Neil Parille

The book could be a bit shorter, have footnotes at the bottom of the page and a couple other minor points, but it's very good.

Incidentally, in PARC, Valliant doesn't claim that Barbara Branden mentions or created this rumor as a circuitous way of attacking Rand. His only contention there is that Barbara speculated that Rand was addicted to diet pills and that it seriously affected her mental functioning. It was only after I pointed out that Valliant misrepresented what she wrote that he came up with this back-up argument.

But I would think that those people who have praised PARC are probably familiar with the internet critiques. Putting them all in one place would be helpful though.

Jerry, Anyone is free to reprint or post either of my essays on PARC without charge as long as he or she doesn't edit them. But I would note that it doesn't appear that PARC has been reviewed in a print magazine, so I doubt it has made much of an impact.

Ellen, You've mentioned Rand not telling everything relevant about the split in her To Whom It May Concern. I think it was particularly unfair of Rand to ask (or allow, I don't know the details) these four people to denounce the Brandens without telling them the details.

Hi Laure, Let me make a few points: 1. I'm not an Objectivist, so I will of course be somewhat more critical of Objectivism than non-Objectivists. Actually, I have kept some of my harsher criticisms of Objectivism to my web site and Dan Barnes and Greg Nyquist's Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature blog. 2. As far as Rand the person is concerned, I am simply responding to Valliant's book. The only flaw that he is willing to recognize in Rand is her occasional anger (and even then he tries to justify it, saying she was upset at our relativistic world). I do think Rand had flaws in addition to anger. I don't dwell on these because in the grand scheme of things they aren't that bad; on the other hand, I don't know how to address Valliant's book without mentioning the negative things about Rand that he omits. 3. You say that my essays contain a lot of "nitpicking." All the examples I mention are those raised by Valliant himself. His claim is that taken as a whole they demonstrate the dishonesty (if not pure evil) of "the Brandens." Again, I don't know how to respond except by showing point by point his serial misrepresentation of their books. Perhaps you should ask Valliant why he wrote a book collecting all this trivia (the Brandens attending a surprise party for Rand, NB's opinion on whether Rand liked to cook) which doesn't prove much of anything.

Laure, You said: I certainly don't believe this, and I'm not sure who does.

Laure, It is certainly appropriate for Objectivists to raise Rand's banner high. But to suggest that nothing that she did or said requried any "qualification" leads to cultism of the Valliant/Peikoff variety. Even when I showed that Rand's dogmatic statement about the streaker's motivation in the 74 Academy Awards was misguided, Valliant defended Rand and even Peikoff. Or, does praising Rand's evaluation of philosophers in FTNI "without qualification" advance Objectivism when students study these people for themselves and learn that Rand was more than a little off base?

Ellen, Following up on your point, for the most part the only sources Valliant has for Rand's life (at least specific incidents, such as her reaction to the surprise party or breaks with certain people) are the Branden books and TARC. Valliant can't quite make up his mind whether the Brandens' account are so consistent as to demonstrate their (virtually Satanic) collusion, or so contradictory as to show that they are biased and inaccurate historians.

In discussing the cost of ARI stuff, I've mentioned that The Teaching Company www.teach12.com has many reasonably priced courses. I've purchased their two courses on the history of science (antiquity to 1700 and 1700-1900) and they are excellent. Each 18 hour course on DVD is $100 when it goes on sale.

I think Fred Seddon shows that the stolen concept fallacy goes back to Augustine. You will also find versions of it in analytic philosophers such as Moore, Ryle and Ayer. I think Rand put too much stock in it: that skepticism is self-refuting doesn't mean we have a good method for determing when the senses are not deceiving us.

Dr. Campbell, I have made this point a few times with Mr. Valliant. Mr. Valliant is of the strange position that Dr. Blumenthal's disagreement with Nathaniel Branden is apparently proof that he is, uh, in cahoots with "the Brandens."

Contary to what many Objectivists seem to think, not everyone in "the academy" is raving subjectivist, "pomo wonker" or whatever. I know very little about contemporary physics, but if there is a non-subjectivist interpretation that can be given to modern physics, I'm sure plenty of scholars have done it. In other words, I seriously doubt that you have to spend $1,200 to purchase Harriman's lectures.

I would also note that Mr. Perigo is accusing me again of receiving orders from Barbara Branden, in spite of the fact that on at least 2 occasions I have specifically told Mr. Perigo (on SOLO, for all the world to see) that this is not the case. This guy is going to talk about problems with Objectivism?

The time that I entered into the solopassion chat box (that Perigo mentioned when he first attacked me early in 2007), he was talking with someone about finding a "spy" within the TAS to discover its finances. Think twice before dealing with Mr. Perigo.

