News: Goddess of the Market by Jennifer Burns

[James Heaps-Nelson]

MSK – Thanks for your kind words! It's nice to know that someone's noticing what I'm trying to do. I try to carry the torch!

Jim – I’d love to see a panel with Objectivists addressing singularity issues. And I’ve seriously thought of putting together a proposal to Liberty Fund for a seminar on “Freedom, Free Will and the New Psychology.” I could make up a great reading list.

Some of the stuff I’m working on now takes off on the discussion on the biological basis of ethics in Dawkin’s The God Delusion. As you know, Shermer deals with these matters as well in The Science of Good and Evil. And I’m currently tackling Dennett’s analysis in Freedom Evolves. I think it’s on this ground that we can really engage with the biology-evolution folks. They don’t quite know what to do with their insights about the biological basis of ethics. I think Objectivists can help here.

And since this thread on Burn’s fine book, I’ll add this. Burns does a good job looking at Rand’s engagement with and interest in other intellectuals and thinkers. But there wasn’t much of that after Atlas. That was in part because we had our work cut out for us just to get the basics of Objectivism out to a wide audience. But now’s the time to push engagement even harder if Objectivism is to have a future beyond a small island of fans.

Ed,

Thanks for your insightful reply. TAS has done a great job over the years of addressing issues of bounded rationality and cognitive science and more recently bringing neuroscience into the Objectivist milieu with Walter Donway's talks at Summer Seminars. Originally Ken Livingston and more recently Jay Friedenberg and Robert Campbell have added a lot to these discussions. Jay Friedenberg's terrific book Dynamical Psychology is also a good survey of the intersections of chaos theory and complex systems with Psychology. These are the kinds of issues that have kept me excited about the future of Objectivism as an expanded school of thought.

These crucial areas aren't being touched on at all by ARI are really the meat of further expansion of Objectivism.

I'm excited to hear about your interest in the Singularity and Evolution topics. I think we are in the middle of a new incarnation of the liberty movement that involves a much richer description of human nature. We will need to address issues about how the human brain works in order to defend liberty against the endless complaints by opponents that humans in aggregate can't be trusted with freedom. I highly recommend both Michael Shermer's Mind of the Market and Gerald Edelman's Second Nature as two books that bear directly of these issues.

Jim

[Neil Parille]

Jennifer Burns has posted on the Brandens:

http://jenniferburns.org/blog/79-in-the-rand-archive-part-5-on-the-brandens

I would say that most of these problems (and I don't think they are all problems necessarily) are easily explained by what Barbara saw versus what the documents indicate (documents she didn't see). I can easily see the O'Connor's marriage looking quite different to observers than what the letters imply:

Let me say at the outset of this posting that I do not consider Rand’s relationship with Nathaniel Branden to be the foundational event in her intellectual or emotional life; I think the influence of Isabel Paterson and Frank O’Connor has been overlooked in the general focus on Nathaniel Branden. Nor do I think Rand’s extramarital affair with Branden is particularly noteworthy. Part of the fascination with this episode comes, I believe, from our own embedded expectations about gender and sexuality. Would anyone consider it remarkable or unusual for a famous and wealthy male author in his 50s to convince a young acolyte into a sexual affair? “Open” relationships and non-traditional marital arrangements are also par for the course when it comes to intellectuals, even American ones – examples can be found in the ideas of “free love” in New York’s Greenwich Village, the career of Victoria Woodhull, and the Brook Farm community in the 19th century.

Nevertheless, there is clearly a burning curiosity – and controversy – over all aspects of Rand’s relationship with Nathaniel and Barbara Branden. Many readers have wondered what, if anything, I saw in the archives that speaks to these controversies. So here I will briefly sketch out some of my findings on this matter.

When I began researching, my primary understanding of Rand’s life came from the two Branden memoirs, Barbara Branden’s The Passion of Ayn Rand and 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. I viewed the first series of correspondence between Rand and Nathan Blumenthal, and Barbara Weidman’s letters to Rand when she was away from her (the two later changed their names to Barbara and Nathaniel Branden). All of this material matched the accounts in the memoirs: here was the story of early difficulties in the relationship between Barbara and Nathan, for the reasons described; Nathan’s turbulent relationship with his family; the inflammatory letter he wrote to the UCLA newspaper (which I quote in my book), and so forth.

