) by James Valliant.  This book took aim at Barbara Branden’s 1986 biography of Ayn Rand, The Passion of Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden’s two memoirs.  It is also noteworthy for including Rand’s diaries from the time of her break with Nathaniel Branden.  These diaries were provided to Valliant by Rand’s heir, Leonard Peikoff.

PARC is, to put it mildly, a rather bizarre book.  Even on face value, much of what Valliant says doesn’t support his claim that Branden books are lies from beginning to end.  To take a typical example, Valliant attacked the Brandens for throwing a surprise party for Rand to celebrate the publication of Atlas Shrugged.  This was no less than a plot “control Rand’s context by deception.”  The book is also incredibly sloppy.  Page after page contains numerous misrepresentations of the Branden books and other source material.  For example, in the book’s summary of a two-paragraph interview of John Hospers, I counted five misquotations. *

PARC was initially greeted with enthusiasm by ARI-inclined Objectivists.  But shortly after the publication of the book, I and others began critiquing the book.   My 2008 critique took 81 pages to detail all the misquotations, copying errors, and false attributions in a book of 190 pages (the diaries begin at page 191).  Things got worse for Mr. Valliant in 2009 when Jennifer Burns and Anne Heller published biographies of Rand.  These biographies, while occasionally correcting the record (for example Rand didn’t get her name from a typewriter) were on the whole supportive of Barbara Branden’s biography and used it extensively as a source.  Indeed, in some sense they were more critical of Rand, arguing that Rand’s mental health was compromised by decades of amphetamine use.  (Incidentally, Branden had said this was unlikely.)  PARC is now out of print, the only book containing Rand’s posthumous material to have such a status.** Curiously, former ARI chairman Yaron Brook has on recent episodes of his podcast attacked the Brandens and their books, but did not mention PARC.

Following the publication of PARC, there was a great deal of back and forth among me, Valliant, and others about the book.  Valliant was incapable of acknowledging the huge number of misquotes and misrepresentations of his source.  One of the most humorous aspects of what I dubbed “the PARC Wars” was Valliant’s taking to Wikipedia to insert favorable mentions of his book in various articles, something contrary to Wikipedia’s rules.   When the proverbial poop hit the fan, Valliant, you guessed it, said it was his wife who was responsible for the insertions.  Valliant made other bizarre claims, most notably that Durban House, the book’s publisher, was “independent,” when in fact “Durban House” published a review of dissident Objectivist David Kelley’s The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand (which took aim at Leonard Peikoff’s essay, Fact and Value) on Amazon.  The review sounds suspiciously like something a ARI zealot would write.

In defense of his book, Valliant has said it was “heavily edited.”   Over the years, Valliant has refused all requests to name the mystery editor.  However, in October 2021, Valliant said Peikoff helped him edit PARC.  This appears to contradict what Valliant’s friend and collaborator Casey Fahy said on the Rebirth of Reason website in 2005.

"The repeated claim that this book represents the 'official' position of the Ayn Rand Institute is particularly amusing to me. When Valliant, a good friend of mine, wrote Part I of the book, he knew that the Ayn Rand Institute took a dim view of even mentioning the Brandens. When he published that part, on my own website, we both believed that doing so would jeopardize what relationship he had had with Leonard Peikoff. I can personally vouch for the fact that Jim did not consult with Peikoff or anyone else associated with ARI about the content of his book—at all, ever. As proof of this, when Dr. Peikoff did make Rand's papers available to him, Peikoff told Jim that his first reaction to the very idea of the project was, and I quote, 'Am I gonna have to pick a fight with Valliant now?' And, it was reading those original essays alone that convinced Peikoff to make Rand's notes available. Period."

In the comment section to the same article, Valliant and his wife (the "Magenta Hornet") posted and failed to correct Fahy on this apparent mistake.

