That "Frightful Mess" Quotation

[Robert Campbell]

Ellen Stuttle has lately been trying to make hay out of a nasty characterization of Ayn Rand as a "frightful mess."

Here is a chunk of the Kirkus Review from whence it came. It was published on December 15, 1999; it's a predominantly positive treatment of The Ayn Rand Cult by Jeff Walker.

Interviews with prominent former Objectivists reveal Rand's repulsively didactic character, her intolerance for criticism or disagreement of any kind, and her vindictiveness when spurned by a disciple. Walker does not stop at characterizing Rand as a cultist. He seeks to discredit her altogether by showing that, despite her brainwashed followers' claims that Rand was the greatest thinker since Aristotle, everything she wrote was either derivative (from a combination of Jewish novels), devoid of literary value (he performs a painful count of monstrously overused words in Atlas), or both. That Ayn Rand was inflated beyond her merit will shock nobody but Objectivists, who will never read this book. Walker's exposé is a bit too shrill, repetitive, and even snide to rise persuasively above the people he describes—but he does convey vividly the frightful mess that was Ayn Rand.

Well, since Walker's book reads like the work of a C- student who constructs a term paper by stitching index cards together, and he liberally makes stuff up (e.g., his assertion that Rand named herself after a certain gold-bearing formation in South Africa), we may conclude that people who believe everything Walker said regard Ayn Rand as a "frightful mess."

Whoopee!

And now we're supposed to imagine that another frightful mess of a book by Jim Valliant is needed as a corrective?

Gimme a break.

Robert Campbell

[Dragonfly]

Well, since Walker's book reads like the work of a C- student who constructs a term paper by stitching index cards together, and he liberally makes stuff up (e.g., his assertion that Rand named herself after a certain gold-bearing formation in South Africa), we may conclude that people who believe everything Walker said regard Ayn Rand as a "frightful mess."

I think this is not a fair rendering of what Walker wrote. Here is the original text:

Alissa's adopted surname 'Rand' would ring bells for most Jews of her generation because of that name's well-known association with South African gold - The Rand - and the mostly Jewish entrepreneurs who mined it. The word 'gold' and the imagery of gold saturate Atlas Shrugged, and the gold standard plays an important role in her ideology. Even 'Galt' is 'gold' pronounced with a Yiddish inflection. (Numerous published accounts repeat the flimsy legend that the name 'Ayn' came from 'a Finnish writer' and the name 'Rand' from Alissa's Remington Rand typewriter.)

I don't read this as an 'assertion' how Rand chose her name, but more as a speculation how this association with gold might have influenced her choice, which may of course have had more than one single determinant. He found it apparently more probable than the typewriter story (which was at that time common wisdom) and he turned out to be right in dismissing that story.

[Robert Campbell]

Dragonfly,

In fact, this particular passage from Walker's book (p. 278) is the one most often cited to show how full of BS he can get:

Alissa's adopted surname 'Rand' would ring bells for most Jews of her generation because of that name's well-known association with South African gold - The Rand - and the mostly Jewish entrepreneurs who mined it. The word 'gold' and the imagery of gold saturate Atlas Shrugged, and the gold standard plays an important role in her ideology. Even 'Galt' is 'gold' pronounced with a Yiddish inflection. (Numerous published accounts repeat the flimsy legend that the name 'Ayn' came from 'a Finnish writer' and the name 'Rand' from Alissa's Remington Rand typewriter.)

First, gold plays no special role in any of Rand's writings until Atlas Shrugged. It was published in 1957. She adopted her pen name in 1926 (if not slightly before).

Second, the currency of South Africa was not called the rand until 1961. While still in good standing with the British Commonwealth, South Africa had the pound for a monetary unit.

Third, had Alisa Rosenbaum, in 1926, ever heard of the Witwatersrand? Did she know who owned the companies that mined it?

Fourth, what evidence is there that Rand intended "John Galt" to have any symbolic associations, over and above those carried by such names as "Gail Wynand," "Howard Roark," "Hank Rearden," or "Dagny Taggart"?

Fifth, did Rand speak Yiddish? Her mother and father were both born in Brest-Litovsk, in the 1870s and 1880s, so presumably they did. But their children were brought up speaking Russian and French. Rand must have encountered relatives who spoke Yiddish, both in Russia and in the USA. But the only character in any of her stories who speaks Yiddish-inflected English is Sol Salzer, in "Ideal," and she is obviously making fun of him.

Walker calls the typewriter story "flimsy" but one of Rand's relatives told it, it remains to be established whether Rand told it, and the time-frame is only off by 1 year, not the 30+ years entailed by Walker's yarn.

Some Rand scholars (e.g., Richard Lawrence) think Rand may have borrowed the "Ayn" from Aino Kallas, an Estonian writer (often misdescribed as Finnish).