I also spent a good deal of time trying to discern what, if anything, Rand told Nathan Blumenthal about “free will.” This topic surfaced in their first letters and was one reason Rand decided to contact Blumenthal. Additionally, some of Murray Rothbard’s surviving letters indicate she changed her mind about this concept during the 1950s (for details, see Justin Raimondo’s An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray Rothbard). I could not uncover anything to speak to this point one way or the other, and so let it lie. 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). Barbara Branden also describes Leo as the young Rand’s primary love interest, while letters from the Rosenbaums indicate Rand had a devoted male admirer, “Seriozha”, who was a fixture in their household and accompanied Rand as far as Moscow when she was leaving Russia. So perhaps that famous fib about a fiancé which got her out of Latvia had more truth to it than previously understood. 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.

In the next phase of my research, I began understanding, as I write in Goddess of the Market’s concluding Essay on Sources, “the subtle interpretative power” the two memoirs exert. I have touched upon these points in my book, but primarily they are: downplaying Rand’s continued connection to her family while in the United States; the significance of her relationship to Frank; the nature of her relationship to Leonard Peikoff.

Here is some of the evidence I saw that led to my conclusions:

- Extensive letters from the Rosenbaums to Rand during the 1920s, including correspondence about her failed effort to bring them to the United States in 1937.

- Stacks of notes between Ayn and Frank, signed with obvious affection. Ayn often left these for Frank when she stayed up late to write. They emphasized for me how pivotal he was to her daily life, and how dependent she was upon his presence and caring.

- Multiple interviews that suggested despite the dominant position Rand appeared to hold in the relationship, Frank had his own subtle power over her. As anyone who has read Hegel knows, even the relationship between master and slave (which their marriage assuredly was not) is far from clear cut.

- Biographical interviews where Rand stressed the importance of several conversations with Peikoff that helped her understand herself as a philosopher and convinced her to pursue that aspect of her thought more thoroughly. These segments of the conversation do not appear in the Branden’s memoir.

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.

-Neil Parille

Edited November 28, 2009 by Neil Parille

[Robert Campbell]

Contrary to what was said recently on Ed Cline's blog, he is not reviewing the Burns book for The Objective Standard. (He may be reviewing the Anne Heller book, as stated).

The review was assigned to Bob Mayhew, and it is available for free on the TOS website:

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-winter/ayn-rand-jennifer-burns.asp

Robert Campbell

[BaalChatzaf]

If and when nontrivial numbers of Randians and Objectivists start feeling free to address important new questions informed by Rand but not bound to her, the movement will have turned a corner. The challenges are so great and yet in the 27 years since her death so little new profound work has been done. Some of that is that it is hard to make a living doing that kind of work, but some can definitely be chalked up to the forces of conformity in the movement.

Jim

L.P. and like minded folk have imposed a mortemain on Objectivism. The dead hand has impeded what good there is in it.

That is what happens when a third-rate second-rate man is appointed as Rand's intellectual heir.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Robert Campbell]

More about Bob Mayhew's review later.

But a couple of things struck me immediately:

(1) In his first paragraph Mayhew calls Nathaniel and Barbara Branden "Mr. and Mrs. Judas." Yet in a footnoted article he does not cite or mention Jim Valliant's opus.

(2) He never mentions the fact that Burns has ripped his rewriting of Ayn Rand's unpublished statements.

Robert Campbell

[Chris Grieb]

Are you suggesting that Mayhew believes in the primacy of consciousness. That not addressed the issues of Mayhew's editing of Miss Rand the editing does not exist.

[anonrobt]

If and when nontrivial numbers of Randians and Objectivists start feeling free to address important new questions informed by Rand but not bound to her, the movement will have turned a corner. The challenges are so great and yet in the 27 years since her death so little new profound work has been done. Some of that is that it is hard to make a living doing that kind of work, but some can definitely be chalked up to the forces of conformity in the movement.

Jim

L.P. and like minded folk have imposed a mortemain on Objectivism. The dead hand has impeded what good there is in it.

That is what happens when a third-rate second-rate man is appointed as Rand's intellectual heir.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Except that she didn't - she merely had him as her executor... he himself appointed himself as her 'intellectual heir'...

[Wolf DeVoon]

As a reward for reading 23 pages, it's my turn.

If and when nontrivial numbers of Randians and Objectivists start feeling free to address important new questions informed by Rand but not bound to her, the movement will have turned a corner. The challenges are so great and yet in the 27 years since her death so little new profound work has been done. Some of that is that it is hard to make a living doing that kind of work, but some can definitely be chalked up to the forces of conformity in the movement.

Hint: Rand was a novelist. Read any good novels recently?

[Wolf DeVoon]

Oo! Oo! - I found one!

