Neil Parille

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):

He retained his studio in the apartment building where he and Ayn lived, and continued to spend his days there. And each week, when Ayn's housekeeper went to the studio to clean it, she found no new paintings but, instead, rows of empty liquor bottles.

Here is Jim Valliant (emphasis added):

As her sole corroboration for these sources, Ms. Branden refers to the 'rows of empty liquor bottles' in O'Connor's studio which Rand's housekeeper is said to have found there after O'Connor's death.

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.

Barbara Branden relates that toward the end when people came into Rand's apartment, "the first thing they smelled was alcohol, and Frank had clearly been drinking," even in the morning. Now "Frank would fly into rages over nothing." After he died, his studio was found littered with empty liquor bottles. [TARC, p. 264.]

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).

FC: Did you show her any of your writing?

Holzer: Ayn had already seen samples of what I called my "practice pieces." These she went over with me in great detail, giving me invaluable literary feedback. But by the time I had completed my first novel Double Crossing some years later, she and I had become estranged.

FC: Over political or philosophical issues?

Holzer: Neither. It was a personal matter involving some friends of hers who'd known her a lot longer than we had. Even after this estrangement, she remained cordial to my husband and me whenever we'd see her at some public event, such as a lecture on Objectivism, even telling us that, unlike everyone else she had "excommunicated," her "door was always open to us . . . " [For various personal reasons, my husband and I chose not to re-enter that door.] It was too bad, really. When we were still friends, Ayn said to me on more than one occasion that I'd never have to endure from the liberal publishing establishment what she'd had to endure — all those endless doors being slammed in your face. That, given her clout, she would see that the right doors remained open to me. But that never happened. I did have to wage that enormous uphill battle she had promised to spare me. It went on for many years.

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:

The manifest absurdity of believing that a husband of a very successful author--whose crucial role in that author's own work had been publicly professed by Rand--would be left penniless from a divorce cannot be ascribed to O'Connor but to Ms. Branden. (Even in those days, husbands of high-income wives could--and did--get attractive settlements.) [PARC, pp. 151-52.]

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):

O'Connor almost certainly believed that his wife was an exceptional genius and a woman intensely loyal to her values. He may well have appreciated his wife's complex emotional--and intellectual--needs. Possessing such a sensitive and daring soul [it's now a fact] may well have given him the capacity to embrace his wife's quest for joy, a capacity obviously not shared by the Brandens. (And he surely could have left Rand without much fear, had he truly objected to the situation.)

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,

Where did they find this guy?

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

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

Dan,

This is from The Ominous Parallels, page 255:

"It was the universe that had been hinted at, elaborated, cherished, fought for, and made respectable by a long line of champions. It was the theory and the dream created by all the anti-Aristotelians of Western history."

Note: not just that Kant, et al. taught some bad things that even in some sense resulted in the concentration camp. It was their "theory" and "dream."

Barbara,

I agree that the ARI is a problem for the advancement of Objectivism. Yet, I get the impression that it has become a bit more flexible in recent years concerning access to the archives and the like. At some point in the future, the policies of the ARI will be no more relevant to Objectivism than the policies of the keeper of the Heidegger archives are to the advancement of Heideggerianism (of course, I'm not comparing the two and in fact haven't read Dr. H in years).

When I was in high school, it seemed like LFB was one of the few ways that libertarians, individualists and Objectivists could keep in contact with each other. The internet is great, of course; but lets not forget where we came from.

I've always found McCartney a bit too smug and self-absorbed, particularly given the rather substandard quality of his music in the last 20 years (of course, I don't know the guy). But, like Kanye West said in Golddigger:

If you ain't no punk holla' we want pre-nup

WE WANT PRE-NUP!, yeah

It's something that you need to have

'Cause when she leave yo' ass she gon' leave with half

Robert,

I do think Rand would be outraged at Mayhew editing her words (in Ayn Rand Answers) or Peter Schwartz reissuing The New Left.

Rand, it seems to me, wanted academic approval of Objectivism, but at the same time wanted to denounce academics with whom she disagreed no matter how sympathetic they might be to her ideas.

It's quite a tight rope.

I'm not sure what's so objectionable about having tear-out pages or a link to ARI. I don't I have a huge problem with Peikoff publishing his intros to Rand's books, but if he wants to advance Objectivism, maybe he should publish some original stuff.

Unfortunately, the ARI carries on some of the worse aspects of Rand's personality and movement. I bet that if she were alive, she would probably support its general approach to things.

I haven't had the chance to stop by a book store and peruse the book. Does he discuss Rand in detail?

Interesting, how would the NYT know it was Lester Kraus? I did a google search and he doesn't show up.

I would mention for the record that I contacted Ms. McElroy about my piece and suggested that she might find it interesting, given Valliant's praise of her review. (In fact, it was her suggestion, in a follow-up email, to post it.) After she posted it, I wrote her thanking her and mentioned in passing that my essays had generated some controvery with Valliant, including his accusations that I am dishonest.

With respect to Ms. McElroy's claim that "From a follow-up note, Mr. Parille clearly did know this [importing an infight] would be the case and he did not inform me ...for whatever reason," this assumes that I knew what would happen on her website. I did not (and still don't) know whether it is a moderated site, whether she planned to permit comments on the article or whatever.

I did a search and it was something like "Identity - Reason - Egoism - Capitalism."

It would be interesting to nail down the details of all this given the claims of Valliant and others concerning Rand's supposed tolerance of esthetic disagreements.

Ellen,

What did "IREC" stand for? I've never heard of the magazine.

What a bunch of "uncompromising individualists."

Pointing out that Rand had a bad side constitutes "assaults on a profound value"?

Alfonso,

To the best of my knowledge no.

I would emphasize what Robert and Chris said.

For example, Peikoff's induction course is $205. It looks to be 14 hours long. I can purchase an 18 hour Teaching Company course for $70. (If I get the download, it's only $50.) In fact the von Mises Institute has all its lectures free.

If Peikoff has solved the problem of induction and validated human reason as the blurb claims, he should try to publish these epoch-making findings, or at least make them more accesible. (And, if I recall correctly, Kripke's Naming and Necessity are transcripts of lectures he gave.)

And Chris is correct - we've been told for years that various books will come out.