The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism


Neil Parille

Recommended Posts

Ayn Rand gets big points for writing Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. She gets big points for a stunningly heroic life. That George Washington may have chopped down a cherry tree doesn't match up too well against "Father of the Country." If he did, though, he wasn't "morally perfect." Hence, the inherent stupidity in the concept which denies human dynamism, achievement, fallibility in place of a static, frozen view of humanity and oneself. That is kowtowing to appearances and is secondhandism or social metaphysicianism--posing as Ayn Rand (or whomever) instead of being Ayn Rand (or whomever). I want also to point out that if "moral perfection" is "easy" then being morally perfect is hardly heroic. Hence Casey says "Yup" to the question of whether he is. This denigrates Ayn Rand to the core.

...to be a true heir of Ayn Rand means being an individual and living a life of integrity--growing up and growing out.

--Brant

Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 387
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

While we're on the subject of weird ethics, I was interested in Bill Perry's peculiar article on Solo where, because Phil Coates made what even Perry considers to be an honest mistake in scheduling a speech many years ago, Perry decides to avoid him forever! Weirder yet, eight years after this, Perry digs the whole trivial episode up again as the basis of a whole essay on the Objectivist ethic of commitment, and then breathlessly "outs" Phil as the subject of the essay in comments. I am trying to imagine a more petty-minded act, but confess it's a struggle.

Of course, as I've referred to on another thread, this becomes less strange once we consider the implications of Rand's totalism, where trivial disputes can be logically translated into fundamental philosophical errors (we should also note the familiar conflation of evil and error that Objectivism ostensibly deplores). Obviously the temptation to disguse petty personal gripes with pretentious philosophical justifications that Rand's totalism offers is irresistable, even to supposedly intelligent adults.

Edited by Daniel Barnes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on guys. Everybody knows Phil Coates, in addition to being challenged cognitively, is evil and trying to undermine the Objectivist philosophy by word and deed. Do you want proof?

He admits he hasn't read PARC yet.

Now if that ain't evil, I don't know what is. No wonder he broke his promise to Bill Perry. It's in his premises to do these things. I would say he can't help himself, but he can. All he needs to do is read the damn book!

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on guys. Everybody knows Phil Coates, in addition to being challenged cognitively, is evil and trying to undermine the Objectivist philosophy by word and deed. Do you want proof?

He admits he hasn't read PARC yet.

Now if that ain't evil, I don't know what is. No wonder he broke his promise to Bill Perry. It's in his premises to do these things. I would say he can't help himself, but he can. All he needs to do is read the damn book!

Then he can become morally perfect like.. like... like...

(Sorry, I start laughing so hard I just can't do it...)

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kept looking at Perry's photo while reading the article and his follow-up posts, expecting to see a pouty girl, like maybe Nellie Olesen from Little House on the Prairie. But, nope, it was actually a grown man in the image.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard some of Bill Perry's complaints before about Objectivists who don't honor their commitments. At least, about the unnamed person in the TOC office who (if Bill's account is accurate) was chronically promising to do things he had little or no intention of actually doing. That one had some face validity.

But the complaint about Phil Coates is a new one for me.

And, frankly, I don't get it.

The commitment that Phil failed to deliver on was changing the time of a Participant Sponsored Session at at a TOC event. A Participant Sponsored Session (as the phrase suggests) isn't part of the official speaker program. TOC/TAS leaves some space in the Summer Seminar schedule and makes rooms available at the conference venue for this purpose. I've done two of these informal sessions and attended several others. It simply would not have occurred to me to ask another speaker to change the time of his Participant Sponsored Session because his topic might be a bigger draw than mine.

I could see complaining to Phil about not making good on his promise to reschedule. But studiously avoiding him as much as possible for the next 8 years? What for?

It does come across as petty.

