News: Goddess of the Market by Jennifer Burns

[Robert Campbell]

Another review is out today, from Brian Doherty.

Much better than the Nick Gillespie review, IMHO.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/05/why-ayn-rand-is-hot-again/

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Another review is out today, from Brian Doherty.

Much better than the Nick Gillespie review, IMHO.

http://www.washingto...d-is-hot-again/

Robert Campbell

Yeah, a better review, except he needlessly gave away the climax to The Fountainhead.

--Brant

[Chris Grieb]

I liked the Doherty review. I am also enjoying the book. Will say more after I finish it.

[Philip Coates]

> Rand saw communism purportedly motivated by a desire to help elevate the downtrodden and, as Ms. Burns writes, became fascinated with "the failure of good intentions." [Doherty, Wash Times review]

Both Burns and Doherty are wrong:

Rand viewed statism as motivated by bad intentions - power lust, envy...and altruism itself (which might be more idealistic, but is not good according to Objectivism. If JB gets something this basic about Rand's views wrong how many more things will the book garble? [Perhaps it's Doherty's fault for oversimplifying or misstating JB's position.]

[anonrobt]

> Rand saw communism purportedly motivated by a desire to help elevate the downtrodden and, as Ms. Burns writes, became fascinated with "the failure of good intentions." [Doherty, Wash Times review]

Both Burns and Doherty are wrong:

Rand viewed statism as motivated by bad intentions - power lust, envy...and altruism itself (which might be more idealistic, but is not good according to Objectivism. If JB gets something this basic about Rand's views wrong how many more things will the book garble? [Perhaps it's Doherty's fault for oversimplifying or misstating JB's position.]

You did not read carefully - the key word is 'purportedly'....

[Philip Coates]

Robert, yes I did: the word purportedly can mean 'assumedly' and it's not clear who is doing the assuming - Rand or the culture at large. What is clear is this grammatical structure:

"Rand...as Ms. Burns writes, became fascinated with "the failure of good intentions."

Clearly, that means what I said it did - that for Rand it was good intentions which failed.

[Robert Campbell]

Phil,

Jennifer Burns is somewhat ambivalent about Ayn Rand's critique of altruism.

She does a decent job of explaining what Rand thought altruism was.

But she also interprets a lot of other people's conceptions of altruism as being at variance with Rand's understanding of it.

There's no substitute for actually reading Dr. Burns—on this as on many other issues.

Robert Campbell

[jeffrey smith]

Robert, yes I did: the word purportedly can mean 'assumedly' and it's not clear who is doing the assuming - Rand or the culture at large. What is clear is this grammatical structure:

"Rand...as Ms. Burns writes, became fascinated with "the failure of good intentions."

Clearly, that means what I said it did - that for Rand it was good intentions which failed.

Communism has/had a lot of people who actually thought it would deliver on its promises, and had good intentions. Possibly it was those folks with whom the quote concerned itself. And when you come down to it, even people like Lenin, Stalin and Mao were initially propelled by good intentions: in their minds, they would wield power and that would be good for everyone else.

And I don't need to remind folks what paves the road to Hell....

[Philip Coates]

> Communism has/had a lot of people who actually thought it would deliver on its promises, and had good intentions. [Jeffrey]

Yes, perhaps by many of the 'idealistic' altruists starting out before the oceans of blood became apparent. [aside: Stalin???] But that was -not- Rand's view that I recall ever expressed anywhere [Does anyone have a contrary quote, not just about some government intervention but about communism?]from her. And it wasn't just the motivation of altruism that Robert mentions; I listed -three- bad motives or intentions. As I said:

"Both Burns and Doherty are wrong: Rand viewed statism as motivated by bad intentions - power lust, envy...and altruism itself (which might be more idealistic, but is not good according to Objectivism. If JB gets something this basic about Rand's views wrong how many more things will the book garble? [Perhaps it's Doherty's fault for oversimplifying or misstating JB's position.]"

[Philip Coates]

Question: "What paves the road to Hell?" -- my diligent student, Jeffrey

Answer: "The road to hell is paved with one part criminal stupidity, one part bad intentions, one part good intentions...and three parts inattention, laziness, and too much television" -- Philip Coates, October 6, 2009 [aka, the schoolmarm]

[Robert Campbell]

The Orthodoxy is beginning to stir.

Here is Ari Armstrong reviewing the first 6 pages of Goddess of the Market.

http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/10/introducing-jennifer-burns-on-ayn-rand.html

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

He's too flaky to be a member of the Orthodoxy, but Joe Maurone is now on record panning Dr. Burns' book:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R289ZF87I0N4VL/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

The logic of excuse takes a new form, courtesy of Diana Hsieh:

http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2009/10/new-biographies-of-ayn-rand.shtml#4

It appears that Nathaniel Branden chewed out Leonard Peikoff without authorization.

