The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Where did Michelle Cohen make the claim that she was withdrawing her chapter? It's in my copies of the book.

Robert,

Here. It will not be included in the "official reprinted edition," whatever that means. Probably the second printing.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

The second printing will be upon us very soon, because some of the chapters were poorly copy-edited (how this happens in the days of word processing is an interesting question...) and Ed Younkins persuaded the publisher to correct them.

Consequently, Ms. Cohen found an excuse to bolt. She must have been looking for an escape hatch ever since she realigned with ARI, because the mere presence of certain authors was already enough to make the book unacceptable to her.

Robert Campbell

PS. The first, uncorrected edition will no doubt become quite valuable, because only it will contain Ms. Cohen's chapter :devil:

[Neil Parille]

Wasn't it the Stalinists who said that someone might be an "objective" anti-Communist, while he nonetheless was a "subjective" Communist?

Perhaps this was Ms. Cohen's problem. Yes, she believed that she was ("subjectively") advancing Objectivism, but in reality she was "objectively" anti-Objectivist (e.g, anti-Irvine).

This was, apparently, Diana Hsieh's fault. However, not having earned her Masters Degree, she was granted a dispensation from form by the ARI.

Edited June 12, 2007 by Neil Parille

[Daniel Barnes]

DF:

>These are the most dangerous enemies of Objectivism, didn't you know that?

What amazes me are these apparently intelligent scholars who find Valliant's book a life-changing work.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Some Randian folk won't leave the minor personal tragedy off the table. Valliant's book, whether it sells 1500 or 4000, is prurient and unhelpful, to my pig-ignorant eyes. Let forgiveness draw a veil over these giants

I agree with William. He said, she said, they said. So what?

W.

[Roger Bissell]

Michael,

The second printing will be upon us very soon, because some of the chapters were poorly copy-edited (how this happens in the days of word processing is an interesting question...) and Ed Younkins persuaded the publisher to correct them.

Consequently, Ms. Cohen found an excuse to bolt. She must have been looking for an escape hatch ever since she realigned with ARI, because the mere presence of certain authors was already enough to make the book unacceptable to her.

Robert Campbell

PS. The first, uncorrected edition will no doubt become quite valuable, because only it will contain Ms. Cohen's chapter :devil:

"In my day, young man"...authors used to receive "galley proofs" (or some such thing) of our typeset articles, which we were to read carefully, scanning for errors that were missed in the submitted copy and last-minute changes we wanted to make. ~Then~ (and only then) the book went into its first printing. Somewhat later (and still recently), the publisher would typeset the article and ~email~ it to the author, asking us to do the same kind of thing we did with galley proofs.

Now, it appears that "print on demand" is so affordable that publishers can spit out several dozen copies for an anthology's authors in advance of the official, public release, "just in case" there are "problems." As there most certainly were in the case of Younkins' anthology. I don't know if the publisher has several thousand unsellable copies of this first print run sitting in their warehouse, but I suspect not. The so-called "second printing" will thus be the ~official~ first printing.

I was very surprised to see Ms. Cohen included in the anthology, and not at all surprised to see her withdraw, given the animosity she has recently developed toward non-ARI Objectivists and Rand fans. I'm just curious as to why she waited so long to pull her article, though it appears it will not inconvenience Younkins in any significant way (one would hope). (While he's at it, I wish he would pull Karen Michalson's confused piece, "Dagny and Me," but it will be fodder for discussion, so what the heck...)

REB

[Neil Parille]

For those who are interested, I've collected all my posts on PARC that postdate the OL article on my blog in the upper right: "The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism, Part II." The combined length of these posts is probably close to the original article.

http://objectiblog.blogspot.com/

http://objectiblog.blogspot.com/search/lab...d%27s%20Critics

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Neil,

I have been doing some research and came across this gem from you on Solo Passion and cannot resist posting it here. The link on the post is the following:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/2533#comment-31863

However, there is a defect in their software program when comments go off the first page, so to read the original post, one has to go here, go to the second page of comments and scroll down to your post dated Wed, 2007-05-23 22:31.

I care about the truth. I think I've shown that Valliant's book is unreliable; that it consistently misquotes and misrepresents the Brandens' books; that it enages in double standards; that regardless of what one may ultimately decide about the Brandens vis-a-vis their critics, anyone who thinks that Valliant is a "scholar" ought to be ashamed of himself. So, in short, I "believe" that PARC is a piece of partisan agitprop worthy of Valliant's buddy Leonard Peikoff.

Dayaamm!

That makes me feel good just to read it raw.

Michael

[Neil Parille]

Michael,

Glad you liked it!

[Neil Parille]

I posted this on my blog today, but I wanted to mention it here since it is a paricularly outrageous example of Valliant's misrepresentation of PAR

__________________________________

The extent to which James Valliant is willing to misrepresent his sources can be seen in his evaluation of Barbara Branden’s discussion of Rand’s use of a diet medicine, Dexamyl (which contains an amphetamine).