Best I can tell, Peikoff has never said he was involved in the editing of the book.  Valliant also implied in October interview that he and Peikoff were rather close friends, something that he never hinted at.  In 2009, Peikoff was asked about Valliant (and Diana Hsieh). His response:

"Now I have another question from the same person about two individual objectivists with a public profile. In a long question, he wants to know what I think of them, do I agree with them and my answer is I thoroughly approve of the intellectual battle waged by Jim Valliant and Diana Shay Shaw [Hsieh]. I admire the work of both to the extent that I know it.”

Indeed, one note in the book is inconsistent with Peikoff’s having been the editor.  One of the most sensational claims in Branden’s biography is the contention that Rand’s husband was driven to alcoholism because of Rand’s affair with Nathaniel.  Valliant denies this, giving Peikoff’s rebuttal for some of Branden’s evidence.  According to Valliant, “This is the author’s best recollection of Leonard Peikoff’s statement in response to a question on the subject given during a conversation at his home in California in 1991 . . . .”

We may never know the truth about this, but Valliant’s claim that Peikoff is the mystery editor raises a couple question.

First, Peikoff said that the time The Passion of Ayn Rand was published that he would never read the book (and this would presumably apply to any future memoirs of Nathan Branden).  Editing a critique of books that you’ve never read and were written by people you despise strikes me as an ethical problem.  And, as anyone knows who has ever written or edited anything for publication, the highest percentage of mistakes concern citation errors and copying errors.  An editor who refuses to read the books in question and thus could not check the source material would be an incompetent and almost useless editor.

Second, say what you want about Peikoff, he is a good writer.  It’s hard to imagine him not catching some of the obvious mistakes, non sequiturs, and repetitions, particularly since he knew the parties and was involved in the various disputes which the Brandens are supposedly lying about. As an example, Valliant says that Rand never had any contact with the Brandens after the 1968 break.  However, Rand and Barbara Branden met in 1980.  Peikoff must have heard about this meeting.  (It is mentioned in Peikoff’s then-wife Cynthia’s interview in the ARI sponsored oral history, 100 Voices.)

It’s hard to know what to make of all this.  Perhaps Valliant is telling the truth and that during the promotion of the book Peikoff did not want PARC to be seen as an authorized response to books he would never deign to read.  Needless to say, nothing in Valliant’s defense of PARC provides reason to give him the benefit of the doubt either.

 

* When confronted with the various misquotations, Valliant said is standard procedure to paraphrase sources, even when using quotation marks.

** Valliant said in the 2021 interview that he is working on a revised edition of PARC which will critique the 2009 biographies of Rand.

[Neil Parille]

I just relistened to Valliant's interview.  He reinterated that Leonard said he'd never read the books.   No claim that he changed his mind.  Also, Valliant said he (Valliant) wanted to print Rand's diaries without comment but it was Peikoff who encouraged him to put in comments, which they worked on together.  I find this hard to believe.

[Neil Parille]

Addendum

After I sent this post to Greg, I re-listened to the video (which starts at 19:28).  Valliant said that it was his intention to publish Rand's diaries "in raw form."  However, when he began the editing process with Peikoff, he had already written some of the commentary on the diaries.  When PARC was published these notes were integrated into Rand's diaries, presumably with Peikoff's approval.  This certainly contradicts what Fahy said about Peikoff having no role in the content of PARC.  It would be truly unfortunate if Peikoff was responsible for the insertion of Valliant's hectoring and borderline slanderous notes (e.g, "Bullseye, Miss Rand," comparing Nathaniel to a "junkie" and a "drug addict," having "the soul of a rapist," calling his girlfriend Patrecia a "fraud," etc.).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 1/15/2022 at 8:55 AM, Neil Parille said:

I've submitted this to the ARCHN blog.

Just so people know, it is published there now.

Here is the link:

The PARC Wars Revisited

Enjoy.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

PARC, the unfixable book. It read like a prosecutor's brief.

--Brant

[Neil Parille]

My guess is that the truth is closer to what Fahy said in 2005 (no role for Peikoff) and not what Valliant said in 2021 (practically co author).

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

22 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

It read like a prosecutor's brief.

Brant,

That "prosecutor's brief" idea came from a guy over on SoloHQ who took a year off from everything to reread everything Rand wrote. I can't remember his name right now, but we were in contact backstage. I will post his name if I remember it.