Goodkind is far and away the most widely read Objectivist novelist since Rand herself. His books appear on the bestseller lists of the New York Times, USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal...

Consider some of the main characters. Richard Cypher is ... descended from great wizards and can perform magic. Indeed, he is the most powerful magician to have been born in thousands of years... Richard is able to use the Sword of Truth and his other powers only when he reaches a state of anger... Another character who is more than meets the eye is Kahlan Amnell, first seen walking through the forest in a long white dress. Kahlan is the Mother Confessor, the last in a line of women who have great magical power. They are called confessors because a person they touch must tell them the truth.

[William E. Perry, TAS http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1695-Goodkind.aspx]

There you go. Sword and sorcery, just like Roark and Galt.

[anonrobt]

Oo! Oo! - I found one!

Goodkind is far and away the most widely read Objectivist novelist since Rand herself. His books appear on the bestseller lists of the New York Times, USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal...

Consider some of the main characters. Richard Cypher is ... descended from great wizards and can perform magic. Indeed, he is the most powerful magician to have been born in thousands of years... Richard is able to use the Sword of Truth and his other powers only when he reaches a state of anger... Another character who is more than meets the eye is Kahlan Amnell, first seen walking through the forest in a long white dress. Kahlan is the Mother Confessor, the last in a line of women who have great magical power. They are called confessors because a person they touch must tell them the truth.

[William E. Perry, TAS http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1695-Goodkind.aspx]

There you go. Sword and sorcery, just like Roark and Galt.

How about the novels of L. Neil Smith?

[Wolf DeVoon]

How about the novels of L. Neil Smith?

Probability Broach is Smith's first novel. It is the story of a Denver Police Lieutenant Edward William Bear, called Win, who somehow find himself in a different continuum...

Win is on lunch break when he is called to the scene of a homicide. The victim, Vaughn L. Meiss, has been shot multiple times by a machine pistol... Win checks with the staff there and learns that Meiss was expected for an executive committee meeting. After interviewing the State Director, Jenny Noble, and other directors at the meeting, he finds that Meiss had been very excited by something and that the weapon that Meiss was carrying had been provided by the government to protect state secrets.

Win also interviews Dr. Otis Bealle, chairman of the CSU Physics department, and gets to see Meiss' office and laboratory. While he is in the lab, several men try to kill him with a machine pistol and other weapons. He accidentally hits the power switch on the gadget in the lab and then dives through an emergency exit, which happens to be an intercontinual portal. Shot, dazed and not very coherent, he stumbles out of the hole on the other side and is then blown through the air by an explosion...

When he wakes up again, he discovers that the voice belongs to a gorgeous blonde named Clarissa Olson. He also meets the other Bear, called Ed, as well as Lucille Gallegos Kropotkin, a 136 year old war veteran

Arthur W. Jordin, Amazon review

Jeez, yeah. Work of genius. Who can compete with that?

[Greybird]

[Responding to a half-literate random "review" of L. Neil Smith's Probability Broach at Amazon.com]

Jeez, yeah. Work of genius. Who can compete with that?

You're going to join Peikoff and Binswanger — and Rand — in making "judgments" by reviewing reviews? And hopelessly incompetent ones at that?

At least 98 percent of Amazon "reviews" are either fervent cheerleading, clueless blasting, or sixth-grade-caliber spoiler-filled book reports, and aren't worth the electrons used to ejaculate them.

The Probability Broach is a compelling six-hour read, and is all over new and used, e- and physical bookstore stacks. Or if you're in the mood (or only have the energy) for visuals, Wolf, the surprisingly effective and faithful graphic-novel version is available for free viewing online.

Just don't dump like this, from a position of ignorance, on a skilled storyteller who's a profound individualist and libertarian, and who makes this the heart of his work. No author deserves that.

Edited December 10, 2009 by Greybird

[anonrobt]

[Responding to a half-literate random "review" of L. Neil Smith's Probability Broach at Amazon.com]

Jeez, yeah. Work of genius. Who can compete with that?

You're going to join Peikoff and Binswanger — and Rand — in making "judgments" by reviewing reviews? And hopelessly incompetent ones at that?

At least 98 percent of Amazon "reviews" are either fervent cheerleading, clueless blasting, or sixth-grade-caliber spoiler-filled book reports, and aren't worth the electrons used to ejaculate them.

The Probability Broach is a compelling six-hour read, and is all over new and used, e- and physical bookstore stacks. Or if you're in the mood (or only have the energy) for visuals, Wolf, the surprisingly effective and faithful graphic-novel version is available for free viewing online.