On page 173 Branden mentions that Rand had low physical energy level. and was worried about her weight. She then drops the following footnote, which I will quote in full:

"It was during this period of nonstop work on The Fountainhead that Ayn went to see a doctor. She had heard there was a harmless pill one could take to increase one's energy and lessen one's appetite. The doctor, telling her there would be no negative consequences, prescribed a low dosage of a small green tablet which doctors had begun prescribing rather routinely. Its trade name was Dexamyl. Ayn took two of these pills each day for more than thirty years. They appeared to work: she felt that her physical energy had increased, although it was never high, and her weight stayed under reasonable control. In fact, medical opinion today suggests that they soon ceased to be a source of physical energy; their effect shortly became that of a placebo."

"Dexamyl consists of two chemicals: an amphetamine and a barbiturate. It was not until the sixties that researchers investigated the effects of large doses of these chemicals. They found that extremely high doses were harmful, sometimes even resulting in paranoid symptoms; but to this day, there is only the most fragmentary and contradictory scientific evidence to suggest that low doses such as Ayn took could be harmful. As one pharmacological specialist has said: 'Perhaps they hurt her, and perhaps they didn't.'"

"In the early seventies, when for the first time she became seriously ill, her doctor took her medical history, and, quite innocently, she told him about the Dexamyl. Disapproving, he ordered her to cease taking them at once. She never took another."

"I include this discussion only because I have learned that a number of people, aware that she took this medication, have drawn ominous conclusions about Ayn's mental health; there is no scientific basis for their conclusions." [PAR, p. 173 n. 1.]

There have been (and continue to be) unsupported allegations over the years that Rand was addicted to “speed.” Branden wanted to put these allegations to rest.

Valliant’s mangling of Branden’s footnote is as follows:

“The level of Ms. Branden’s desperation for evidence can be measured by the fact that she speculates in a footnote that the low-dosage diet pill that Rand was prescribed by a doctor ‘may’ have resulted in ‘paranoid symptoms.’ Ms. Branden does so despite also conceding that the pills only had a ‘placebo effect’ after just a short time. Nor is Ms. Branden in any way dissuaded by the fact that Rand easily discontinued their use, again on medical advice.” [PARC, p. 51.]

[Wolf DeVoon]

a number of people, aware that she took this medication, have drawn ominous conclusions about Ayn's mental health

The slander of Rand being hooked on speed and 'totally irrational' was Hospers' deuce of trumps in the early 80's. But nothing topped Bill Buckley's syndicated obituary when she died in 1982. So much ad hom venom, you have to wonder why?

W.

Edited July 30, 2007 by Wolf DeVoon

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Neil,

Just to highlight, because the level of dishonesty is breathtaking:

. . .

(Barbara)

"... there is no scientific basis for their conclusions." [PAR, p. 173 n. 1.]

(Valliant)

“... she speculates . . . the low-dosage diet pill that Rand was prescribed by a doctor ‘may’ have resulted in ‘paranoid symptoms.’” [PARC, p. 51.]

People calling themselves Objectivists are taking this crap seriously.

Heh.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Valliant, the Lying Lawyer, or the Michael Moore of Objectivism.

[Neil Parille]

MSK & DF,

It's examples like this that have made me conclude that Valliant is dishonest.

If he were honest, but blinded by his hate of "the Brandens", he would have said something like: "Branden concedes that Rand was not addicted to diet pills and that the pills that she took for nearly 30 years did not affect her mental health; however she raises this issue only to repeat gossip, her protestations to the contrary notwithstanding." That wouldn't be fair, but it's how partisans interpret things.

If people who have praised PARC haven't compared it to the sources, it's about time they do.

Edited July 29, 2007 by Neil Parille

[Robert Campbell]

Neil,

Thank you for cross-checking so many of Jim Valliant's allegations against the actual contents of The Passion of Ayn Rand.

I noted this particular distortion when I read Mr. Valliant's book. He failed to acknowledge that Barbara Branden had gone out of her way to reject claims that Ayn Rand was consuming enough amphetamines to affect her mental state. But I didn't pay attention to the details, as you have. When I read Mr. Valliant's opus, it had been many years since I read Barbara's book and I didn't recall every specific.

I think at this point the proper conclusion is that Jim Valliant is lying.

As to why he might have thought no one would catch him... One of the functions of his book, for the Rand-worshipers and the zealots, is to give them license to ignore the entire contents of The Passion of Ayn Rand and My Years with Ayn Rand.

Robert Campbell

[Chris Grieb]

Neil;

Some time ago I bought a copy of PARC intending to get around to reading it. Your posting make me keep putting the reading off. Thanks to you I may never read it.

Thank you.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Neil,

I saw you just posted the Dexamyl thing on SLOP. This is interesting because the author of PARC himself didn't even try to justify his lie. He sidestepped as usual. All he and his lap-bowwow Perigo did was try to say that by bringing up the issue at all, Barbara was smearing Rand.

