The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Brant,

Possibly, but I think most people don't get activated that way through the computer screen. Feynman, who was thorough advocate of technology and progress, used the following Buddhist quotation to describe mankind's predicament: the keys that open the door to heaven also open the door to hell.

Jim

Edited February 12, 2007 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Jon Letendre]

I don’t want to hijack Neil’s excellent thread any further, but just to thank Ellen and Michael for the welcome.

[emb021]

Neil-

Excellent review. While I have yet to read PARC (its not high on my list of 'books I must get'), and do want to, its not something I look foward to.

For me, I think my issue with this book is summed up in a line of your conclusion:

If Valliant believes that any criticism of Rand the person is in reality an attack on Objectivism, then he should say so.

From where I see it (in seeming the threads that pop up on it over at SOLO), its not just Valliant's view, but that of most of the PARCfans, which I would summerize as "Ayn Rand was a perfect person, else how could she create the perfect philosophy, thus any criticism of Rand or indications that she was not quite perfect, is thus an attack on Objectism". With the further indication that any who would dare put forth such criticism is thus unmutual.

Robert Jones seems to indicate the same in his reply:

It is sad to see that PARC has become a litmus test on judging one's loyalty to the Objectivist movement.

I see the same thing in the topics on SOLO. The latest is over those bemoaning the fact that the comments about PARC on Amazon are too anti-PARC. As is typical, it turns into another tirade against the Brandens, with obligitory appearances by Valliant et al for yet another rehash.

One thing I've yet to see in any valid critic of this book was why it came from a non-major publisher. I believe the publisher is just one step up from a vanity press. One has to wonder why he couldn't get this published by a more legit (or higher profile) publisher.

[Neil Parille]

Mr. Brown,

I'm glad you liked the review.

If you decide to read PARC, I recommend reading it before you refresh your recollection with the Brandens' books. While you are reading PARC, ask if yourself if, even of Valliant's representations, he makes good points. If he does appear to make a good point, then check his sources.

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....] The latest [PARC thread on SOLO] is over those bemoaning the fact that the comments about PARC on Amazon are too anti-PARC. As is typical, it turns into another tirade against the Brandens, with obligitory appearances by Valliant et al for yet another rehash.

I just got around to reading that thread on SOLO:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/2203

Here's something from a post by Phil Coates objecting to Valliant's putting words in his, Phil's, mouth:

ATTENTION: I WON'T CONTINUE TO RESPOND TO PEOPLE WHO MAKE UP THINGS:

1. > "doesn't care one bit about Rand's biography" [James Valliant]

Jim, please read what I post carefully. The phrase 'one bit' would be a very important statement, had I said it or [if] that was my attitude.

But it is your own invention.

The ploy is oh-so-typical of Valliant's treatment of the Brandens' books as sources, the issue which is the focus of Neil's review. Valliant attributes to the Brandens things they didn't say -- e.g., by substituting his wording for the wording they used, or by the use of ellipses, or by juxtaposing quotes taken out of context -- and then he defends Rand against his version of their supposed remarks. Had he bothered to report accurately, most of his book would implode.

Ellen

___

[Neil Parille]

Ellen,

In my debates with Valliant he takes the following approach: (1) the Brandens say x; (2) he has proved that the Brandens say x; and (3) he can't be guilty of misrepresenting the Brandens with respect to incidents x1-x5 (supposed examples of x), because he has proved the Brandens say x.

Example: (1) Branden allege that every break was an excommunication caused by Rand; (2) he has demonstrated that Branden alleges that every break was an excommunication caused by Rand; and (3) even if Branden doesn't say that Rand excommunicated the Holzers or the Blumenthals, he has shown that Branden misrepresents every break so how dare you say he's failed to accurately summarize Branden's book.

As you say, if you examine his book from the bottom up, it collapses like a house of cards.