Just don't dump like this, from a position of ignorance, on a skilled storyteller who's a profound individualist and libertarian, and who makes this the heart of his work. No author deserves that.

I actually rather like the graphic novel version - they put a lot of neat little details in there, as much to fill in from the book as they can, so it becomes more than a quick run-thru... I do question the simian and cetacean intelligence view that Neil puts forth in this and his other works [they all in the same universe], but that's quibbling compared to the rest...

Edited December 10, 2009 by anonrobt

[Wolf DeVoon]

The Probability Broach is a compelling six-hour read, and is all over new and used, e- and physical bookstore stacks.

We agree. Who can compete with that? (er, you sure he's an Objectivist?)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

At least 98 percent of Amazon "reviews" are either fervent cheerleading, clueless blasting, or sixth-grade-caliber spoiler-filled book reports, and aren't worth the electrons used to ejaculate them.

Steve,

I beg to differ.

Amazon put a lot of brilliant thinking into its system and respective algorithms, which is why it is so successful and why it generates such high quality reactions in the user reviews. They are pure gold if you know how to process them. And gold is an apt metaphor, too. Gold in the raw looks like dirt to someone who does not know what to do with it.

I have seen the following video at least 20 times and I intend to see it another 20. Each time I do, I learn something new. It is like a super-condensed course on copywriting. One day I hope to meet this man.

The Amazon School of Copywriting by Jay Abraham:

<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-8937503354639731229&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

don't dump like this, from a position of ignorance, on a skilled storyteller who's a profound individualist and libertarian, and who makes this the heart of his work. No author deserves that.

Which is it? Don't dump on a profound individualist and libertarian, or no author?

More ignorant questions. How does one qualify to be a profound individualist? Did I pass the test? Apparently not. You suggested I read (oops, I mean look at) a time travel comic book, to appreciate Smith's storytelling skill told second hand.

Suppose I reject non-initiation of force (NIOF or NAP). Betcha real money you'd dump on an anarchist author, right?

But I'm not a real author, because Smith sold more? You made your point.

Edited December 10, 2009 by Wolf DeVoon

[jeffrey smith]

At least 98 percent of Amazon "reviews" are either fervent cheerleading, clueless blasting, or sixth-grade-caliber spoiler-filled book reports, and aren't worth the electrons used to ejaculate them.

Steve,

I beg to differ.

Amazon put a lot of brilliant thinking into its system and respective algorithms, which is why it is so successful and why it generates such high quality reactions in the user reviews. They are pure gold if you know how to process them. And gold is an apt metaphor, too. Gold in the raw looks like dirt to someone who does not know what to do with it.

I have seen the following video at least 20 times and I intend to see it another 20. Each time I do, I learn something new. It is like a super-condensed course on copywriting. One day I hope to meet this man.

The Amazon School of Copywriting by Jay Abraham:

<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-8937503354639731229&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>

Michael

Michael--

I think it depends on which pocket of the Amazon-verse you use.

I use it, not for books, but as a guide to buying classical music, and find the CD reviews to be generally one of the following:

1)enthusiastic fan, usually posting on the first day of release. In fact, I'm often tempted to wonder if some of these are not record label sockpuppets. However, these are easy to spot because they are so obviously written by a fan.

2)music snob whose primary aim to impress others with his knowledge of music and historical recordings. Thus you will get a long discussion of how the CD in question compares, not to other versions currently available on the market, but to out of print (and often obscure) recordings dating from the 50s and 60s, if not before--generally to the detriment of the new CD. You will get long criticism of a conductor's faults compared to Mengelberg or Furtwangler, both of whom have been dead for several decades, and detailed discussion of the sonic engineering, generally not favorable. It does get you sense of the recordings strengths and flaws, but it's rather hard work to figure that out.

3)the poor average shlep who bought it, and either likes it very much or thinks he bought a real crapper, and posts one paragraph to tell the world what he thinks.

4) the person who has a complaint to make about Amazon customer service or a physical defect with the CD.

5) finally, the really useful reviews--by someone who has a reasonable liking or disliking for the recording, and takes two or three paragraphs to explain himself.

Generally, it takes four or five reviews posted to get a good sense of the CD, no matter which category they belong to. (Classical CDs seem to attract fewer number of reviews than books; some CDs even from major labels will get only one or two, or sometimes none at all.) Which is why I use Amazon only as a general guide. I tend to buy a CD because of the composer whose music is being recorded, or the artist who records it (thus, I'll buy any recording in which Richard Egarr appears, or any recording of Mahler's music, no matter if it duplicates something else I already have. Which is why I have about fifty Mahler recordings, and counting...). Amazon reviews help me only in the case of recordings about which I'm interested but decided on buying.