Of course, whenever Ayn Rand chewed Leonard Peikoff out, she was always right and proper and operating from the deepest philosophical insight.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The Number One most boneheaded thing I have see written about Jennifer's book to date was just penned by Ellen Stuttle. She says that Jennifer's book "made" the same main point as PARC! Look at this crap:

Upon reading Goddess, I concluded that oddly -- oddly because so unexpectedly to me -- Goddess subtly MAKES "the point" of PARC.

So what is that point? I've thought of a condensed way of stating it, a way that came to mind as I was reading Goddess. I think that "the point" of PARC is to counteract an image of Rand which was succinctly expressed in an oft-quoted phrase from a Kirkus review: "the frightful mess that was Ayn Rand." "The point" is to argue that Ayn Rand wasn't a mess, frightful or otherwise.

If I'm correct in identifying "the point," then I'd say that Goddess does a good job of making it.

Good Lord! Good job of making it?!!!

No, she is not correct in identifying "the point" of PARC. But oddly enough, I do not think this kind of crap is "unexpected" for her. I even predicted it.

Back to "the point."

In order to "make" the point Stuttle is presenting, you either have to believe that Ayn Rand was a frightful mess, or you have to believe that many others believe it. You certainly have to believe that this is the public perception of her.

How anyone can think that "frightful mess" is the public perception of an author who still sells about a half a million books a year—decades after her death—and influences major political figures, is beyond me... well there it is.

But only the Rand fanatics (both sides) even care about whether Rand was a frightful mess or not. All others I've talked to don't even have an opinion. Who ever thinks about this other than fanatics? And who can prove anything to a fanatic, anyway?

The main point of PARC was to trash the Brandens. Period. It's in the title as a "case against the Brandens" and Valliant presents a gradual build to the boneheaded "soul of a rapist" climax. Even Rand's journals were presented as a prop to trash the Brandens. Just look at all of his yapping in the middle of Rand's words.

I have not read Jennnifer's book yet, but I seriously doubt that "proving" that Rand was not a frightful mess ever occurred to her, much less served as a theme for her book.

I, for one, never considered Rand to be a frightful mess. But Stuttle's comment here, heh... Now that's a frightful mess.

I predicted privately to a couple of friends a while back that Stuttle would end up embracing PARC. I even publicly commented about her slow "drift" toward PARC. Just a little left now...

Then maybe she can work on a joint project with Valliant deifying Richard Lindzen and trashing everyone else. At least Valliant's got the right approach and soul for it.

Michael

EDIT: Stuttle is not content with making a boneheaded post. She has repeated the entire thing as a new thread starter: The Point of PARC. This is sheer vanity at its most boneheaded.

[Brant Gaede]

EDIT: Stuttle is not content with making a boneheaded post. She has repeated the entire thing as a new thread starter: The Point of PARC. This is sheer vanity at its most boneheaded.

It looks like Lindsay did this. He can't defend PARC any more, it seems, in his own words.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

It doesn't really matter.

There are 2 kinds of mentality that are similar, but underneath as different as night and day: (1) those who dream and mold reality to their dreams—these are actual producers—and (2) those who dream and fixate on another human being as a replacement for the reality molding they should be doing. These second types tend to distort history, imagine attacks where none exist, twist logic all out of shape, crusade in overdrive to the point of accepting silence as agreement (and calling it victory), push all arguments regarding their person of worship into "us against them" mode, etc., to keep the image up. They are more into people molding (public image and the like) than reality molding (producing stuff).

Stuttle is this second type, except her god is Lindzen, not Rand.

In essence, she is cut from the same spiritual cloth as Perigo. She sometimes uses her brain intelligently and he mostly doesn't, but that is a detail according to this standard.

I saw this a long time ago...

I psychologize, I know. I don't care. This woman has called me dishonest to my face here on OL about an issue where she was flat-out wrong and I left it up. So I have every right to give my opinion of her.

And it's a sincere one.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> So I have every right to give my opinion of her. And it's a sincere one.

Michael, let these old grudges go. You don't have to burst into response every time Linz or someone who posts on this or another list says something about you which attacks. Checking out other lists and remembering other threads. Etc.

You must have posted about ten quazillion times attacking someone who has attacked you in three or four years. Don't you have more productive things to do with your time?

Edited October 7, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Robert Campbell]

Phil,

If you recall Ellen Stuttle's long-maintained judgments of Mr. Valliant's opus, her drift toward embracing it is kind of shocking.

Looks like vanity and boneheadedness to me, too.

Robert

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Don't you have more productive things to do with your time?

Phil,

Isn't this heckling?

Sounds like it to me...

Michael

[Philip Coates]

If you brush aside a useful criticism as "heckling", you have a defense mechanism problem.

Phil: "Mickey, you're pants are on fire."

Mickey: "Phil's heckling again."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Let's everybody look at Phil!

Phil needs some attention!

Come on folks, look at him, now!

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Back to business.

Does anyone have any ideas about a contest for receiving a free copy of Goddess? In a few days I will have some copies to offer as prizes.