[Ellen Stuttle]

A present to those of you here who have suffered reading, analyzing, writing reviews of PARC: Neil, Jordan Z., Charles A., MSK, Dragonfly...:

In search of a particular item of information, I just read parts of an old thread from SoloHQ:

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/ArticleDi...ions/1208.shtml

This thread appeared before I started desultorily following SoloHQ. Tonight is the first time I've read parts of the discussion. Reading it with the advantage of hindsight, I've been laughing, as they say, till the tears streamed at David Brown's posts. His every inventive adjective -- and can he ever come up with the adjectives -- is apropos. The whole thread is long, but if you just read David's posts from amongst the about first 3 pages, I think you'll feel somewhat recompensed for the misery of having slugged through that execrably badly executed book.

Ellen

___

[Neil Parille]

This was a very enjoyable read, and not just for David Brown's comments. I recall that a PARCster wrote an article "The Silence of the Brandens' Defenders" or something like that claiming that PARC's suppoedly strong points were ignored. Obviously people were on to PARC from the beginning.

But did MSK really write this:

"I sincerely hope he does better with the New Testament project. He seems to be a very solid researcher and it's a shame to see that kind of rock solid effort that is so badly needed go to waste."

Given that Valliant can't even summarize accurately 2 sources, I can only imagine what he will do to 300 years of NT scholarship.

[Dragonfly]

But did MSK really write this:

"I sincerely hope he does better with the New Testament project. He seems to be a very solid researcher and it's a shame to see that kind of rock solid effort that is so badly needed go to waste."

Given that Valliant can't even summarize accurately 2 sources, I can only imagine what he will do to 300 years of NT scholarship.

A good example of how even some intelligent people can be taken in by scammer. But you can't fool all the people all the time, I suppose MSK has evolved in the meantime and has become wiser and sadder...

[Neil Parille]

Actually, I skimmed the posts again and it appeared that MSK's copy of the book hadn't arrived.

Incidentally, there is a post of mine somewhere from 2005 or early 2006 where I say something to the effect that I think Valliant has showed major problems in the Branden books.

So at the least people who have said negative things about PARC had an open mind.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have been doing a more in-depth analysis of PARC recently for a project and I constantly have to fight depression off. Seriously. I am amazed that someone could do that to his own mind and even more amazed that people swallow it. These people have mutilated their rational faculty.

What has popped out at me more and more is the level of dishonesty in PARC. I don't mean hidden intentions sandwiched in between the rhetoric. I mean outright lies presented on purpose. (I will not list them now because a list will be forthcoming before too long.)

On skimming the RoR thread with David Brown's comments, after analyzing way too much of PARC for my own good, I now see one of his comments in a completely different light:

Look, let's short-circuit all this. You have a copy of the thing. Open it. Let your finger drop at random. Read that sentence. If it's by Valliant, it's a lie, including the words "and" and "the." Figure it out.

There is more truth in that statement than I believe even David imagined back then. This was on May 25, 2005.

For the enjoyment of OL readers, David perfectly captured the emotional reaction of a person—one who is attuned to distinguishing fact versus rhetoric—on reading PARC here:

Coates, imagine yourself buried up to your neck in sand in the desert. Fire ants are crawling all over your face. The sun is beating down. Once every five minutes, a midget runs up and kicks you in the ear. It is a constant struggle to survive the pain, the humiliation. The vultures hover. All seems lost.

Yet, somehow, you endure. You endure. Life is a value. The way out is through. A stitch in time saves nine. The human spirit is undefeatable. You are determined. The day is almost over. Night is coming. If only you can last until morning, you think, you will find a way to escape. But, whatever, you must hang on. You must not give in to the constant searing pain. And you know you can hang on. You have managed so far. Despite it all. Despite everything your nemesis could subject you to.

Then he returns, to check up on you; he himself, the man who put you in this position. "Eh?" your foe says wonderingly. "Still alive? Resilient chap, are ye? The ants, the midgets haven't done ya in yet? Huh."

