Donovan A.

Later in the same thread I wrote to Valliant: Quoting Valliant: "This is just another outrageous myth, for the Archive policies have long been available to everyone, as well, and are a matter of public record. So, go find out the easily-available facts before smearing the Archive." My understanding has been that the archives have not been open to anyone. If that is not the case, thank you for letting me know otherwise. But, how is what I asked/stated a smear? I was operating on what I've been told, which may be false or not fully accurate. Are you stating that I can go read something from Rand's journal in the archive, but I'm not approved to quote certain things without permission? Do you have a link to the ARI archive policy or must I call Jeff Britting to get a copy of the policy?" Valliant's reply: " Irresponsible criticism is a smear. Yes, you must contact Mr. Britting, but he can send you the pdf very quickly: Postal Address The Ayn Rand® Archives c/o The Ayn Rand Institute 2121 Alton Pkwy, Suite 250 Irvine, California 92606-4926 Fax/Web/E-mail Fax number: 949-222-6558 Web site: www.aynrand.org/archives E-mail: archives@aynrand.org" I took Valliant up on his statement: "you are simply wrong: the Archives are open to everyone, and Rand's journals are "available for anyone to read," despite what you've been told by less-than-honest critics of ARI. Just drop a line to Jeff Britting, the Archivist, and he will tell you all about it." I sent an email to Jeff Britting on Sat, July 31, 2010 5:34:42 PM which stated the following: "Hello there, I would like to request a copy of the ARI Archive visitation/publication policy. I was referred to make this request of you by Mr. James Stevens Valliant. Thank you." Note: I have yet to receive any response from Mr. Britting. If anyone has a copy of a current or past ARI archive admission policy, I'd like to take a look. I also defended myself from the accusation of smearing the archive: " I don't think I was being irresponsible. You are the first person who has contradicted my knowledge. But again, thank you for correcting me. It was not my intention to misrepresent."