Robert Campbell

[jeffrey smith]

Dragonfly,

In fact, this particular passage from Walker's book is the one most often cited to show how full of BS he can get:

Alissa's adopted surname 'Rand' would ring bells for most Jews of her generation because of that name's well-known association with South African gold - The Rand - and the mostly Jewish entrepreneurs who mined it. The word 'gold' and the imagery of gold saturate Atlas Shrugged, and the gold standard plays an important role in her ideology. Even 'Galt' is 'gold' pronounced with a Yiddish inflection. (Numerous published accounts repeat the flimsy legend that the name 'Ayn' came from 'a Finnish writer' and the name 'Rand' from Alissa's Remington Rand typewriter.)

First, gold plays no special role in any of Rand's writings until Atlas Shrugged. It was published in 1957. She adopted her pen name in 1926 (if not slightly before).

Second, the currency of South Africa was not called the rand until 1961. When still in good standing with the British Commonwealth, South African had the pound for a monetary unit.

Third, had Alisa Rosenbaum, in 1926, ever heard of the Witwatersrand? Did she know who owned the companies that mined it?

Fourth, what evidence is there that Rand intended "John Galt" to have any symbolic associations, over and above those carried by such names as "Gail Wynand," "Howard Roark," "Hank Rearden," or "Dagny Taggart"?

Fifth, did Rand speak Yiddish? Her mother and father were both born in Brest-Litovsk, in the 1870s and 1880s, so presumably they did. But their children were brought up speaking Russian and French. Rand must have encountered relatives who spoke Yiddish, both in Russia and in the USA. But the only character in any of her stories who speaks Yiddish-inflected English is Sol Salzer, in "Ideal," and she is obviously making fun of him.

Walker calls the typewriter story "flimsy" but one of Rand's relatives told it, it remains to be established whether Rand told it, and the time-frame is only off by 1 year, not the 30+ years entailed by Walker's yarn.

Some Rand scholars (e.g., Richard Lawrence) think Rand may have borrowed the "Ayn" from Aino Kallas, an Estonian writer (often misdescribed as Finnish).

Robert Campbell

1) The Yiddish pronounciation of the word is question is usually "gelt" (as in "Chanukah gelt") and more properly refers to money instead of the metal gold.

2) Rand might--possibly--speculatively--have been familiar with the phrase "goldeneh medinah" (golden land) as an immigrant description of America. (And note how the word for "gold" is pronounced there.)

3) I can not think of any "Jewish novel", much less a "combination", which is anything like Atlas Shrugged or any of her other novels. The only major Yiddish novel I can think of which might be thought of as aimed at making a point congenial with Objectivism is Chaim Grade's The Yeshivah, which shows the mess a puritanical religious philosophy can do, and was aimed at what is known as the Musar movement. The protagonist is named Tzemach Atlas, and it's a really long novel (it actually is a two volume work), but the character's name and the length are the only actual points of contact between that novel and AS. And checking with Wikipedia shows it wasn't even published until 1967/68 and not translated into English until nine years after. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaim_Grade

Unless by "Jewish novels" he meant the Books of Enoch, the Apocalypse of John of Patmos, or similar works...

[Robert Campbell]

Jeffrey,

I'm thinking that the reference to "Jewish novels" may be a screwup by the anonymous reviewer.

In his book Walker claims that Rand might have lifted from The Financier and The Titan by Theodore Dreiser, Executive Suite by Cameron Hawley, various of the writings of Rose Wilder Lane, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court by Mark Twain, The Driver by Garet Garrett, and The Secret of the League by Ernest Bramah.

A few years ago I was a participant in a reading group that took on The Origin of Satan by Elaine Pagels, which cites a rich assortment of Jewish and Christian apocrypha. I recall the First Book of Enoch being pretty wild...

Robert Campbell

PS. If Walker was right about Rand lifting from The Driver, which featured a railroad entrepreneur named Henry Galt, the alleged derivation from Yiddish becomes superfluous. Although Walker doesn't nearly attain Jim Valliant's level of sleaziness, I think he is the more careless of the two writers.

[Christopher]

Right, so it's more important to discuss the origin of Rand's names than it is her ideas.

She's probably rolling over in her grave right now.

[kiaer.ts]

I am quite sure she chose her name to mean "An Edge" ein Rand in German.

You can't imagine the difficulty I had purchasing The Fountainhead in Switzerland, asking for a book by the famous American author, an edge.

[Dragonfly]

PS. If Walker was right about Rand lifting from The Driver, which featured a railroad entrepreneur named Henry Galt, the alleged derivation from Yiddish becomes superfluous.