You smile a little smile of incipient triumph. This enemy, you know, wishes to defeat you not by killing you outright but by persuading you to forsake your life yourself. He wants you to give up and die because you choose to die. If you can survive his taunts, you know, then you can survive until the next morning...and then you can escape, and win.

"So. Tough guy, eh?" he says. "Well well well." He rummages around in a briefcase he happens to have brought with him.

"Hey look, just to help pass the time...how about a little reading before I leave you for the night? Ah let's see...here's something. A little tome I've been perusing by a guy named James Valliant, The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics.... So. To begin. 'It is a truth not universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a poor philosophy must be in want of an objective premise...' "

Your brain congeals in terror. Oh God no. No. No. No. Anything but that. Please God no, not that prissy fussbudget and those roiling, turgid excrescences he calls a case...no...no...no...not that, anything but that!!!

You're dead in an hour.

To David's credit, he has refused to sell the book. I believe his attitude will have long-term benefits in showing just how much integrity he has.

EDIT - Let me add the quote below from here:

This thread is about a book that is a prolonged smear job, which one can't take seriously beyond noting what a dishonest hash it is. One can either ignore such a book or slam it. I chose to slam it rather than ignore, so that at least a few of those who would pretend that the screed has something cogent and worthy to say will understand that their own complicity in the smearing will not unnoticed or un-remarked.

To David: they have not gone unnoticed. Nor will they.

Michael

[Neil Parille]

Michael,

I've resisted the temptation to call anyone dishonest. However, is beyond dispute that Valliant is just plain sloppy. He quite often misquotes the Brandens, even if in minor ways. I think there are two misquotes in the name section alone (not to mention the devious ellipses). And his sticking by his book on various points where he has been shown to be in error (such as the Blumenthals) is bad enough, but then to accuse others of being selective in their use of sources is ridiculous.

I think the best thing written thus far about the book is Dan Barnes' comment: "Valliant's `case against the Brandens' amounts to nothing more than one vast, nutty, vexatious litigation, with page after page of innocent trivia tortured until it confesses its sinister intent. "

[Ellen Stuttle]

I have been doing a more in-depth analysis of PARC recently for a project and I constantly have to fight depression off. Seriously. I am amazed that someone could do that to his own mind and even more amazed that people swallow it. These people have mutilated their rational faculty.

Michael,

Something you might be overlooking in your feeling of being amazed is how different people are from one another in their contexts of background -- and in their reading skills. I don't know how many times I've observed posters in listland who just are not swift in their ability to comprehend what they read, who miss so many details and subtleties. Plus Valliant is tricky, as you're well aware, with his quoting. I've seen numerous posts from persons who say in effect, Wow, I read the Branden books and I didn't notice all those contradictions, must have been sleeping on the job. Well, no, they weren't failing to notice the contradictions Valliant says are there, since most of those contradictions aren't there, if the original texts are read for what they really said and the context in which they said it. But someone is either going to have to have remembered specifics of the original contexts, or is going to have to go to the trouble of checking (or a combination of both) to realize the deceptiveness.

That's just one for instance as to how some can be fooled by Valliant's presentation. There are many other ways. I'm just pointing out that it isn't necessarily the case that anyone taken in is mutilating his/her "rational faculty." This is one of the reasons why I think that the procedure of detailing and discussing the flaws, aggravating and time-consuming as this procedure is, is useful. If I thought that anyone who "buys" Valliant's arguments was hopelessly beyond the reach of reason, I wouldn't bother.

Ellen

___

Edited February 18, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Neil Parille]

Ellen,

I agree. I would mention, however, that some of the examples Valliant provides should tip off even not so alert readers. Take for example the discussion on pages 16-19 of PARC concerning whether Rand was humerous or enjoyed life. The quotes Valliant uses aren't literally contradictory and it's clear that the Brandens are discussing different contexts and time periods.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

Yes, I should have qualified my statement to mean hardcore defenders of PARC, not casual readers or only those with poor reading skills. These PARCER people, like Valliant, actually have mutilated their rational faculty. I do not intend to gloss over this fact with those boneheads. The poor-skilled readers think they make sense.