I've had a number of disagreements with Bill Perry, but until I saw his peevish slam at Phil, "petty" was just not a description that would have come to mind.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going through some older posts because I wanted to finish one small item that I started, then I came across the following gem (edited down and discussing mainly posts by Fahy on Solo Passion).

I particularly appreciate their scatological/digestive and sexual-like approach to defending their brand of Objectivism and the Goddess Rand. It's quite funny. (Start somewhere around here, but this is only for about 3 posts, so more will probably be added.) Here are some choice goodies of so-called rational passion.
sewer

Gatorade-colored bile

let off the stinkbomb

nose hairs he has plucked and proves that they are ASS HAIRS

mutual masturbation

that sewer's standards

skunk

child pornographer

Namblaphile

cockroach [not really on topic, but thrown in for good measure]

the mud pie that someone threw at his ass just as he was defecating

crapped on an apple pie

loved to crap on freshly baked pies

I had forgotten about this display of moral perfection (and then some), so I went to the thread and decided to share with you all some tidbits from Fahy's good old fashion Objectivist moral perfection (and then some). As imperfect as we are and always will be, let's hope some of it rubs off.

From here:

. . . (About Neil Parille:)

So now I understand why he retreats when the whole context is once again filled in around the nose hairs he has plucked and proves that they are ASS HAIRS and he has once again bungled the chain of custody BY DROPPING THE CONTEXT.

. . . (About OL:)

. . . the artificially sweetened defenses of Rand that would cause cancer on contact with lab rats, the sheer suffocation of individual thinking that is caused by such mutual masturbation, is sad and awful to witness.

From here (edited down, a lesson offered to Neil in how to properly utilize Valliant's method of analysis to keep context, with an original example penned by the bard of perfection himself):

As an illustration of context, Neil, here is a paragraph:

"Neil had a penchant for crapping on freshly baked pies. The apple pie was tragic. The peach, even moreso as there were crust-related complications that magnified the worst aspects of the event. The kidney pie was an unspeakable episode. The mincemeat pie may, some have said, have been an accident. Then there was the mud pie that someone threw at his ass just as he was defecating. And, of course, there was the key lime pie, which may have caused the most pain of all."

Now, in none of those sentences did I actually say Neil deliberately crapped on an apple pie, a peach pie, a kidney pie, a mincemeat pie, a mud pie or a key lime pie.

(contented sigh)

I do admit, that's a lot of moral perfection (and then some) to swallow in a single dose for us ordinary imperfect mortals, but sometimes we need to contemplate our betters and hope the radiance of life as it could and should be does not blind us.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've given several PSS's at Summer Seminars and I like Robert would never dream of asking another person to change their time. The only exception would be if I wanted to hear the PSS the other person was giving. I am disappointing in Bill Perry.

Edited by Chris Grieb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've given several PSS's at Summer Seminars and I like Robert would never dream of asking another person to change their time. The only exception would be if I wanted to hear the PSS the other person was giving. I am disappointing in Bill Perry.

Folks,

Evaluate the story as you will (I, too, find the ostensive reason given, of itself, a silly one on the basis of which to try to avoid a person for eight years). But please don't make an Objectivist Urban Legend out of the report of what happened. Bill Perry did NOT say that he asked the (unnamed) person (later identified as Phil Coates) to change the time of his PSS. Bill says that he told Phil he'd change the time of his, Bill's, presentation, that Phil then volunteered to change the time of his presentation instead but then didn't do so.

(The part which puzzles me about the thread on SOLO is wondering, Did Phil not recognize, when he read the initial blog entry, that Bill was talking about him?)

The full entry can be found at:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/2873

In 1999 I attended the IOS summer seminar in Burlington, Vermont. I spent a great deal of time preparing a talk about privatizing prosecution. As a working prosecutor I had some insights that few would have. The talk was for a participant sponsored seminar. I had attended my first summer seminar the year before. I was all fired up about Objectivism and IOS. This was very important to me.