Why? He just mentions possible sources and influences. I made also quickly the association of 'Galt' with 'gold' when I read AS for the first time, so I think that association could very well have played a role in her choice. Walker mentions more possible sources, like Rand's attorney John Gall and George Salt in The Secret of the League. I don't get the impression that he claims to prove once and for all how she arrived at the name. At least he brings up some interesting sources (The Driver, The Secret of the League), which otherwise would have escaped the Objectivists. Walker may have made errors, but he's an invaluable source of information and his book is still one of the best and it is well documented.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Gimme a break.

A break from your distortings? It would have to be you who gave yourself that.

[...] we may conclude that people who believe everything Walker said regard Ayn Rand as a "frightful mess."

Those who are aware of the history of Kirkus on Rand could conclude that the Kirkus reviewers regarded Rand as a "frightful mess" well before Walker's book. The strong negativity of Kirkus Reviews toward Rand dates back to Virginia Kirkus' reign. She'd been dead about 19 years when the review of the Walker book was written, but the review is like a chortling capstone to an historic hatred.

Though obviously you don't believe everything Walker said, what of this description?

Interviews with prominent former Objectivists reveal Rand's repulsively didactic character, her intolerance for criticism or disagreement of any kind, and her vindictiveness when spurned by a disciple.

To what extent do you disagree with that?

Ellen

[Jerry Biggers]

Gimme a break.

A break from your distortings? It would have to be you who gave yourself that.

[...] we may conclude that people who believe everything Walker said regard Ayn Rand as a "frightful mess."

Those who are aware of the history of Kirkus on Rand could conclude that the Kirkus reviewers regarded Rand as a "frightful mess" well before Walker's book. The strong negativity of Kirkus Reviews toward Rand dates back to Virginia Kirkus' reign. She'd been dead about 19 years when the review of the Walker book was written, but the review is like a chortling capstone to an historic hatred.

Though obviously you don't believe everything Walker said, what of this description?

Interviews with prominent former Objectivists reveal Rand's repulsively didactic character, her intolerance for criticism or disagreement of any kind, and her vindictiveness when spurned by a disciple.

To what extent do you disagree with that?

Ellen

Ellen,

The fact that Ayn Rand had some character flaws should not be surprising, and should not be offensive except to those who act as if she was perfect and never made any (significant) mistakes in either her writings or her interactions with others.

Others, such as Bill Buckley - and most of the recent articles in the MSM about her (often using the Burns and Heller books as a pretext) jump on these personal eccentricities and use them to condemn her whole philosophy without even examining its basic principles.

I don't believe it is unusual (and in fact may be the norm) for geniuses and innovators in many lines of endeavor, to also have character flaws exhibited in their dealings with other people. But so what? Labeling Rand as a "frightful mess" (or words to that effect) does not contribute to an appreciation of the positive contributions that she has made. It is merely an excuse to dismiss her work without examining it content.

To further belabor the point, one does not find in books such as Sciabarra's Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical, or the anthology edited by Edward Younkins, Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged: A Philosophical and Literary Companion, chapters or extended discussions of her character flaws. Why not? Because that sort of information is useless in properly evaluating her works.

[Jonathan]

Ellen Stuttle has lately been trying to make hay out of a nasty characterization of Ayn Rand as a "frightful mess."

Here is a chunk of the Kirkus Review from whence it came. It was published on December 15, 1999; it's a predominantly positive treatment of The Ayn Rand Cult by Jeff Walker.

Interviews with prominent former Objectivists reveal Rand's repulsively didactic character, her intolerance for criticism or disagreement of any kind, and her vindictiveness when spurned by a disciple. Walker does not stop at characterizing Rand as a cultist. He seeks to discredit her altogether by showing that, despite her brainwashed followers' claims that Rand was the greatest thinker since Aristotle, everything she wrote was either derivative (from a combination of Jewish novels), devoid of literary value (he performs a painful count of monstrously overused words in Atlas), or both. That Ayn Rand was inflated beyond her merit will shock nobody but Objectivists, who will never read this book. Walker's exposé is a bit too shrill, repetitive, and even snide to rise persuasively above the people he describes—but he does convey vividly the frightful mess that was Ayn Rand.

Well, since Walker's book reads like the work of a C- student who constructs a term paper by stitching index cards together, and he liberally makes stuff up (e.g., his assertion that Rand named herself after a certain gold-bearing formation in South Africa), we may conclude that people who believe everything Walker said regard Ayn Rand as a "frightful mess."

Whoopee!

And now we're supposed to imagine that another frightful mess of a book by Jim Valliant is needed as a corrective?

Gimme a break.

Robert Campbell

I'm a little late coming to this topic, but is the idea that Valliant's book was written to correct the false image of Rand as "frightful mess" by avoiding correcting Walker's and others' presentations of her as a frightful mess, and by focusing instead only on TheBrandens™, who don't present Rand as a frightful mess?