Jerry, I agree that proof of the reliability of Jim Valliant and Casey Fahy's editing would require scans of the original handwritten journal pages. There is no reason to take Jim Valliant's word for it. Where a great many related matters are concerned, his word has proven worthless. All of this means that we won't know for sure any time soon. My understanding is that Jennifer Burns saw some of the 1967-1968 journal pages. Dr. Burns' book wasn't intended to focus on Ayn Rand's affair with Nathaniel Branden, so she didn't make a close study of these journal entries. (Anne Heller presumably would have done so, had she been granted access—but of course that is one reason why she wasn't granted access.) On top of that, a line-by-line comparison with PARC would be a rather thankless exercise for anyone allowed to see the originals in the Archives. If there were any discrepancies between the original entries and Valliant's renditions, the Estate wouldn't give permission to quote the originals. For some time to come, anyone who wants to quote the diary entries will be stuck quoting Valliant's out-of-print book instead. Robert Campbell This came up on a Facebook thread. When I asked " I'm curious to know why the ARI archives are not open to everyone? Why is Ayn Rand's diary/journal not available for anyone to read? In the Montessori community, a similar thing happened. Rita Kramer wrote a biography that dealt with the controversies surrounding Montessori's training methods and private life. But in the case of the Montessori biography, the archives are open to anyone. This is not the case with Ayn Rand." Valliant replied: " you are simply wrong: the Archives are open to everyone, and Rand's journals are "available for anyone to read," despite what you've been told by less-than-honest critics of ARI. Just drop a line to Jeff Britting, the Archivist, and he will tell you all about it. This is just another outrageous myth, for the Archive policies have long been available to everyone, as well, and are a matter of public record. So, go find out the easily-available facts before smearing the Archive. Chris Sciabarra was allowed to look at the material -- he was not allowed to publish the yet-unpublished material, but that is standard practice. Ditto Heller. They refused the opportunities afforded them, and some seem to be ~ demanding ~ the right to publish someone else's copyright property. And, as the materials have been published, by an authorized source, even that (very standard) restriction is lifted and the originals are there for all to both see and use. In fact, compared to the archives of Einstein and Disney, the Rand estate and archive have been working at light speed. The material has been observed and described by independent scholars such as Prof. Jennifer Burns." After further questioning Valliant then said: "Yes, I was perfectly clear, but, to repeat: nearly anyone may read the documents and look at the material, just as Prof. Jennifer Burns did -- and she is "not an advocate for Rand's ideas," either. " - Emphasis added by me. In reference to a quote I found by Peikoff I wrote: "Since I have access to Mr. Valliant, I'm also curious as to what he thinks of the following quote/statement made by Dr. Peikoff in his 1983 course: Understanding Objectivism [CD 11 (Disc 2) Track 4: 11:04]:" Question: “It’s easy for you to dismiss outright the Libertarian biographies of Ayn Rand because you knew her so closely. But there’s no other sources of such information maybe it would be useful if you could comment at length on at least one of these books so we can know which of these facts are true and which is misrepresentation. Ayn Rand is very dear to us as a great person not only as an author.” Peikoff: “Well I would regard commenting on these books that are forthcoming on of which I know really as an issue of the sanction of evil and I would not do it. I know the authors in some cases. These books got willful falsehoods, motivated by malice mixed into the text. I simply would not ever make a comment on a book that I know is of that nature. I appreciate the interest in Ayn Rand’s biography and I certainly do intend to authorize a biography, where I believe that it will be done objectively and not by not for any reason of personal malice and in that case when that happens I will certainly open up all of her papers etc. to such a biographer. But I can tell you that I’m speaking now in December of 1983, I have not done that, and I will not not, now not nor ever have a comment on some of the forthcoming biographies. For the reason that I mentioned, I would consider it immoral on my part to comment. To even get to the point of distinguishing this page was true and this page was false. On exactly the grounds that I would not take some libel from the Nazi party against the Jews and say: well now on page 34 maybe he made a good point, but the first 12 pages are dishonest. In its inception and by its method it is corrupt and the same thing exactly in this case” This was Valliant's reply: "What Heller could have done, of course, is all that we are talking about, not what she did do. Sciabarra, too, refused what was offered him for some reason, unlike Burns. Also, with "nearly," I only meant to include the idea that one must fill out the appropriate forms, disclose one's purpose, sign the agreement regarding use, that kind of thing, that's all. Peikoff's statement speaks for itself. I did not know Rand, and barely knew Mr. Branden, so I could not rely on personal knowledge in order to evaluate Ms. B.'s assertions (which began well before the book was published), as Leonard Peikoff could. So, far from immoral, the process I went through was a moral one. Following a detailed analysis, we come out agreeing about the dishonesty and lack of objectivity of those works, but he was clearly speaking for himself and his own context, right?" - I saw no need to reply to this. But finally the best part! Thanks to Valliant, I checked out some things Jennifer Burns had to say and I posted the following: "I've been doing a little homework. All of the following is from Jennifer Burns Blog:" "As it