I scheduled the talk. I spoke to a number of people who were interested in coming. Then another person scheduled a talk opposite it. It is perfectly appropriate to schedule talks opposite other one. The format is competitive by its nature. There are presentations on a variety of topics.

The second talk was about an imminent problem. Many people decided to attend it. A number of people told me that they were going to attend my presentation, but decided to attend the other talk instead.

I decided to change the time of my talk. I ran into the second speaker, and told him that I was changing my time, and that I would attend his presentation. He told me that he would change his time instead. At this point I made two mistakes. The first thing that I should have told him was not to change his time since he had so many people coming. The second was to believe him. I had never met this person before, but I knew that he was a seasoned Objectivist.

Of course he never changed the time. I honestly think he forgot. I had ten people come to my presentation. I probably would have had twenty had I rescheduled. He had 60 or 70. The ten who heard mine got a well thought out presentation by a working prosecutor, detailing how prosecution could be privatized. The others heard a talk about a problem that never materialized.

So what did I do about it? I avoided the person who made the commitment to change his presentation. It was pretty easy to do at the summer seminar. I only told two people what happened. Both were very close friends. I have attempted to avoid him (not always successfully) ever since.

[....]

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[ . . . much omitted ]
. . . (About Neil Parille:)

[ . . . ] an apple pie, a peach pie, a kidney pie, a mincemeat pie, a mud pie or a key lime pie.

(contented sigh)

Now, here I am thinking this should be moved over the Food subforum. I can't get all the pies straight . . .

. . . on another note, what do you call (in Randianese) someone who does not face up to an opposing argument?

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WS:

>. . . on another note, what is the definition (in Randianese) of someone who does not face up to an opposing argument?

You mean what is the term? The official Objectivist jargon is "evader" or "evasion."

Shoot! I was going to say "Randian." :-)

reb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

~ Let's not get too myopic peoples; there's another perspective (if not 'term'):

"But, I don't think of you." (or...'pay attention to what you wrote/said.')

A 'MORALLY-PERFECT' PERSON (go on; I dare ya ta say otherwise :poke: go on; I double-dare ya!)

LLAP

J:D

PS: I'm not familiar with this 'Bill Perry' or the shenanigans mentioned, but, anyone castigating Phil Coates is an a** in my book. And the less said about 'more-Randian-(or is it Piekoffian?)-than-thou' Fahy, the better. Why promote discussion on these guys' elitist manure?

Edited by John Dailey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose somebody has to mention the obvious with the product of Valliant's latest logical pretzel bakery.

Valliant wrote a post approriately entitled "Sigh" on Solo Passion (see here). In it, he explains that Rand, being "a far greater master of the English language than" Neil, would have known that people would read her statement on the back book cover of Atlas Shrugged and not understood her meaning—unless they had read the book. (In Valliant-land, people only read back book-covers after they have read the entire book.) He has the strange idea that she was redefining the word "help" in the same manner she did "selfishness" in The Virtue of Selfishness. He admits that she used the word with several meanings in Atlas, but thinks that anyone who reads her phrase that she received help from no one and does not understand that she is using the meaning he chooses is making "a willful misreading of Rand."

In other words (logically extended), the general public hates Rand so much that it reads her wrong on purpose. It maliciously takes her at her word when it reads that not receiving help from anyone means not receiving help from anyone. Valliant calls this a "distortion." He claims that Rand meant she never made some kind of irrational claim on others to altruistically provide her with aid.

After reading PARC more thoroughly than that book deserves, I can state with certaintly that Rand was "a far greater master of the English language" and conceptual thinking than he was or ever will be. Rand knew that people read book covers (front and back) at the time they buy the thing, not after they read it. The idea that the exaggeration was hype to help sell the book (create a question in the reader's mind, "what does she mean?" or "I gotta see how she can say that" or something of that nature), and that Rand knew this, would never occur to him because that certainly would not be any kind of "moral perfection" to worship. That would be purposely misleading the reader, just like Madison Ave. does when it insinuates that you get the pretty girl if you buy the car.