I already have a few ideas, but I would like some feedback if anyone wants to contribute their thoughts.

Let's have some fun with this and spread the word, too.

I would love to tap into what Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh are doing.

And who knows? You might get a free book.

Michael

EDIT: I just had a cute idea. How's this for starters? Coasting on the coattails of Hannity, how about a Hate MSK Hotline contest? The one who comes up with the most hilarious hate entry gets a free copy of Jennifer's book.

[Ellen Stuttle]

The main point of PARC was to trash the Brandens. Period. It's in the title as a "case against the Brandens" and Valliant presents a gradual build to the boneheaded "soul of a rapist" climax. Even Rand's journals were presented as a prop to trash the Brandens. Just look at all of his yapping in the middle of Rand's words.

A funny thing is, during some correspondence in which you were included -- I'm fuzzy on when, but I think it must have been more than two years ago -- I said that I'd come to think that I, like most everyone else, had been looking at PARC wrong way about, that its thrust appeared to be a prosecutorial case against the Brandens (of course it does say some very negative things against the Brandens, and there is the subtitle), but it's actually much more an attempt to make a case PRO Rand, a defense OF Rand. You said you'd already realized that and quoted from previous comments of yours. I guess you've forgotten or changed your mind.

I have not read Jennnifer's book yet, but I seriously doubt that "proving" that Rand was not a frightful mess ever occurred to her, much less served as a theme for her book.

I seriously doubt that I indicated that the thought occurred to Professor Burns, or served as a theme for her book. I hope Dr. Burns, if she reads my post, reads it more accurately than you did.

Btw, Linz not I started the new thread, though he did ask my permission, which I granted.

Ellen

Addendum: Re this from a subsequent post, most of which I don't consider worth addressing:

This woman has called me dishonest to my face here on OL about an issue where she was flat-out wrong and I left it up.

Point of curiosity: Where do you claim I did that? Since you say that you left the charge up, I assume you can provide a link.

Edited October 7, 2009 by Ellen Stuttle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

I'll have to check our correspondence some day to see about the pro Rand business. I don't have time now. If it was as you say back then, I have changed my mind. Further familiarity with PARC would be the reason.

But as I remember envisioning it, Valliant being "pro-Rand" meant him putting Rand on a pedestal for worship. I have always considered Valliant did that and I still think that way. It did not mean (in my memory), even in Vallaint-speak, defending her against a charge of being a frightful mess.

I vaguely remember this exchange, but I remember thinking that making a pro-Rand case meant projecting a Rand-goddess. I do not remember thinking Valliant's motivation (the pro-Rand part) was to defend a victim, irrespective of his rhetoric.

He would only defend Rand against being a "frightful mess" anyway to vanquish an enemy (the Brandens). In fact, a secondary theme in PARC actually is defending Rand against an imaginary negative public perception. Valliant claimed the Brandens had almost single-handedly created this perception.

But so what? That's not "the point" of PARC. Secondary themes are never "the point" of a book. That's why they are secondary.

The point of PARC (the principal theme) was to discredit the Brandens, not only as authors, but as human beings. To wipe them off the face of respectable earth. To vanquish them to the realm of the arbitrary and the evil. Even the secondary theme is used for this, and used in overkill.

(If only I had a dollar for every time Valliant used the word "lied" or "dishonest" in reference to the Brandens in PARC. I would be able to pay quite a few bills.)

Ironically, Rand's diary entries proper support any charge by any anti-Rand fanatic of her being a "frightful mess" more than anything else in print. They show her at her most fragile, then slamming the door of introspection shut to bolster a false self-image while going on a festival of "he is this and this and this and this and this..." Never her. Always him. A soap opera mess and narcissistic to the core.

I don't think Rand was a mess or generally narcissistic despite this stretch of weakness at a horrible time in her life, but if my only contact with her writing and history were those diary entries, I definitely would think so.

The link: http://www.objectivi...indpost&p=31982

EDIT: btw - I'm not going to go for Stuttle-speak this time. Read your post carefully? I not only read your boneheaded post on SLOP, I quoted it above in this very thread.

My advice is say, "Oops!" and hang it up. Stuttle-speak goes far at times in confounding and befuddling folks, but this one is a bit too far out there. Jennifer's book has nothing to do with your hapless "the point" of PARC, much less "does a good job of making it."

[Ellen Stuttle]

The link: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4146&view=findpost&p=31982

Where did I call you dishonest? I said you had no moral high ground from which to act like an aggrieved party in the Pross-plagiarism incident. Is that equivalent to calling you dishonest in Kelly-speak?

EDIT: btw - I'm not going to go for Stuttle-speak this time. Read your post carefully? I not only read your boneheaded post on SLOP, I quoted it above in this very thread.

And look how you interpreted it (the part of it you quoted). Certainly not according to any meaning which I recognize myself as having said. I.e., the usual. Never know what I'm supposedly going to have said according to your rendition. At least I've learned better than to think that explaining will straighten it out.

Ellen