I think the point of PARC was to discount the views of Rand presented by those who knew her best -- and intimately -- and to replace them with the views of groupies who didn't know her as well, or at all. The point was to try to discredit the idea that Rand was a brilliant, dynamic soul who had some of the same flaws that others have, and to try to raise her to the status of one of her perfect fictional heroes.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

Jerry,

Judging from the remarks in your post two above, the relevance of which to my views I can't discern, I have the feeling that you probably have no idea what I actually said which started Robert Campbell off on his "frightful mess" attack.

Here is a link to the full post of mine in which "frightful mess" first appeared. I cross-posted the same post, titled "Reflections on 'the point' of PARC," on two threads. The link given is to the appearance on the thread "Jennifer Burns' Rand Biography." (It's post #79459; if the post goes off the first page of the thread, the direct link will no longer work and one has to scroll to find the individual item.)

Linz Perigo then picked up a couple paragraphs of the post and started a new thread - link.

I only now noticed, when I went to link that thread, that he hadn't picked up the full original post. The addendum I included at the top about a detail of wording won't be comprehensible to someone who didn't read the original post.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think the point of PARC was to discount the views of Rand presented by those who knew her best -- and intimately -- and to replace them with the views of groupies who didn't know her as well, or at all. The point was to try to discredit the idea that Rand was a brilliant, dynamic soul who had some of the same flaws that others have, and to try to raise her to the status of one of her perfect fictional heroes.

Jonathan,

With a couple of minor changes, this is the best description I have read of PARC. The changes are:

1. ... replace them with the views of [Peikoff and other] groupies who didn't know her as well...

2. A statement about Valliant's use of the "lie and distort to combat (perceived) lies and distortions" tactic.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

I think the point of PARC was to discount the views of Rand presented by those who knew her best -- and intimately -- and to replace them with the views of groupies who didn't know her as well, or at all. The point was to try to discredit the idea that Rand was a brilliant, dynamic soul who had some of the same flaws that others have, and to try to raise her to the status of one of her perfect fictional heroes.

Specifically what "some of the same flaws that others have"?

Being authoritarian and dogmatic, repressed and "alienated," as skilled at rationalizing as at reasoning? Those flaws, or...? (I'm wondering, for instance, which of those flaws you'd sign on to having yourself. ;-)).

Ellen

[Robert Campbell]

It's understandable that Jerry might be confused by Ellen Stuttle's "frightful mess" campaign.

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense as she presents it.

Here's what Ms. Stuttle declared, over in Jabba's Palace:

I think that PARC is atrociously written, researched, and argued. I've previously described it, in a several-years-back post on OL, as "an offense to bookdom." I haven't changed in this opinion. I am not now nor have I ever been nor am I likely ever to become a fan of PARC.

Nonetheless...over the years of discussions about PARC, I slowly formed the conclusion that above, or under, or around the edges of, or as a kind of vague "halo" surrounding the lousy execution there is a "point" which indeed the PARC critics haven't ever addressed.

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.

Well, yeah, but who thought that Ayn Rand was a "frightful mess"?

One anonymous reviewer at Kirkus (who apparently hadn't read Jeff Walker's book with much care, as can be seen from the off-the-wall remark about Jewish novels).

Jeff Walker himself.

Who else?

Does The Passion of Ayn Rand present Ms. Rand as a frightful mess?

Does Judgment Day present her as a frightful mess?

Those are the books that Jim Valliant was so avid to discredit. These are the books that Mr. Valliant claimed were responsible for all subsequent negativity about Ayn Rand (even when Mr. Valliant could make no plausible case for their influence).

The purposes of Mr. Valliant's tome aren't so hard to discern:

(1) To uphold the worship of Ayn Rand, who everyone must know had no flaws except getting angry too often at her faithful servant, Leonard Peikoff.

(2) To discredit once and for all those twin serpents in the Garden, TheBrandens^TM, whose "need to slander Rand's psychology" (p. 119) accounts for the failure of all and sundry to fall on their knees in worship.

(3) To implement Revolutionary Morality Lite, according to which honesty and truthfulness are not owed to TheBrandens^TM, to anyone who is found to be defending TheBrandens^TM on any occasion, to "enemies of Objectivism," or to "commentators hostile to Ayn Rand and Objectivism."

Nor is it hard to figure why Mr. Valliant was entrusted with the assignment of discrediting TheBrandens^TM. Mr. Valliant is a faithful groupie of Leonard Peikoff's who never knew Ayn Rand and could be relied on not to ask too many questions of anyone who did know her.

Who the hell knows what Ms. Stuttle actually thinks about any of this?

But her "frightful mess" case is so lame that she has to be able to recognize it.

The most straightforward explanation is that she desperately needed something, anything positive to say about PARC, so as to have some chance of retaining Jabba's favor.