This is nothing but Valliant's usual hairsplitting to bash the Brandens. He calls anyone who takes Rand at her word as having been "taken in by the Brandens' intentionally shallow but all-too-common misreads of Rand." The insinuation of this is staggering, though, if you think about it. This implies that nobody can think for themselves. They either need Valliant to do their thinking for them or the Brandens to do so. This is so alienated, the sheer magnitude of the blank-out is so great, that it is almost painful to watch. And it is disrespectful of people in general at root.

Valliant laments the "unfair misreading of PARC" and it does not occur to him that people not misreading it at all, but merely looking at what he wrote and seeing that passages of it do not align with reality when placed side-by-side, say with quotes from the books he is criticizing.

He shows a complete disconnection between his thoughts and reality. It is disturbing that this alienated attitude is commonly on display by the orthodoxy. Objectivism is supposed to be a philosphy for properly identifying reality, not for becoming alienated and saying "No one understands me."

What is telling is how Valliant starts and ends that particular post:

I have to say that I am very disappointed with most of you posters.

. . .

As I say, it is the sad ignorance of some others on the subject of Objectivism 101 that seems to be on surprising display around here.

Now here is the obvious thing I mentioned at the beginning. Solo Passion is a site run and supported by people who like PARC. Valliant is saying that most of them do not understand it. So what is it that they like?

Heh.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Here, in part, was Valliant's response: "Would it ever occur to you [Neil] to look outside of a single two or three-page area for any one of your efforts?)"

Well, in this context, the answer is no.

The discussion of the "help" issue is on pages 41-43 of PARC. Prior to the "help" issue there is a discussion of Barbara Branden's view of Rand's psychology. After, there is a discussion of NB's comments on Rand's view of Mises in her marginalia.

So the reader is entitled to assume that the discussion on pages 41-43 is an accurate description of the topic. There are no footnotes indicating that the reader should look to other works or additional sections of PARC for a fuller amplification of the topic.

And observe that NB mentions Albert Mannheimer in the context of the help issue. Yet the only time Valliant mentions Mannheimer is on pages 68-69 in an unrelated context. And there is no mention of the specific time period referenced by NB.

So even if I were to look at other places in Valliant's book (which I did as a conscientous reviewer), how doees that change the fact that Valliant does a crummy job of summarizing his sources?

Edited by Neil Parille
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Valliant wrote a post approriately entitled "Sigh" on Solo Passion (see here). In it, he explains that Rand, being "a far greater master of the English language than" Neil, would have known that people would read her statement on the back book cover of Atlas Shrugged and not understood her meaning—unless they had read the book.

Detail: The statement under discussion is in the "About the Author" postscript to Atlas, at least in all the editions I have; it's the last pages of the text, not back-cover copy.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

You are right. I was going from memory. I just looked at two different versions of Atlas and it is called "About the Author" at the end.

Technically I suppose you could call it a postscript, but it is not titled as such like I have seen postscripts titled in other novels (which also included "About the Author" sections). It is simply a short "About the Author" informational section written by somebody else.

Rand did make an integrated tie-in that is charming, though (an "artist thing"). The first sentence of the section is given below, and I have no doubt this was at her suggestion:

"My personal life," says Ayn Rand, "is a postscript to my novels; it consists of the sentence: 'And I mean it.'

My point about reading habits of buyers still stands, however. I don't have survey numbers, but I imagine many readers look at this information if they know nothing about the author before buying the book or, if they already have it, before reading it. I know I do, almost always. I like to get to know something about the author I am getting ready to spend some hours with.

I see no reason on earth to presume (as insinuated by Valliant) that all readers will read this blurb (which is also another manner of calling the "About the Author" section) only after they have read a 1000+ page book. So I still find his manner of thinking disconnected from reality.

Just substitute "'About the Author' section" where I wrote "back book cover" and the rest of my comments stand as written.