Jeffrey S.

[anonrobt]

At least 98 percent of Amazon "reviews" are either fervent cheerleading, clueless blasting, or sixth-grade-caliber spoiler-filled book reports, and aren't worth the electrons used to ejaculate them.

Steve,

I beg to differ.

Amazon put a lot of brilliant thinking into its system and respective algorithms, which is why it is so successful and why it generates such high quality reactions in the user reviews. They are pure gold if you know how to process them. And gold is an apt metaphor, too. Gold in the raw looks like dirt to someone who does not know what to do with it.

I have seen the following video at least 20 times and I intend to see it another 20. Each time I do, I learn something new. It is like a super-condensed course on copywriting. One day I hope to meet this man.

The Amazon School of Copywriting by Jay Abraham:

<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-8937503354639731229&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>

Michael

Not bad for a guy who talks a lot thru his back...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

That guy can talk through his socks for all I care. He's one of the advertising industry's prime copywriting movers. (Check out his CV sometime.) An American original and a consecrated industry icon. A genius in the best sense of the word.

Jay Abraham is one of the few who will make me shut up and listen sight unseen. And as gravy, he is a maker of millionaires the honest way.

We need folks like him in O-Land...

Michael

[Greybird]

[...] don't dump like this, from a position of ignorance, on a skilled storyteller who's a profound individualist and libertarian, and who makes this the heart of his work. No author deserves that.

Which is it? Don't dump on a profound individualist and libertarian, or no author?

From a position of ignorance. Your posting suggested that you pulled up one of those sixth-grade-caliber Amazon book reports and took that as a revelation about Smith. That is unfair. He doesn't deserve it, you don't, I don't, nobody does. What's so mysterious about my construction here?

[...] You suggested I read (oops, I mean look at) a time travel comic book, to appreciate Smith's storytelling skill told second hand.

No, first hand, if you bothered to look at a few pages. It's dialogue-heavy on the page, compared with some other such works, but Neil Smith wrote every word. Little is even condensed from the narrative version — it's remarkable how so much of the plot, theme, and dialogue translated so adeptly into graphics, under Smith's and artist Scott Bieser's collaborative efforts.

You're using "comic book" as a term of derision here, and that's also unfair, as genuine graphic novels have different esthetic sensibilities. But I'm not going to get into the same discussion all over again that I had with Barbara Branden about this — search for that if you wish.

[...] Betcha real money you'd dump on an anarchist [link here does not work for me — SR] author, right?

When I'm an anarcho-capitalist myself? Hardly.

But I'm not a real author, because Smith sold more? You made your point.

A point I never made, would never allege, and do not believe. Put down your hair-trigger anger, please, and try asking to clarify what someone means before you blast them.

[9thdoctor]

any recording of Mahler's music, no matter if it duplicates something else I already have. Which is why I have about fifty Mahler recordings, and counting...). Amazon reviews help me only in the case of recordings about which I'm interested but decided on buying.

Jeffrey S.

We ought to do a thread on Mahler, btw I’m pretty sure my collection’s bigger than yours (picture an emoticon of a strutting peacock here, oh I’m sooo superior!). Favorite recordings, that kind of thing. Complaints about the ridiculous tempo Klemperer took in the 3rd movement of Das Lied, when he had the best tenor ever for the part (Wunderlich). Laud the sonics of Sinopoli's recording of the 8th. The video direction of Bernstein's LSO 2nd.

How it’ll relate to Objectivism? Beats me, but we may come up with some surprise integrations. But whoever uses the stoopid-ass term "KASS" gets flamed.

[Greybird]

[...] At least 98 percent of Amazon "reviews" are either fervent cheerleading, clueless blasting, or sixth-grade-caliber spoiler-filled book reports, and aren't worth the electrons used to ejaculate them.

I beg to differ. Amazon put a lot of brilliant thinking into its system and respective algorithms, which is why it is so successful and why it generates such high quality reactions in the user reviews.

Its successful algorithms for distribution, ranking, and marketing have little to nothing to do with the caliber of its users' reviews. They cannot — we're talking mechanistic rankings versus non-linear textual commentary.

The user milieu for creating and comparing reviews has many faults.