These boneheads are so far removed from reality they forgot that Passion presented the first time that Rand's affair with Nathaniel was revealed in public. How is Barbara mentioning the diet pills (and even defending Rand while doing it) smearing her, especially in that context?

Talk about rationalization!

Dayaamm!

Not even these guys are that dumb. Or are they?

Michael

[Neil Parille]

Michael,

Note that neither Valliant or Perigo have pointed out a single mistake in what Branden says in the footnote. Nor do they defend Valliant's ommission of her explicit statement: "I have learned that a number of people, aware that she took this medication, have drawn ominous conclusions about Ayn's mental health; there is no scientific basis for their conclusions."

Valliant had 400 pages for PARC and was permitted to insert paragraphs (and sometimes even pages) of comments in the middle of Rand's diary entries. But for some reason he didn't have the space to include what "the Brandens" actually say in their books.

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

It isn't just that Barbara revealed that Ayn Rand was taking Dexamyl, in a brief passage in a book that first revealed AR's affair with NB.

In 1986, the reports of Rand being out of her mind on speed were already circulating, without any help or encouragement from either of "the Brandens."

Robert Campbell

PS. I suppose that BB could have decided not to allude to these reports, on the grounds that they were all arbitrary assertions. But, wait, "arbitrary" is supposed to mean "devoid of evidence." It's more than a little unclear what is supposed to count as arbitrary, but Ayn Rand really was taking Dexamyl all those years...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

You are correct and I should have mentioned that since it might appear like I was swallowing their swill. But I was merely taking them at their word to show how ridiculous their position was according to their own argument.

These guys are writing the text on rationalization. We all have to be competent at something in life, I guess...

(Now see! I get started and there I go... ).

Michael

[Neil Parille]

In fact, even though Branden debunked the claim in 1986, it was repeated (based on different alleged witnesses) in Valliant's preferred source, The Ayn Rand Cult.

Given that the story was was going to make it into print eventually, isn't it best that it was done in the context that Barbara Branden provided?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Neil,

I love it. Valliant is flopping all over the place on this issue (see here). The way he reasons and presents his arguments are his own worst enemy for spreading his venom.

The funny part is that only the paranoid mentality of a Rand-worshiper would ever take Barbara's diet pill footnote to mean an attack on Rand. The rest of humanity get it when they read her passage.

I know lots of people—including those who do not like the Brandens—are looking at the logical pretzels now being baked by Valliant and Perigo on that thread and scratching their heads.

I do hope Valliant and lap-bowwow keep it up. Speaking of which, where did the chihuahua go?

Michael

EDIT: The chihuahua finally did show up. It yapped, "Jim doesn't have an ax to grind in this..."

Strange. I thought Peikoff owned the ax. And Peikoff owned him, too.

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

I think another recent performance by Casey Fahy is just as telling.

In his role as SOLOP's resident expert on Objectivist philosophy, Mr. Fahy treats Stephen Boydstun to the following lecture:

Are you aware of the Objectivist position on the primacy of existence?

If you haven't taken the extended courses on these issues by Peikoff I can understand that there could be misunderstandings about these issues.

The courses on these issues are a revelation one can not, on the other hand, ever turn back the clock on in terms of understanding sense perception and logic's lock-step relationship with truth, and the difference between the metaphysical and the man-made, the perceptual and the conceptual. I really don't regard anyone as being an objectivist even lower case if they haven't taken these courses. They are essential. The rest is just "I read her novel and loved it."

Messrs. Valliant and Fahy are no more capable of scholarship regarding Ayn Rand's philosophy than they are capable of scholarship concerning her life.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Michael,

I think another recent performance by Casey Fahy is just as telling.

In his role as SOLOP's resident expert on Objectivist philosophy, Mr. Fahy treats Stephen Boydstun to the following lecture:

Are you aware of the Objectivist position on the primacy of existence?

If you haven't taken the extended courses on these issues by Peikoff I can understand that there could be misunderstandings about these issues.

The courses on these issues are a revelation one can not, on the other hand, ever turn back the clock on in terms of understanding sense perception and logic's lock-step relationship with truth, and the difference between the metaphysical and the man-made, the perceptual and the conceptual. I really don't regard anyone as being an objectivist even lower case if they haven't taken these courses. They are essential. The rest is just "I read her novel and loved it."

Messrs. Valliant and Fahy are no more capable of scholarship regarding Ayn Rand's philosophy than they are capable of scholarship concerning her life.

Robert Campbell

Ayn Rand spent 13 years writing Atlas Shrugged, two years on Galt's speech, to be treated to this legacy? And how did she ever manage without DIM? Please pass the sacred scrolls (and a pot of coffee).

--Brant

[Neil Parille]

"I really don't regard anyone as being an objectivist even lower case if they haven't taken these courses. They are essential. The rest is just "I read her novel and loved it.""

In other words: Peikoff is even more essential to Objectivism than Rand.