Problem is, Mr. Valliant is keeping his head down, critics of Mr. Valliant's tome are no longer visiting Jabba's Palace, and since Jabba and his coterie have nothing meaningful to say, the Rand biography threads are dying over there.

Does Jennifer Burns' book make Jim Valliant's point?

I defy anyone besides Ms. Stuttle to read Goddess of the Market all the way through and draw that conclusion.

Robert Campbell

[Jerry Biggers]

Jerry,

Judging from the remarks in your post two above, the relevance of which to my views I can't discern, I have the feeling that you probably have no idea what I actually said which started Robert Campbell off on his "frightful mess" attack.

Here is a link to the full post of mine in which "frightful mess" first appeared. I cross-posted the same post, titled "Reflections on 'the point' of PARC," on two threads. The link given is to the appearance on the thread "Jennifer Burns' Rand Biography." (It's post #79459; if the post goes off the first page of the thread, the direct link will no longer work and one has to scroll to find the individual item.)

Linz Perigo then picked up a couple paragraphs of the post and started a new thread - link.

I only now noticed, when I went to link that thread, that he hadn't picked up the full original post. The addendum I included at the top about a detail of wording won't be comprehensible to someone who didn't read the original post.

Ellen

Ellen,

Thank you for your reply. Actually, I did read that thread on SOLOP. And after your comment, I went back and read it several times. Unfortunately, the thread has a confusing array of arguments, counter-arguments,some apparent threats to legal action, and references way off topic (e.g., Jung's Red Book,- so I'll take this opportunity to insert my own take on Jung: interesting, at times, fascinating, but ultimately useless speculations with no empirical support, and even less practical application. As some wag said, "Jungian Analysis is only terminated by death." In any case, his theory of a "collective unconscious" definitely is incompatible with Objectivist epistemology. And, of course, practically every assertion made in Branden's The Psychology of Self-Esteem So there! ).

O.K., back on topic....what is the topic?? Oh, I guess that you were saying that somehow points made by Jennifer Burns are consonant with some points made in what I would call, "a frightful mess," PARC. Round-about, I guess you were trying to say that Ayn Rand was NOT a "frightful mess."

One of the unintended (by their authors) consequences of the issuance of these two biographical studies is that many reviewers are using their publication as an excuse to unload their hatred of Ayn Rand by concentrating on unpleasant aspects of her personality as a method to dismiss Objectivist philosophy without even discussing it.

And meanwhile, what are (many/most of) the proponents of Objectivism doing? Instead of advancing arguments advancing the philosophy, they engage in a hornets' nest of charges and counter-charges about (you guessed it) Rand's personality, or the Brandens' personalities, who did what to whom, and who is to blame, ad infinitum,ad nauseum, FORTY TO FIFTY YEARS' AGO!

No doubt, when we are all sent to the Peoples' Re-education Camps, we shall be arguing the same irrelevant things (just like the arguments that members of Trotskyite and other Marxist splinter groups are currently having in Cuban Re-Education Camps).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

Let me make clear that my gush about Jonathan's post is for a succinct description. The work you, Neil, I and others have done to debunk the mess that is PARC was extremely important, if for nothing else then to show that rational and sane people can be interested in Rand without damaging our reasoning abilities.

As for another great short description, borrowing a bit from Jerry's post above, PARC does seem a lot like what I imagine would be used in a Re-Education Camp.

The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics even sounds right on a visceral level for a Re-Education Camp Textbook.

("Comrades! Let's make sure our passion is for Ayn Rand! )

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

This is just a quick note to say that I might not have time for further posting until Saturday or Sunday, and that I'm grateful for both Jerry's and Robert's most recent replies -- Jerry's because it corrects a misapprehension on my part about where he's coming from, Robert's because it's the first by him on this topic addressed (indirectly) to me which provides a basis for reasonable dialogue.

Jerry, a brief indication: I was thinking that you were maybe of the view I've heard from several TAS people, including some prominent ones, that AR, personally, is an embarrassment and an inconvenience, best left aside, basically the desire to have one's Objectivism without the nuisance of its founder's psychology. Your latest leaves me with the impression that instead you're among those who simply find the subject of AR's psychology an impediment to discussion of her ideas. I can sympathize with that feeling, though it comes from a different place than my relationship both to the subject of AR as person and to that of her philosophy.

I hope to elaborate some this weekend. (Bear in mind, I can never promise, both my health difficulties and unscheduled eventualities pertaining to "climate change" issues being unpredictable.)

Ellen

Edited October 23, 2009 by Ellen Stuttle

[Jonathan]

Specifically what "some of the same flaws that others have"?

Being authoritarian and dogmatic, repressed and "alienated," as skilled at rationalizing as at reasoning? Those flaws, or...?