turned out, the archives were open, and willing to have me, with stipulations. The primary stipulation was that I not use the archival material to write a full length biography, since the Ayn Rand Institute had commissioned an Objectivist literary scholar, Shoshana Milgram, to write an authorized biography. Because my focus was on Rand in relationship to a particular aspect of American history – the American right – my work was classified as a “special study.” I was also told I would not be shown certain material related to legal disputes and a few items of sensitive nature pertaining to persons still living. Other than that, I had free rein in the archive. (Along the way, I did in fact stumble across some material I wasn’t supposed to see – more on that later)." http://www.jenniferburns.org/blog/64-in-the-rand-archives-part-1-gaining-access "Perhaps no part of Rand’s legacy is more controversial today than the editing of her letters and diaries. When the Estate of Ayn Rand released two huge volumes of her letters and diaries in 1995 and 1997, Rand fans were thrilled. It didn’t take long, however, for suspicions to surface. Sifting through earlier published excerpts of Rand’s journals, NYU scholar Chris Sciabarra discovered that the journals had been edited. As I write in my forthcoming book, “After several years working in Rand’s personal papers I can confirm Sciabarra’s discovery: the published versions of Rand’s letters and diaries have been significantly edited in ways that drastically reduce their utility as historical sources.”" http://www.jenniferburns.org/blog/65-in-the-rand-archives-part-2-the-edited-letters-and-diaries "for the first time, the Estate of Ayn Rand had granted publishing permissions to an outside scholar who had authored a full length, critical study of Rand." "Here I will offer a few predictions (always risky for the historian!):" "1.) I believe the archive will continue to offer access to scholars interested in Rand’s work, and by scholars I do not mean those exclusively associated with the Ayn Rand Institute, but persons enrolled in or working for a degree granting institution or those who can demonstrate, through the formulation of a cogent research proposal, that they have a serious intellectual interest in Rand." "Though I do not know the details of her arrangement with the archive or the Estate, it is my understanding that authors working on projects which may compete or conflict with hers [Knapp 's] will not be given access to the Ayn Rand Archive (this is the reason Anne Heller was denied permission to view Rand’s papers.)" "3.) The Estate’s tenderness around the personal aspects of Rand’s life leads me to predict it will be many years before there is a full and impartial outside account of the Rand-Branden affair. This is rather a shame, since I know from my research the Archive has ample holdings that would more than satisfy the widespread curiosity and controversy about their relationship and its ending. Both because of my agreement with the archive and since my interest in Rand was primarily intellectual, this material informs only a small portion of my manuscript. I hope and expect that within my lifetime, another writer will give this aspect of Rand’s life the attention it deserves." "4.) As for the published letters and diaries of Ayn Rand, that they have been edited is now widely known within the Objectivist community and is freely spoken of within the Ayn Rand Archives. I have heard some talk of a “scholar’s edition” of these materials, complete with footnotes and annotations. However, since recent work published by the Estate continues the practice of editing Rand’s words, I do not expect a revised edition anytime soon. However, to the extent the Archive remains open to outsiders, this problem can be surmounted. Rand’s legacy will thus exist on two levels: one for the general reading public, and one for the scholarly community." http://www.jenniferburns.org/blog/74-in-the-rand-archive-part-iv-prognostications "When I began researching, my primary understanding of Rand’s life came from the two Branden memoirs, Barbara Branden’s The Passion of Ayn Randand Nathaniel Branden’s Judgement Day: My Years with Ayn Rand. In my first stage of research, one of my primary goals was simply verifying if the essentials of the Brandens’ stories were correct. I was surprised to discover how accurate both books were. I did not discover any major errors or distortions in basic chronology or timing." "Here, my guiding philosophy was that unless something I found contradicted the Brandens’ memoirs, it would not be a focus of my published work. Though my interest in Rand was primarily intellectual, rather than on the personal nature of all her relationships, part of my job as a historian is to set the record straight and I would have done so had I felt the Brandens were untruthful in their description of Rand or their relationship with her." "That said, there were several aspects of Barbara Branden’s memoir which material in the archive definitely falsifies: the most famous of these is the typewriter story. Material from the archive indicates this legend is long established in family history and originated with Rand herself, though it is unclear if the youthful Rand was experimenting with tales of origin, or if the distortions of memory played a role (think of a game of telephone, stretched across generations)" "In both cases, these errors are explainable and even predictable, given that Barbara Branden’s account was based upon oral history and Rand’s own memories about herself at a young age, which are naturally selective and subjective." "Overall, what I saw in the archive confirmed for me that while the Branden’s memoirs are useful sources, they should not be taken as the final word on Rand’s life." "|2010-02-21 14:12:53 Jennifer Burns - responding to comments: Neil: There is scattered material on NBI finances in the archive, and some legal files there may also shed light on this matter, but I believe most legal material is currently off-limits to researchers." http://www.jenniferburns.org/blog/79-in-the-rand-archive-part-5-on-the-brandens