Michael

[emb021]

I am now of the view that Valliant shouldn’t have come down so hard on the Brandens with such vitriolic rhetoric. ... but I am glad that the “other side” was told.

While I would agree that the 'other side' of the Brandens-Rand split be told, I can not accept Valliant's work as that 'other side'. In all honesty, the 'other side' should have come from Rand herself. As she is no longer with us, we can't get the full 'other side', her journals aside.

After all, there is a divide in the Objectivist community and Valliant’s work is that voice speaking. That voice is sometimes compelling and sometimes irritatingly shrill.

Sadly true. And personally I think it undeserving.

I think it would have been much better to simply have published Rand’s private journals as a stand-alone for scholars to study. That is, the journals could be studied on their own merits or in reference to the Branden claims. If there are contradictions and clashes, they can be identified and judged solely by Rand’s own words—Valliant free. This way, we could have avoided a debate that has collapsed in trivia...such as the book’s jacket design.

Have direct access to the journals would have helped, but sometimes we are not always honest with ourselves. We all have our own biases, etc. I doubt that Rand was immune to this, and I think this would have colored her journals.

[Rich Engle]

I agree very much with James H-N, having spent a lot of time likewise. It's easy to pick at someone if you don't know their work.

This way, we could have avoided a debate that has collapsed in trivia...such as the book’s jacket design.

Victor-- you know very well that there's nothing trivial when you roll out a book or an album. I found that cover very purposeful, and it wasn't good for Nathaniel. It could have been anything, after all.

[John Dailey]

~ I do agree that Valiant's style of point making leaves (in spots, quite) a bit to be desired. Ntl, pretty well most 'critiques' of his book, for the same exact reasons (motivations? ok; let's not 'psychologize') leaves the same. --- Some good analyses thereby, but, unfortunately all too often very personal-oriented evaluational commentings or emotional adjectival descriptions seem to deterministically get mixed in thus confusing the worth of the supposed 'argument' . I'd like to see a PLAIN analysis somewhere (apart from Neil's) that does not automatically include how evilly-motivated the disagreer is. Else, all one ends up reading is an argument between pots and kettles.

LLAP

J:D

[emb021]

~ I do agree that Valiant's style of point making leaves (in spots, quite) a bit to be desired.

My understanding is that Valiant is a District Attorney, and uses the sort of 'prosecutorial style' that is used in court rooms. While that might work there, it doesn't work in the written medium of those outside of courts. A few reviews have made a point of his style, and have criticised it as being inappropriate.

[Rich Engle]

It's inappropriate because it isn't objective. Prosecutors have a goal, which is to win. Winniing is nasty business, the only rule is that there are no rules. This isn't Marquis of Queensbury stuff, here.

I don't know why people would expect otherwise; if I were such a creature as he I would be doing the same thing-- exploiting the assets.

I'll say it again, this is, historically, a titillating approach (it can be). Think about the lawyers who have written books about their famous cases, and you have the marketing angle.

I don't blame him for using market kung fu, but he's so weird with his targets-- he starts out on a micro-audience like this, and next up, the New Testament. He's all over the map. Clearly, very full of himself, and I don't mean in a normal self-esteem way. I just read something he did the other day and again, he's all over the map. Starts out here, rips through a few other issues, and then gets to the religion stuff. There is always an agenda, mostly it's to get you to read his stuff. Again, no problem.

But I don't have a problem with stream-of-consciousness writing either, but with one caveat: it depends on whose consciousness it is.

He's got it all: just ask him.

[emb021]

After some of the comments on this thread, I decided to check out the user 'reviews' of PARC on Amazon. Most I found useless, being many PARCter 'true believer' nonsense on the book. One review slammed the book and had a response from the books publisher (wonder if it was really Valiant?).

One theme in many of the 'reviews' was the attitude that PARC is an 'antidote' to the 'years' (their term) of the Brandens lies/slander of Rand.