EDIT: Just to check that I wasn't mistaken about the postscript idea, I decided to do a little Google test. Here are my results

"about the author postscript" - 11 hits (incidentally, 9 of which are by Neil Parille)

"about the author section" - 28,700 hits

"about the author blurb" - 690 hits

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is simply a short "About the Author" informational section written by somebody else.

The entire thing, except the "says Ayn Rand," is written by her. Look again. ;-)

I see no reason on earth to presume (as insinuated by Valliant) that all readers will read this blurb (which is also another manner of calling the "About the Author" section) only after they have read a 1000+ page book. So I still find his manner of thinking disconnected from reality.

Just substitute "'About the Author' section" where I wrote "back book cover" and the rest of my comments stand as written.

I don't see any reason, either, to presume that all readers would read the blurb only after finishing the novel. Nor do I buy Valliant's (definitely stretching it) interpretation of what she was saying. Nor do I think he accurately rendered Nathaniel's remarks (I agree with Neil on the issue). On the other hand, I don't think the entirety of your remarks stand as written, just with the substitution made.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The entire thing, except the "says Ayn Rand," is written by her. Look again. ;-)

She is quoted. She is not the author per se, which leads me to believe that she was doing her integration thing and it was her suggestion (as I said).

On the other hand, I don't think the entirety of your remarks stand as written, just with the substitution made.

This made me curious, so I decided to look. (I will only speculate since you did not say where your opinion is that my remarks do not stand.)

I suppose somebody has to mention the obvious with the product of Valliant's latest logical pretzel bakery.

Maybe you don't think Valliant bakes logical pretzels. But you have claimed the contrary before, not with that metaphor, but with that meaning.

Valliant wrote a post appropriately entitled "Sigh" on Solo Passion (see here). In it, he explains that Rand, being "a far greater master of the English language than" Neil, would have known that people would read her statement in the About the Author section on the back book cover of Atlas Shrugged and not understood her meaning—unless they had read the book.

Maybe you think he didn't make those criticisms of Neil, but he did. They are in the linked post. Maybe you think he said that people would know what Rand's meaning was without reading Atlas, but he emphasized repeatedly that the meaning was in the book. In fact, this was his point—that the book changed the English language.

(In Valliant-land, people only read About the Author sections back book-covers after they have read the entire book.)

Maybe you disagree here, but your post says you don't, so the bothersome passage cannot be here.

He has the strange idea that she was redefining the word "help" in the same manner she did "selfishness" in The Virtue of Selfishness. He admits that she used the word with several meanings in Atlas, but thinks that anyone who reads her phrase that she received help from no one and does not understand that she is using the meaning he chooses is making "a willful misreading of Rand."

Maybe you think Valliant did not write these things, but he did. They are in the linked post.

In other words (logically extended), the general public hates Rand so much that it reads her wrong on purpose. It maliciously takes her at her word when it reads that not receiving help from anyone means not receiving help from anyone.

Maybe you disagree with the logical extension, but it does derive from Valliant's premises, it does accurately reflect his attitude both in PARC and over months and months of posting online, and it does not contradict what he says.

Valliant calls this a "distortion." He claims that Rand meant she never made some kind of irrational claim on others to altruistically provide her with aid.

Maybe you think Valliant did not write these things, but he did. They are in the linked post.

After reading PARC more thoroughly than that book deserves, I can state with certainty that Rand was "a far greater master of the English language" and conceptual thinking than he was or ever will be. Rand knew that people read the "About the Author" section book covers (front and back) at the time they buy the thing, not after they read it.

Maybe you think that Rand was not better at using the English language than Valliant, and maybe you think Rand did not know that people read the "About the Author" sections when they buy books. We would certainly disagree on these two points, but I can see where your opinion could differ.