This was a person who was not much of an active poster, or maybe he posted some, but was a low profile poster. So he was someone everyone knew, but few paid attention to as a shaker and maker.

In the very early days of the PARC wars, he wrote an article or maybe a post about PARC where he characterized it as a "prosecutor's brief" and suddenly everybody and their families started calling PARC  a "prosecutor's brief." Nobody ever thought to credit this guy, though. I wish I could remember his name, but, alas, I am not eternal enough to figure out how to search for it in the old SoloHQ archives (over at RoR, it is hard enough and over at Solo Passion, the SoloHQ stuff now links to the Wayback Machine).

And even in my own emails, without the guy's name, er... I just thought of something. I'm right now, this very minute, looking up "Hsieh" as a keyword in my emails.

Voilà! The name is William Perry.

 

BRAIN FART ALERT:

ORIGINAL TEXT FROM MSK: I don't recall the article or post where he reframed PARC as a prosecutor's brief, but if someone has the patience to look, they will definitively find it.

At least let it now be said--here, now and forever--that PARC as a prosecutor's brief was the idea of one William Perry.

  

NOTE FROM MSK: Actually, TG, below, found the article and it was not "prosecutor's brief," but "closing argument" instead. Oh well.  Please take that into account when reading this post and comments about it. 

END BRAIN FART ALERT

 

He also told me that among the people around Diana Hsieh at the time, they were discussing rehabilitating the Brandens in some form, but only after both of them had died. This was supposed to be punishment for what they did to Ayn Rand.

NOTE FROM MSK: I am almost sure this came from him, but since I had a brain fart on the other, let me qualify it and say that information about rehabilitating the Brandens after they are dead might have come from someone else, but inside my mind (where angels fear to tread  ) I am 99% sure is is Perry. So please understand that my certainty here as "almost sure." However, the story about me telling Barbara is 100% true.

All I could do was take that in without comment at the time and wonder, what's wrong with these people? Talk about an excess of control-freakness.

I made the mistake of telling Barbara this and she looked like I just drove a stake through her heart. She didn't speak--deadly silence--for about 5 minutes as she looked without blinking at a spot on the ground.

I never said this in public before because I didn't want to give the knuckleheads the satisfaction of knowing their malice had caused hurt to Barbara. They would interpret it as her feeling ashamed and that was not what she conveyed to me. Her hurt was more in the way of knowing that people in the movement she loved so dearly hated her for real, in reality, not in hyperbole. 

But I don't think any of this matters much anymore. Why? Because the influence of that whole PARC culture in spinning all Branden-related issues in a grossly distorted manner--and, quite frankly, most of those people--don't matter anymore.

Like you said, PARC is unfixable. That includes what it stands for. So that's the important part: the result--not the mind-numbing hairsplitting over every word the Brandens ever uttered and every deed they ever did and every evil thought that could be imputed to them as their own thinking. That fringe will never go away, but at least it will remain fringe.

History as understood by the majority will not be rewritten by boneheads. Never fear, though. There will always be boneheads. They are like the poor, they will always be with us.

 

btw - I am at odds with Leonard Peikoff on many things, but I just don't see him participating in lying to the public until the Brandens died in order to punish them. I see his anti-Branden efforts in light of his beliefs about Rand, but not to the extent of becoming a dishonest historian in order to punish anyone.

In fact, not too long after I got that email, maybe it was a year or two, Hsieh was no longer in the good graces of Peikoff and his peeps.

Someone even made a website complaining about her and a small tribe of the pro-Peikovians signed on. The website was--and still is--called Checking Premises. They said it wasn't only about Hsieh, but she is practically all they wrote about with a couple of general CYA articles thrown in. I think all this started when she began discussing the morality of cannibalism through an Objectivist filter. Seriously.  

I had to do some real research to come up with some of this, especially names. They were nowhere to be found in my memory. Not readily.

Am I getting old or is this stuff just not important?

 

Ah... O-Land... Where would I be without ye?...

 

Michael