Sure. Those flaws among others.

(I'm wondering, for instance, which of those flaws you'd sign on to having yourself. ;-)).

I've probably had each of those flaws, and more, to one degree or another at different times in my life.

Are you now of the opinion that TheBrandens™ presented Rand as a frightful mess? Are you of the opinion that they painted inaccurate or unfair portraits of her? Have you changed your opinion that Valliant's publishing of Rand's journal entries will add to the legitimate reasons that people have for believing that Rand had some serious flaws and was a frightful mess?

J

[Jonathan]

I think the point of PARC was to discount the views of Rand presented by those who knew her best -- and intimately -- and to replace them with the views of groupies who didn't know her as well, or at all. The point was to try to discredit the idea that Rand was a brilliant, dynamic soul who had some of the same flaws that others have, and to try to raise her to the status of one of her perfect fictional heroes.

Jonathan,

With a couple of minor changes, this is the best description I have read of PARC. The changes are:

1. ... replace them with the views of [Peikoff and other] groupies who didn't know her as well...

2. A statement about Valliant's use of the "lie and distort to combat (perceived) lies and distortions" tactic.

Michael

Well, your first change isn't really a change but a redundancy. :-)

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

Robert,

In your opening post on this thread you describe me as "trying to make hay out of a nasty characterization of Ayn Rand as a 'frightful mess.'" In your post #15, you describe me as engaging in a "'frightful mess' campaign."

Yet the person who's "trying to make hay" out of the Kirkus wording, and the person engaging in a campaign over the remarks in which I quoted the description isn't me; it's you.

You ask, in post #15,

Well, yeah, but who thought that Ayn Rand was a "frightful mess"?

One anonymous reviewer at Kirkus (who apparently hadn't read Jeff Walker's book with much care, as can be seen from the off-the-wall remark about Jewish novels).

Jeff Walker himself.

Who else?

You ignore that I quoted the Kirkus phrase as "a condensed way" of getting at a "point" of PARC which hovers "above, or under, or around the edges of, or as a kind of vague 'halo' surrounding the lousy execution" and which "indeed the PARC critics haven't ever addressed." You ignore that I quoted the phrase because it "succinctly expressed" "an image of Rand." You ignore the last sentence of my SOLO post, part of which you quoted. That last sentence describes the "point" (of PARC) I'm getting at as arguing "that Ayn Rand wasn't a mess, frightful or otherwise." You leave out all this to focus solely on the words "frightful mess," emphasizing, through your focusing, the "frightful," and you describe the Kirkus phrase as "a nasty characterization" as if, of course, you would never say such a thing about Ayn Rand.

Meanwhile, you didn't answer my question (post #9), to what extent do you disagree with this part of the Kirkus review?

Interviews with prominent former Objectivists reveal Rand's repulsively didactic character, her intolerance for criticism or disagreement of any kind, and her vindictiveness when spurned by a disciple.

Am I wrong in believing that you would largely agree what that description?

As to "who else" might think of Rand as a "frightful mess," insofar as I'm aware, that exact wording is a Kirkus Reviews original. However, you yourself have diagnosed Rand as displaying "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" and possible Border-Line characteristics. I wouldn't call this a diagnosis of someone whose psyche is ship-shape. Furthermore, published presentations of Rand as psychologically unhealthy to one degree or another are legion. They come from far more people that the Kirkus reviewer and Jeff Walker.

For instance, here's a recent example from Stephen Cox's review of Anne Heller's forthcoming book. He writes, in an assessment which he says Heller's book supports:

Stephen Cox

Liberty

October, 2009, pg. 41

[H]er ambition, determination, and integrity were disfigured by awful scars. Heller shows how frequently Rand lied, explicitly and implicity, directly and indirectly, to others and to herself. [....] She made a profesion out of lying to herself about the artistic and intellectual incapacity of 99% of the literary world, so she could feel at home in her own, increasingly isolated domain. And, as Heller's work shows, there were many worse lies, and worse failures, than literary ones. Rand's injustice and ingratitude, her intransigent emotional demands, her gross one-sidedness on countless emotional and intellectual occasions, appear in larger dimensions than ever before. All of it testifies to her desire to create the world she wanted to have, even when the evidence was all against her, even when she had to lie to herself and everyone else in order to do so.

Courage? Yes, But not always in a good cause, unless the cause of emotional self-preservation, at the sacrifice of emotional health and balance, can be considered good.

These basic conclusions have been reached before. Yet anyone interested in Rand will value Heller's new information, both about Rand's hard-won achievements and about her tragic defects.

Is there nothing messy, frightfully or otherwise, described there?

Stephen Cox and you are both at least libertarian in political persuasion. You aren't among those who are out to shoot down Objectivism from political opposition. Yet both of you portray Rand as having characteristics that I'd say are considerably worse than mild foibles. And more-negative portrayals abound from political opponents, as I have no doubt you're aware.