The idea that the exaggeration was hype to help sell the book (create a question in the reader's mind, "what does she mean?" or "I gotta see how she can say that" or something of that nature), and that Rand knew this, would never occur to him because that certainly would not be any kind of "moral perfection" to worship. That would be purposely misleading the reader, just like Madison Ave. does when it insinuates that you get the pretty girl if you buy the car.

Or maybe you think Rand did not think at all about her book sales and marketing. Her history shows otherwise, though. She attended meetings with salespeople, made constant opinions about advertisements, etc. All this is published and on record. Or maybe you think Rand was not exaggerating for impact, but instead because she was outright lying or delusional. Or maybe you think Rand bought into the logical pretzel as Vallaint lays it out. I personally think she was a smart cookie and knew exactly what she was doing, especially given her lessons in public image from Hollywood. But who knows? Maybe you think Rand was not concerned with anything dealing with public image.

This is nothing but Valliant's usual hairsplitting to bash the Brandens. He calls anyone who takes Rand at her word as having been "taken in by the Brandens' intentionally shallow but all-too-common misreads of Rand."

Maybe you think Valliant doesn't make use of any opportunity to bash the Brandens.

The insinuation of this is staggering, though, if you think about it. This implies that nobody can think for themselves. They either need Valliant to do their thinking for them or the Brandens to do so. This is so alienated, the sheer magnitude of the blank-out is so great, that it is almost painful to watch. And it is disrespectful of people in general at root.

Maybe you think Valliant is the paragon of mental health, or at least a model of how to be in touch with reality. And maybe you think that Valliant respects his readers and lets them come to their own conclusions.

Valliant laments the "unfair misreading of PARC" and it does not occur to him that people [are] not misreading it at all, but merely looking at what he wrote and seeing that passages of it do not align with reality when placed side-by-side, say with quotes from the books he is criticizing.

Maybe you think people are being unfair in their criticism of PARC after all and that the side-by-side comparisons mean nothing.

He shows a complete disconnection between his thoughts and reality. It is disturbing that this alienated attitude is commonly on display by the orthodoxy. Objectivism is supposed to be a philosophy for properly identifying reality, not for becoming alienated and saying "No one understands me."

Maybe you think people really do not understand Valliant and need to learn how to think more like him (or at least clean up their thinking... er... somehow) so they can understand him better.

What is telling is how Valliant starts and ends that particular post:
I have to say that I am very disappointed with most of you posters.

. . .

As I say, it is the sad ignorance of some others on the subject of Objectivism 101 that seems to be on surprising display around here.

Now here is the obvious thing I mentioned at the beginning. Solo Passion is a site run and supported by people who like PARC. Valliant is saying that most of them do not understand it. So what is it that they like?

Heh.

Maybe you think Valliant did not complain that posters on Solo Passion do not understand Objectivism since they do not understand him, but he did. It's in the linked post and in the quote. Or maybe you think Solo Passion posters like PARC because they fully understand it, but are just being coy or something like that.

That's the full post. Nothing left out. I can see where your opinion might be that some of my comments do not stand. It's a shame I had to speculate so much since you provided no information, but I still stand fully by what I wrote. All of my comments stand.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

I think you misremembered the character of the item being discussed, and that you'd have written your post differently if you hadn't misremembered. I think the way the thing was done in the original edition, there was an attempt, as much as possible, to forestall readers from reading the "About the Author" until they'd finished the book. The item certainly wasn't used in the way "blurb" copy is used. In my case at least the sotte voce style of the way the page presentation was done worked to keep me from reading the "About the Author" until I'd finished the novel. I don't make a practice even now of looking to see how a novel ends before starting the novel. In the years when I first read Atlas I never looked at the ending before beginning. I might have in those years looked at back copy which was deliberately set up as advertising-to-be-noticed-as-such, but the "About the Author" thing isn't set up like that. Valliant isn't correct if he presumes that readers wouldn't read that end bit before starting the book, but I don't think he's so far off base in insinuating that the "About the Author" is meant to be read after the novel has been finished as you believe he is. And, to repeat, I think if you'd remembered the actual placement and style of the item, you'd have done your post differently. Exactly in what details I don't want to try to analyze.

