The uselessness of PARC

[Victor Pross]

Dragonfly,

Valliant's fairytale? Gee, I don't really know. Like I said, the man was so smug and it was a real labour reading the material. Plus his constant use of "bunny ears" when not "needed" was driving me "crazy." Do you know what I "mean"?

Finally, I just skipped to Rand's journals. That speaks for itself.

V

Edited September 12, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Ellen Stuttle]

In a comment following Daniel Barnes' second installment

http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.c...cophancy-2.html

Greg Nyquist neatly sums up the theme of this thread (i.e., "the uselessness of PARC").

"Valliant's book is manna from heaven for critics of Rand," Nyquist opines. Quite so, I think. And how ironic that someone would have authored PARC believing he was doing Rand's reputation in the wider world a service.

Ellen

___

[Rich Engle]

Another reason why I contend that was not the primary purpose in writing the book, Ellen--if it was there at all.

[Dragonfly]

Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Rich, I think that Valliant might have started out just being irritated by and wanting to document the discrepancies between and the glitches within Barbara's and Nathaniel's accounts. I never did see the original version of Part I, which was posted on Casey Fahy's website. I wish I had seen that, as I think it would give me a better idea of his initial impetus.

Where I think he's especially foolish is in (apparently) not recognizing where Rand's journal entries about the relationship cast an unflattering light on her. I continue to feel, thinking of those entries, that odd sense of being embarrassed for another person.

Ellen

___

[Rich Engle]

Maybe, Ellen... I couldn't assume that there isn't some real in him. For sure; he's not an ignorant man, and probably far from a real bad boy, too.

The thing is, he's got too much of a crusading, heck, something like a condemning, evangelical approach. I suppose that's to be expected; he's a lawyer and he's going to use his lawyerly talents.

I don't buy into anything where I see a complete moral condemnation of people that are basically decent, law-abiding U.S. citizens. Nathaniel and Barbara are that, and obviously a good deal more. There is no requirement for defense, outside of for maybe those in O-world that are obsessed with an ancient event that they were not privy to, in real time. What remained were various types of records, data, oral accounts, and, of course, the books that NB and BB wrote and AR's journals.

It ran way deeper than philosophy, it was about very strong people, it was about relationships, it was about romance, it was about sex, it was about a lot of things. It was, at core, between two couples-- what we might call "power couples" these days.

And, forgive my frankness, but if one does not know what the formidable force on the planet is, the thing that empires have been lost and won over, who holds the gold, one is naive. It was, at core, about fucking , and that's what doesn't get raised. There's not much to talk about.

So, if Valliant was frustrated in some way, as far as I am concerned he just wasn't seeing the obvious, and I don't buy that because, for one, I don't think him stupid. I also don't think him a crusader. I do think him an author furthering his career, and I'm OK with that. I just find the approach flimsy and I think it implodes if you know what you're looking at.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Rich, I think that he maneuvers in the book itself (and of course chronically during email exchanges about the book). But where I'm not so sure as you seem to be about venal motivation pertains to why he set out in the first place to analyze and write about the Brandens' books. (As I said, I wish I'd seen the original version of Part I of PARC.) Recall that he says he was expecting Leonard Peikoff to disapprove of his discussing the Brandens/Rand issue at all, and that he was surprised when Leonard granted him access to the archives, let alone permission to publish Rand's journal entries pertaining to the affair. It seems to me that one would reasonably have expected NOT to have gotten the support he did get from Leonard Peikoff. So that mitigates against the idea of an eye to fame as the initial impetus, whatever motives developed afterward.

Where I think he's being noticeably dumb is in his expectation (if this is genuine) that his book will counteract negative opinions of Rand on the part of the wider (non-Objectivist) intellectual world. I think the book will reinforce such opinions. Time will tell.

Ellen

___

[Robert Campbell]

Rich and Ellen,

My own experience with El Glorioso Valliantero y sus Claquitos leads me to wonder about some of these issues.