Thus I find disengenuous your acting as if the Kirkus phrase "frightful mess" is somehow outside the dimensions of pretty standard depictions of Rand.

===

Your questions about Passion and Judgment Day I'll set aside for the moment. I've already answered about Passion on SOLO, and I'll pick up the relevant posts later tonight (or tomorrow).

===

I'll skip to the rhetorical trick you pull in the final part of your post. It's a type of trick you use often. It consists of substituting a target against which you can score, while not in fact hitting the real target.

You say:

The purposes of Mr. Valliant's tome aren't so hard to discern:

(1) To uphold the worship of Ayn Rand, who everyone must know had no flaws except getting angry too often at her faithful servant, Leonard Peikoff.

(2) To discredit once and for all those twin serpents in the Garden, TheBrandensTM, whose "need to slander Rand's psychology" (p. 119) accounts for the failure of all and sundry to fall on their knees in worship.

(3) To implement Revolutionary Morality Lite, according to which honesty and truthfulness are not owed to TheBrandensTM, to anyone who is found to be defending TheBrandensTM on any occasion, to "enemies of Objectivism," or to "commentators hostile to Ayn Rand and Objectivism."

Notice, that's your description of PARC's purposes, not mine. But then you say at the end:

Does Jennifer Burns' book make Jim Valliant's point?

I defy anyone besides Ms. Stuttle to read Goddess of the Market all the way through and draw that conclusion.

Ms. Stuttle did not draw the conclusion you attribute to her, since the "point" of which she was speaking is not the "purposes" you substitute.

Ellen

[Robert Campbell]

Ellen,

I do not believe that you are arguing in good faith on these issues.

Look at this weaselly paragraph:

You ignore that I quoted the Kirkus phrase as "a condensed way" of getting at a "point" of PARC which hovers "above, or under, or around the edges of, or as a kind of vague 'halo' surrounding the lousy execution" and which "indeed the PARC critics haven't ever addressed." You ignore that I quoted the phrase because it "succinctly expressed" "an image of Rand." You ignore the last sentence of my SOLO post, part of which you quoted. That last sentence describes the "point" (of PARC) I'm getting at as arguing "that Ayn Rand wasn't a mess, frightful or otherwise." You leave out all this to focus solely on the words "frightful mess," emphasizing, through your focusing, the "frightful," and you describe the Kirkus phrase as "a nasty characterization" as if, of course, you would never say such a thing about Ayn Rand.

There's so much slicking and slipping and pointless point-making, it reminds me of Jim Valliant's chapter titled "Mullah Rand?"

To maintain your cred with Jabba over yonder, you have to make the critics of Mr. Valiant's tome out to be stone cold Ayn Rand haters. So you've kept demanding to know whether I agree with some really crappy anonymous review of some crappy book (specifically, Jeff Walker's).

Interviews with prominent former Objectivists reveal Rand's repulsively didactic character, her intolerance for criticism or disagreement of any kind, and her vindictiveness when spurned by a disciple.

For starters, I don't quite know what "repulsive didacticism" is supposed to be. Hell, it sounds like something I've been charged with from time to time. Might be an occupational disease of the professoriat... Hard to take seriously as an indictment, anyhow.

Intolerance for criticism or disagreement? Yeah, I'd say Rand displayed a lot of that, at least in her later years.

Vindictiveness when spurned? Well, she did write "To Whom It May Concern," and she did chop off her relationship with John Hospers, among other things.

She had some character flaws, all right.

As to "who else" might think of Rand as a "frightful mess," insofar as I'm aware, that exact wording is a Kirkus Reviews original. However, you yourself have diagnosed Rand as displaying "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" and possible Border-Line characteristics. I wouldn't call this a diagnosis of someone whose psyche is ship-shape.

I did no such thing. I posted the DSM checklists for narcissism and borderline personality when they were brought up by others. The guy who calls himself Bob Mac claimed that Rand scored 9 out of 9 on Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I didn't.

For what it's worth, I think that Ayn Rand exhibited some narcissistic tendencies and some borderline tendencies. I wouldn't conclude that she merited a clinical diagnosis of either. (Nor do I think the DSM provides a theoretical explanation of much of anything, though a few personality researchers have made some progress in understanding narcissism.)

The people I've recently suggested are narcissistic are Lindsay Perigo ... and yourself.

More generally, there are a few individuals who have managed to produce highly creative work while living almost completely screwed-up lives. Charlie Parker and Vincent Van Gogh, for instance. You could fairly refer to the frightful mess that was Charlie Parker, though when listening to either take of "Embraceable You" I doubt that the frightful messiness is what will come to your mind. Ayn Rand was too disciplined to be like them and took a much longer-term perspective than they did. A life with tragedy in it (as Rand's could be rightly described) is not the same as a train-wreck.