Ellen

PS: I shouldn't myself have used the term "blurb" in my post #345. Haste. I think the item is much more weightily intended than the sort of copy generally described as a "blurb."

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

I think you misremembered the character of the item being discussed, and that you'd have written your post differently if you hadn't misremembered. I think the way the thing was done in the original edition, there was an attempt, as much as possible, to forestall readers from reading the "About the Author" until they'd finished the book. The item certainly wasn't used in the way "blurb" copy is used. In my case at least the sotte voce style of the way the page presentation was done worked to keep me from reading the "About the Author" until I'd finished the novel. I don't make a practice even now of looking to see how a novel ends before starting the novel. In the years when I first read Atlas I never looked at the ending before beginning. I might have in those years looked at back copy which was deliberately set up as advertising-to-be-noticed-as-such, but the "About the Author" thing isn't set up like that. Valliant isn't correct if he presumes that readers wouldn't read that end bit before starting the book, but I don't think he's so far off base in insinuating that the "About the Author" is meant to be read after the novel has been finished as you believe he is. And, to repeat, I think if you'd remembered the actual placement and style of the item, you'd have done your post differently. Exactly in what details I don't want to try to analyze.

Ellen

___

I always read about the author first. And last.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

Apparently I am not being clear. So I will try to explain a little better.

For me, none of the considerations are mutually exclusive. Obviously Rand meant the "About the Author" section to be read at the end of the book with an artistic and/or philosophical impact. When I say her "integration thing" I am referring precisely to this. She took a normal section of almost any book (one that often appears on the book jacket, which was why I goofed) and integrated it to the rest of her story. I actually like the effect qua art.

This does not obliterate the marketing angle, however, nor does it even insinuate that Rand was unaware that buyers and readers have a general habit of reading "About the Author" before embarking on the novel. I don't believe that Rand was that dense or, to use the jargon, blanked out that reality. So this section had a dual purpose in Atlas (or even more). One could argue which purpose is more important—both in general and to Rand—but to argue that Rand was totally unaware that "About the Author" sections in books are mostly commercial add-ons for whetting the appetite of readers is denigrating her intelligence. (I am not saying that you do that, but I am saying that Valliant does.)

Rand was obviously aware of the impact her words would have on a reader who read the entire book, and she was aware of their impact on a reader who was preparing to read the book. I think she took both situations into account as she planned that section.

When one looks at how Rand treated the word "selfishness," putting it in the title of VOS and then putting a big honking chip on her shoulder and daring the reader to knock it off in the very first words of the Introduction to VOS, this shows clearly that she intended to change the English language for that word. Even then, the value was not simply philosophical. She was doing it for the shock value, too. Polemics sell books and she was enough of a writer to draw attention to what is important.

She did no such thing for the phrase "helped me" for her statements in "About the Author" at the end of Atlas Shrugged, but that is exactly what Valliant alleges.

It's a logical pretzel to excuse Rand from the charge of exaggerating. But for me, Rand exaggerated on purpose. Her statement is great art, but so-so reality if taken literally. I think she knew that, but she wanted the artistic effect badly enough to let it go. And, of course, there is the commercial thing of polemics for new readers as gravy. In commercial terms, if that isn't a case of unashamed hype, I have never seen one.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand exaggerated on purpose. Her statement is great art, but so-so reality if taken literally. I think she knew that, but she wanted the artistic effect badly enough to let it go. And, of course, there is the commercial thing of polemics for new readers as gravy. In commercial terms, if that isn't a case of unashamed hype, I have never seen one.

Michael

Michael, the assumptiom that Rand was deliberately exaggerating is, in my view, a mistake. She meant what she said. She had said it very often in private conversations. She meant something analagous to her statement that the only philosophical debt she owed was to Aristotle. The meaning was: "In any sense that matters..."

Barbara

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