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBlHSqS712s Lecture 1: Formation of the American Republic MP3: $5.00 Download

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUJe9CoIwys In Focus Interview 7 (Supreme Court Appointments, Is Everyone Selfish?) MP3 $2.95

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqiBt_k9FDc In Focus Interview 6 (Lobbying, Integrity) MP3 $2.95

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vLMwg5E4CQ In Focus Interview 5 (Public Education, Honesty) MP3 $2.95

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-cmPshZ02E In Focus Interview 4 (The Value of Philosophy) MP3 $2.95

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMY2__hD6k8 In Focus Interview 3 (Immigration, Ethics) MP3 $2.95

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndGIamHAoks In Focus Interview 1 (Justice, Racism) MP3 $2.95

Redshirt is a slang term for a minor stock character of an adventure drama who dies violently soon after being introduced in order to dramatize the dangerous situation experienced by the main characters. Wikipedia Ahem, Eddie Willers makes it to the end, doesn’t die violently, and maybe doesn’t die at all. Tut Tut Ted. Eddie Willers was also not a "minor stock character". He was a very significant character in the novel. I've looked over photos of the different cast members. Some of them definitely don't seem to me to have the right appearance for their characters. But casting a black actor as Eddie Willers is really going against his physical description in the novel. Eddie was described as having blonde hair and blue eyes. I also think that this is a bad idea because it seems to feed into a racial stereotype. Eddie is described as being Dagny's assistant, just as his father and grandfather worked for Dagny's father and grandfather. So this almost seems to fit the racial stereotype of black underlings working for their white superiors over several generations. I would not have made this choice. Then again, I'm not the director. Martin It's been a long time since I have read Atlas Shrugged. Were there any nonwhite characters in the book? I really cannot remember if there were. I was surprised and amused that the actor selected to play Eddie is black because I always pictured him as black even though Rand described him as having blonde hair and blue eyes. The person they selected to play James is too attractive. I always thought of James as looking almost 50, fat and balding. I can't wait to see the movie though. Interesting question. For many of the characters in Atlas Shrugged, the physical description given is not sufficient to determine the character's race. Unless information is given about skin color, hair color, eye color, or nationality, race cannot be determined. For example, Ragnar was Nordic and therefore, presumably, causacian, Francisco had blue eyes and his ancestors were from Spain, Rearden had blue eyes, and Galt had green eyes. One may reasonably extrapolate that these characters cannot be black. I would guess that Rand envisioned all of her characters as being white, for the simple reason that she was originally from Russia, and most likely all of her friends and acquaintances were white. Objectivism has never had much of a following among blacks. Nevertheless, if the character's physical description is not determinative of race, the director can take liberties in this area without directly contradicting the novel's physical description. Just out of curiousity, what did you always picture Eddie as being black? I certainly didn't. Martin I probably thought of him as black because "Eddie is described as being Dagny's assistant, just as his father and grandfather worked for Dagny's father and grandfather. So this almost seems to fit the stereotype of blacks working for white superiors over several generations." -[edited] However, I never considered it as a racial issue. I pictured the time period of the novel to be in the late 30s or early 40s (technologically and culturally). The one thing I was sure of was that the relationship between the Taggart and the Willers family was special and built on respect, ability and fair trade. If Willers had actually been black, I could have easily pictured a great Taggart relative fighting for the rights of a Willers relative to be free of slavery (underground railroad). That is the feeling I got. To be absolutely clear, because it is so easy to be misunderstood, I don't consider non-essential stereotyping to be racist. Racism is when you consider yourself morally superior or deserving of special rights or privileges based on race alone. The fact that Italians (in general) like pasta and pizza is not racist nor is it a moral issue.

Redshirt is a slang term for a minor stock character of an adventure drama who dies violently soon after being introduced in order to dramatize the dangerous situation experienced by the main characters. Wikipedia Ahem, Eddie Willers makes it to the end, doesn’t die violently, and maybe doesn’t die at all. Tut Tut Ted. Eddie Willers was also not a "minor stock character". He was a very significant character in the novel. I've looked over photos of the different cast members. Some of them definitely don't seem to me to have the right appearance for their characters. But casting a black actor as Eddie Willers is really going against his physical description in the novel. Eddie was described as having blonde hair and blue eyes. I also think that this is a bad idea because it seems to feed into a racial stereotype. Eddie is described as being Dagny's assistant, just as his father and grandfather worked for Dagny's father and grandfather. So this almost seems to fit the racial stereotype of black underlings working for their white superiors over several generations. I would not have made this choice. Then again, I'm not the director. Martin It's been a long time since I have read Atlas Shrugged. Were there any nonwhite characters in the book? I really cannot remember if there were. I was surprised and amused that the actor selected to play Eddie is black because I always pictured him as black even though Rand described him as having blonde hair and blue eyes. The person they selected to play James is too attractive. I always thought of James as looking almost 50, fat and balding. I can't wait to see the movie though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s20fOtw7gg In Focus Interview 2 (Economic Trade, Evidence of the Senses)$2.95

More from FreedomFest 2010 can be purchased from this link: http://www.skousen2000.com/miracle/Freedom%20Fest/freedomfest2010.htm#M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndGIamHAoks

In Focus Complete Series (Raymond Newman's Interviews with Dr. David Kelley) MP3: $19.95

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8bFROfXqIw Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand: $17.48

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1kZr3z0--k The Basic Principles of Objectivism: Lecture 20 (The Benevolet Sense of Life)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggWoGkvdFbY The Basic Principles of Objectivism: Lecture 19 (The Nature of Evil)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRXWLAl_HZM The Basic Principles of Objectivism: Lecture 18 (Romanticism and The Novels of Ayn Rand, Part 2)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kF2g2Kz3J8 The Basic Principles of Objectivism: Lecture 17 (Romanticism and The Novels of Ayn Rand, Part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2aVsSHmQ8E The Basic Principles of Objectivism: Lecture 16 (Common Fallacies About Capitalism)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkMn73oMqLw The Basic Principles of Objectivism: Lecture 15 (The Economics of A Free Society)

This item is on sale for $3.95. Sale ends on July 31, 2010.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz95Ictzzns The Basic Principles of Objectivism: Lecture 14 (Government and The Individual)

Hi Greybird, The regular pricing has not been revised yet. I've been authorized to offer a promotional sales price which will end by July 31st. If anyone is willing to pass on the word, I would appreciate it. Best, Randall