For one, Mr. Valliant likes to give the impression that he is tight with Leonard Peikoff, without ever quite coming out and saying it. Maybe he had a pretty good idea all along of what would convince Dr. Peikoff to open the Ayn Rand Archives to him?

Second, I think he wants to be seen as a white knight, defending The Lady's honor against the twin serpents. Neither of "the Brandens" has shown any interest in entering the lists, which must frustrate him no end.

Third, Mr. Valliant either worships Ayn Rand, or finds it politic to propitiate those who do. I think the former is more likely.

Robert Campbell

[Ellen Stuttle]

Maybe [JV] had a pretty good idea all along of what would convince Dr. Peikoff to open the Ayn Rand Archives to him?

Maybe.

Second, I think he wants to be seen as a white knight, defending The Lady's honor against the twin serpents.

I think so, too. And that he especially relished the thought of public swordplay with Nathan.

Third, Mr. Valliant either worships Ayn Rand, or finds it politic to propitiate those who do. I think the former is more likely.

Same here.

Ellen

___

[Mike Hardy]

Where I think he's being noticeably dumb is in his expectation (if this is genuine) that his book will counteract negative opinions of Rand on the part of the wider (non-Objectivist) intellectual world. I think the book will reinforce such opinions. Time will tell.

Ellen

___

Ellen, did Valliant actually say he expected that? I'd have

thought it was obvious he intended his book for an audience

of those familiar with this controversy. Obviously (or at least

it seems obvious to me) if a biography gives wrong impressions

of its subject, the remedy would have to be another, better,

biography. -- Mike Hardy

[Ellen Stuttle]

Mike Hardy, m'dear, why do you suppose I have the impression that your own interest in the subject has been only that of a mild tangential occasional curiosity?

If you're curious enough to do some detailed reading, here's a place you might start to find examples of Mr. Valliant speaking for himself:

nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/notablog/archives/000641.html#comment-417

That's a direct link to Valliant's first -- and in this instance long -- comment (dated July 22, 2005 11:12 AM) on the Notablog discussion of Chris Sciabarra's review of PARC.

Another Notablog entry, cross-linking to an earlier discussion of PARC, is at:

nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/notablog/archives/000303.html

That will lead you to a SOLOHQ discussion, from which you can then find further discussions, in some of which Valliant participated. There are also threads about his book on solopassion.com. I daresay you can track down more than enough in his own words on the basis of which to conclude that he was hoping tp influence the opinions of a wider readership than just Objectivists.

LNS

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen and Mike,

A full list of links (which I constantly update) of PARC reviews and discussions - especially discussions where Valliant participated, are available at PARC Reviews and Commentary. I just counted 65 separate topics and discussions, all just waiting to be clicked on by eager inquiring minds.

Michael

[Neil Parille]

MSK,

Thanks for collecting my posts in your list of PARC discussions. I would recommend that people interested in PARC do what I have done -- look at what Mr. Valliant says and compare it to what the Brandens said.

[Mike Hardy]

Mike Hardy, m'dear, why do you suppose I have the impression that your own interest in the subject has been only that of a mild tangential occasional curiosity?

O god.... is Ellen starting to figure me out?? What if she finds out I'm

not really a priest? Ellen, would those colorful confessions start getting

less entertaining? (Or ... maybe _more_---they could become pure

fiction.) And if you find out I'm also hearing confessions from another

woman---a 16-year-old opera singer whom I've taught to feel guilty

about her substantial mammalian attributes, to very entertaining effect---

will you then publish a paper titled "To Whom it May Concern" denouncing

me?

(Geez, I'm starting to sound a bit like Jeff Olson---I should get help.)

[Rich Engle]

I'm still trying to figure out the odd triangulation between priest, the very shocking driver's license photo, and the current non-priestly interest in, as Frank Zappa once referred to them, mammalian protruberances . Mike, aren't you supposed to be harvesting young, hairless choir boys? You're going to mess everything up if you're not careful!

rde

I'm watching you now, buddy.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Neil,

Thanks for collecting my posts in your list of PARC discussions. I would recommend that people interested in PARC do what I have done -- look at what Mr. Valliant says and compare it to what the Brandens said.