Jim, The number of people Rand broke with, particularly close friends, seems high. The reason why she broke with, for example, the Holzers might not be clear, but her mistreatment of the Blumenthals and the Kalbermans (leading to their leaving) doesn't look good. If you read Valliant's book, you'll see that he conveniently ignores all the evidence that Rand had some flaws in addition to blowing her top.

Folks, I recently posted this on my blog: _________________________ PARC: Four More Points Since my two critiques of PARC, I've moved on to other projects, but here are a few things worth mentioning. 1. Frank's Drinking One of the most notorious misrepresentations by James Valliant in PARC is his misquote of what Barbara Branden says Rand's housekeeper told her concerning liquor bottles in Frank O'Connor's studio. Here is Barbara Branden (emphasis added): Here is Jim Valliant (emphasis added): Now, finding empty liquor bottles "each week" and finding them "after O'Connor's death" are two different things. Robert Campbell has pointed out that the source for Valliant's misreport is apparently Jeff Walker's The Ayn Rand Cult. Walker does refer to an interview with Barbara Branden for the part in quotes, but nothing for the statement about the liquor bottles. 2. The Break With The Holzers In PARC, Valliant speculates that the split might have something to do with Henry Holzer's views concerning constitutional interpretation. I came across this 1996 interview with Erika Holzer on her website (the brackets and all punctuation are Holzer's). I have no idea which friends of Rand's Holzer is referring to, but: (1) she does describe their break with Rand as an "excommunication" (contrary to Valliant's description of the break); and (2) it didn't have anything to do with political or philosophical issues (for example animal rights or constitutional interpretation). 3. Speculation in PARC James Valliant likes to claim that there this is too much speculation in the Brandens' books. I should have highlighted more the fact that Valliant is the king of speculation. To take one example, Barbara Branden says that Frank told her that he wanted to leave Rand, "'But where would I go? . . . What would I do? . . .'" [PAR, p. 263.] Here is Valliant: Barbara Branden was an eyewitness and I see no reason to doubt her recollection. Even if what Valliant says is true about husbands receiving generous settlements (a claim he doesn't document) Frank might not have known this or might have felt there was something wrong about asking for money from Rand. After quoting from Rand's notes for Atlas Shrugged from 1949 where Rand writes that Rearden takes pleasure in the thought of Dagny having sex with another man, Valliant writes that "this particular account of male psychology is almost certain to be an expression of her husband's own psychology." [PARC, p. 166, emphasis added.] This note isn't even about Frank and was written before Rand met the Brandens. Or take this piece of speculation on p. 167 of PARC (emphasis added): The only direct evidence bearing on the affair's effect on Frank are the reports of Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden that it hurt Frank. To the extent that one need speculate, experience indicates that these types of relationships cause hurt and even the innocent party may feel "conflicted." Valliant has to admit that "[w]hether they were always truly happy together, especially in light of Rand's affair, can be questioned . . . ." [PARC, p. 157.] 4. Alan Greenspan In his recent memoirs, Alan Greenspan (a member of the Collective who sided with Rand in 1968) says he remained a "close friend" of Rand's until her death. On the back of my copy of PAR, there is a supportive blurb from Greenspan: "A fascinating insight into one of the most thoughtful authors of this century." If someone who knew Rand well for 30 years vouches for the book, by what right does Valliant (who didn't know Rand) denounce the book as one long "arbitrary assertion"?

Robbins' books isn't bad; it isn't good either. As MSK says, he thinks if he can find a minor problem or inconsistency in what Rand says, then he has refuted Objectivism.

I think for PARC analysis the main thing is that neither of the Brandens relies on Rothbard for his/her picture of Rand and neither uses the break with Rothbard as evidence of "Rand-the-excominicator." [sic] Valliant's insertion of Rothbard in his book just confuses readers who don't know the background.

Folks, Justin Raimondo, in his bio of Murray Rothbard, quotes a letter from Rothbard indicating that his wife's religion was a source of dispute with the Rand movement. The letters Raimondo quotes are sufficiently detailed such as to indicate that Rothbard was quite involved with the Rand movement. Rothbard's late wife Joey also said in a 1996 Mises conference that her religion was an issue. (I have the tape.)

Ellen, My copy of FTNI, which was purchased in the last few years, still has the NB footnote. (I gather it has been deleted from The Ayn Rand Reader). Neil

Prof. Campbell, What does it say about the ARI that they had to get a non-entity like Valliant to refute "the Brandens"? Apparently no one of any stature within the ARI had the courage to make the claim that Rand's only flaw was blowing her top once in a while. -Neil Parille

It has the odd disclaimer that the inclusion of Peikoff's stuff doesn't mean he agrees with everything that is sold.

Chris, I always enjoyed Book Notes with Brian Lamb every Sunday night. He seemed to have many conservative and libertarian authors, as well as U.S. historians.

I've never liked Hitchens. He comes across as something of a bully.