Your charge that I've indulged in some kind of rhetorical switcheroo is just plain tedious. No one in the whole wide world but you thinks the point of Mr. Valliant's opus is "Vote for Ayn Rand! She's... NOT INSANE!" (I'm not sure that you really believe it.) Mr. Valliant wouldn't recognize it as his point. Nor have you made any argument for your view that will stand up to examination.

In netting out the purpose of PARC as (1) the moral perfection of Ayn Rand; (2) the cosmic evil of TheBrandens^TM; and (3) the moral permissibility of using dishonest means to uphold (1) and defeat (2), I am pointing to positions that Mr. Valliant will not acknowledge on the record, except maybe (2). But I think I can show rather easily that these are the actual purposes, by pointing to Mr. Valliant's text and to his conduct in online discussions of his text.

How does either Mr. Valliant's text or his conduct in online debates concerning it support your view that he is merely seeking to combat a misapprehension of Ayn Rand as Frightful Mess?

Robert Campbell

[Dragonfly]

What never ceases to amaze me is how Valliant & co. try to depict Rand as a victim of "the Brandens", as if she didn't bear by far the largest responsibility for the mess that was created by her affair. After all it was she who initiated the affair with its bizarre rationalizations (only "giants" could do that!) and it was she who pressed the respective spouses to cooperate and keep silent and it was she who wanted to continue that affair over the years (according to her philosophy she should still be sexually desirable to Branden when she was 80 and in a wheelchair!).

The asymmetry in their relation is so obvious: she, the famous author 25 years older than her young admirer, she should have known better. Of course this could only end in disaster, and she, with her much greater experience should have known that. Therefore it's just ridiculous to claim that it was Nathaniel who deceived her. It was unavoidable that he over the years would fall in love with another and younger woman, and of course he didn't dare to tell her and resorted to lame excuses. After all, did she tell anyone about her own affair? Didn't she invent malicious accusations in her "To whom it may concern" to avoid conceding that she had had an affair?

That doesn't take away the fact that it was a dumb decision on Nathaniel's part to agree to the affair and that he got himself into a hole, but if we're talking blame, Rand was much more guilty. Sure, according to most accounts, Nathaniel's behavior at the time was quite unpleasant. But we shouldn't forget that he was the dreaded "enforcer" with full support by Rand (who even applauded enthusiastically when he read some flabbergasted victim the Riot Act) and that in much of that behavior he was emulating Rand herself.

Now I haven't read Burns' book, but after reading all the comments I'm not inclined to buy it, as it appears that she's swallowed Valliant's fairy tale about the evil Brandens who deceived poor innocent Rand and if she's dumb enough to do that, her book cannot be worth much.

[Robert Campbell]

Dragonfly,

I wholeheartedly agree that Ayn Rand was really the one in charge during her affair with Nathaniel Branden. She didn't foresee some consequences that most other people would have been able to foresee. And she really pushed her luck trying to continue the affair after 1958.

I would give Jennifer Burns a break on this issue. She doesn't like Nathaniel Branden. But there is no evidence that she found any of Jim Valliant's arguments convincing. I think she avoids explicitly stating her criticisms of Mr. Valliant for the same reason that she avoids explicit criticisms of Leonard Peikoff—she needed Dr. Peikoff's sign-off to quote material from the Ayn Rand Archvies in her book.

Dr. Burns is critical of Ayn Rand's conduct during the affair, and of her public statements in "To Whom It May Concern." (She is rough on "In Answer to Ayn Rand" as well, but does not consider the consequences had Nathaniel Branden outed the affair in 1968.) And some of her criticisms of Nathaniel Branden are giving the Orthodoxy heartburn—she blames him for not encouraging Ayn Rand to soften her doctrine of emotions as the product of premises. She faults Ayn Rand for elaborating and promoting her brand of sexual psychology, and Nathaniel Branden for not trying to dissuade her from it.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Well, now we know why Ellen Stuttle has chosen not to answer me here.

She has applied for full membership in the Perigonian chorus.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/6946#comment-80270

In the case of "Campbla," yes, I "have come to realise that by now." I'm very disappointed by what I see as the obvious dishonesty of Robert Campbell's tactics. Since he's demonstrably capable of meticulous, exact references, his persistent distorting via paraphrasing and substitute targeting I have to believe is deliberate. And his obsession with you, which I agree he displays, amazes me. WHY?? Getting even over Chris Sciabarra? Nothing he's doing is of any use in regard to that. It does look to me as if there's some need to shoot down Rand.

About his being a professor, I'll only enter the cavil: So is my husband. There still are honorable people in academe, harder and harder though they become to find.

Robert Campbell