Which kind of made me wonder what the f*ck they were talking about.

My understanding is that they were more or less silent about what happened, other then the initial response to Rand's 'letter' in the Objectivist, until they published their books (PAR and MYWAR). I know that NB has done a further work on the 'benefits/hazards of Objectivism' (which is on his site). But I have to wonder if they means something else.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

One theme in many of the 'reviews' was the attitude that PARC is an 'antidote' to the 'years' (their term) of the Brandens lies/slander of Rand.

Which kind of made me wonder what the f*ck they were talking about.

Michael,

LOLOLOLOL...

It means everything it seems to mean:

1. The Brandens were the ONLY source of everything negative concerning Rand's personal life and character. (Rand sure has hell wasn't.)

2. Anybody else who ever wrote anything at all negative about Rand's personal life and character, especially if he was widely read, got his information—and probably his negative impressions—from the Brandens. (This gets sticky when someone published before the Brandens did, like Rothbard's "The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult" and others. But no matter. That is merely a detail. It was all the Brandens' fault anyway.)

3. It would be much better for all concerned if Rand's affair with NB simply went away. Much, much better. Gone. Poof. Evaporate. But since it won't, then it was all NB's fault (with BB cheerleading). Frank was simply a benevolent and heroic sanctioner.

Since the Brandens' works go far to fooling the public for years (including academic philosophers and scholars, and investigative journalists) from believing these self-evident truths, then PARC is the antidote. It completely "lays to rest" and definitively "exposes to the public shame" and "finally sets the record straight and in the process achieves a profound act of justice," and just about anything and everything good and wholesome you can imagine with respect to the... er... uhm... all that was bad and rotten ever said about Rand. Whew! Now the world can once again worship Rand with a clear conscious.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

MSK, your word for today is... "heh!"

Well, eff yeah, my brother!

I'm still waiting for someone to, with intelligence and fairness, take a real shot at NB's "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand."

I know that thing inside out, because I had to remaster the audio lecture. You know what? He was very, very good to AR in that, incredibly so. But, you know, that would involve basically saying "here's what we did, and here's how we could have done it better" or "try looking at it a little more this way before you start going off and alienating people," and so on. If anyone has real-field experience, and collaborative knowledge that is worth hearing about that kind of thing, it would be NB, uh, duh.

It's a very common sense lecture.

The only thing that might have eclipsed the "prosecutorial approach" (I'm near sure I first used that heavily, but who cares) would have been an evangelical one.

I'd like to say I find it funny how often JV uses the term "smear," going at it like he does by at least innuendo, but I don't find it funny-- I find it exactly what would be expected. One trick pony, and all.

[Ellen Stuttle]

PARC is the antidote. It completely "lays to rest" and definitively "exposes to the public shame" and "finally sets the record straight and in the process achieves a profound act of justice," and just about anything and everything good and wholesome you can imagine with respect to the... er... uhm... all that was bad and rotten ever said about Rand. [....]

The thing I keep wondering is if Valliant himself believes his line or if he's aware that to the extent people in the wider intellectual world bother to read the book -- which isn't going to be to much of an extent -- they aren't going to come away with an improved image of Rand. A number of the folks who specialize in criticising Rand have chortled with glee over PARC, especially over the journal entries, recognizing the degree to which those entries do the reverse of painting Rand in a flattering light. Did Valliant truly not anticipate this result?

Ellen

___

Edited February 27, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Rich Engle]

Ask him, Ellen, I'm sure he'll set you straight. :sick:

I don't believe his motive had diddly-squat to do with this supposedly-needed vindication.

I think his motive was to promote James Valliant as a swanky, insight-filled author/crusader for righteousness. An easy way to do that is target decent people who were involved in a sad thing, and act as an inquisitor. That he had some background in Rand's work was merely a matter of convenience. He was drafting behind a race car.

People do all kinds of things to get ahead in the entertainment business, which is what he's trying to be in.