You are very welcome (and glad to see you here). Your analyses of specific points of PARC are some of the best I have seen so far.

I also fully agree with you about people reading and comparing for themselves. I see PARC as a monument to telling people what they should think - a form of attempted mind control by making it attractive not to think by offering sheer drudgery to refute. It is easy to speculate on why this tactic was employed.

Nothing is better than obtaining agreement through the independent objective thoughts and judgments of each individual person.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Nothing is better than obtaining agreement through the independent objective thoughts and judgments of each individual person.

You're just going to ruin everything if you keep that up, Maestro... B)

rde

It's their party, and our fearless leader just executed micturition all over it!

[Ellen Stuttle]

Priest imposter Mike Hardy asks:

"[...] will you then publish a paper titled 'To Whom it May Concern' denouncing

me?"

No, but I might publish one titled "To Whom It [notice the capitalized i] May Concern."

(Geez, I'm starting to sound a bit like Jeff Olson---I should get help.)

Yes.

The Seer

__

[Rich Engle]

One point that I haven't seen mentioned in the discussions of PARC is the uselessness of it.

A good enough opening line that it deserves its own marquee.

I don't think you were trying to be funny, Dragonfly, but there you went and did it.

[Dragonfly]

One point that I haven't seen mentioned in the discussions of PARC is the uselessness of it.

A good enough opening line that it deserves its own marquee.

I don't think you were trying to be funny, Dragonfly, but there you went and did it.

I'm afraid I'm missing something...

BTW, I see I omitted an "s" in the title, but I can't seem to correct it myself. Kat?

[Rich Engle]

I dunno, I just think it's great "obvious" humor. After all the reams of posts about it, for months, I read that line and it made me crack up for some reason. Still does.

Edited September 19, 2006 by Rich Engle

[Ellen Stuttle]

Priest imposter Mike Hardy [...].

Ok, I misspelled "impostor." Happens to the best of us.

Ms. Editer [Editor]

[Mike Hardy]

Priest imposter Mike Hardy [...].

Ok, I misspelled "impostor." Happens to the best of us.

Ms. Editer [Editor]

Ellen, you realize the part about the 16-year-old female opera singer

who comes to me and says "Bless me Father for I have sinned..."

and tells me about her feelings of guilt about all the things I've told

her are immoral, including her capacious mammalianity, being liked

so much by Andrew Lloyd Webber at that audition, etc., is all strictly

hypothetical? As is the part about my not really being a priest? It's

God's way of testing your faith.

You know, I've always suspected Roland Pericles has written

something called "Tomb It May Concern", but I've never been

able to locate that in the library....

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George H. Smith (author of Atheism: The Case Against God, Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies, Why Atheism? and several other books) showed up on SLOP after time off for reading and writing. He was... how shall I say this?... badgered to read PARC before he left. Every other post directed at him was "read PARC." Some of the posts were from Valliant.

Poor George even complained about receiving e-mails from prominent SLOPPERS discussing what his reaction would or should be to the book. It sounded like he was complaining about pressure.

Of course, he made absolute mincemeat out of several of the more boneheaded assertions thrown at him from Perigo, Valliant & Co. And, of course, he was told that all would be revealed and clear once he read PARC.

Well, George did show back up on SLOP on September 25 in a post called General Comments. It is on a thread called Atheism, Ayn Rand and the BBC., discussing Christianity, Lord Acton, etc.

I finished reading PARC, by the way. (Just thought I'd throw this in.)

Not a peep from the pro-PARC crowd. Valliant, Fahy and several other PARCERS even contributed lots of posts to the thread after George's post and not a single peep. And that was 4 days ago.

Hmmmmmmmmmm...

Michael

[Rich Engle]

I guess the conversion process didn't work, unless George is sandbagging!

Contest idea: find one post anywhere where Fahy doesn't write a sentence that includes "...read PARC(?)"

He's such a good little PR monkey. B)

I noticed he's started to pre-promote the Biblical tome coming out next.