~ Rankings create more competition for sheer numbers of comments, as I see in the declining caliber of anyone beyond the "top 1000" reviewers, who create hundreds of them. The easier way to sheer numbers is to make short ejaculations about likes or dislikes, as I said.

~ Others fall back on the limits of their government schooling (yes, my cynicism is showing) and write mere book reports, often full of plot spoilers. From all I've seen, nobody vets the reviews beyond "profanity" or use of external links. They certainly have no standards as to coherence or level of detail.

~ Reviews are combined from more than one edition of a book or recording, making it harder to judge as to special features or revisions. I'll admit that this is more of a problem for videos.

~ The "most helpful" reviews are divided as to star ratings, deeming everything three (of five) stars or below as being "critical," four or five stars as "positive." This often doesn't work because disappointment about more superficial features, or presentation techniques, isn't distinguished from that about a work's content. A single star rating is always subject to that limitation.

As for the "Amazon school of copywriting," that's about how the company sets up its listings. Not about how the increasingly dumbed-down American public responds to them. (Those from other English-speaking countries seem to put more coherence into how they express their opinions.)

My "98 percent" may have been an exaggeration, but I've rarely gained genuine insight from any Amazon reviewer. Even information to fill in Amazon's own gaps, such as to a DVD's special features, is rarely proffered.

[Greybird]

The Probability Broach is a compelling six-hour read, and is all over new and used, e- and physical bookstore stacks.

We agree. Who can compete with that? (Er, you sure he's an Objectivist?)

I'm the other party here — I wrote this, not Anonrobt. And, yes, Smith sells more books than you do, but that doesn't have anything to do with my earlier points.

Is Smith an "Objectivist," whatever that really means? Not if it's involving an intense adherence to Rand's views, though he's very much an individualist.

[jeffrey smith]

We ought to do a thread on Mahler, btw I’m pretty sure my collection’s bigger than yours (picture an emoticon of a strutting peacock** here, oh I’m sooo superior!). Favorite recordings, that kind of thing. Complaints about the ridiculous tempo Klemperer took in the 3rd movement of Das Lied, when he had the best tenor ever for the part (Wunderlich). Laud the sonics of Sinopoli's recording of the 8th. The video direction of Bernstein's LSO 2nd.

How it’ll relate to Objectivism? Beats me, but we may come up with some surprise integrations. But whoever uses the stoopid-ass term "KASS" gets flamed.

So you do write some of those Amazon reviews

As to relating Mahler to Objectivism--well, we could discuss whether or not, in light of her view of Beethoven's music being malevolent, Rand would have run screaming from the room in terror if she ever heard Mahler's Sixth.

**you mean there's an emoticon you don't have?

Jeffrey S.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Its successful algorithms for distribution, ranking, and marketing have little to nothing to do with the caliber of its users' reviews.

Steve,

Do you really believe this? That Amazon's "algorithms for distribution, ranking, and marketing" can make Amazon as wildly successful as it has become without including human nature in the equation?

I don't.

The caliber of the user reviews is precisely calculated and there is even a form of moderation in place to make sure that caliber is maintained. (I have read several works that discuss the strategies behind this and Jeff Bezos's philosophy of bridging interactivity gaps.) There is more: the genius of Amazon is that such this caliber is maintained without paying the review authors for it. On the contrary, they pay Amazon by buying products.

Amazon is one of the very few Internet giants that survived the dot-com bust (an extremely select club indeed) and it's interactivity and ecommerce practices have been imitated so much that is it fair to say that Amazon is the father of Web 2.0.

(Amazon continues on the Information Revolution vanguard and will probably usher in another web era with s3 and cloud computing—Amazon Web Services in general, and the Kindle is doing another mini-revolution in just plain reading, but these things belong to another story.)

I personally find the user reviews useful. In fact, I generally find them more useful than professional reviews in print media, albeit the level of writing is mostly not as good. They reveal the souls of the readers. They tell you clearly how the work and/or theme impact the target public without the smoke and mirrors of public media manipulators. Professional reviews do not. Professional reviews tell you how these things impact the reviewer. Often this person is not a very nice or objective person. I won't even go into the agendas of the different big media organizations they work for. Apparently, I am not alone in thinking like this. Amazon's success is clear evidence.

Of course, there are oodles of exceptions on all sides, ranging from moments of deep insight to highly irritating abuses.

In short, I like the user review resource and derive great value from it. I believe it has been a game-changer in the bookselling marketplace and has strongly impacted the future of the web in general.

(btw - I empathize with you on reading the low level of some of the reviews. But I try not to focus on these individuals. Fortunately there is usually a lot of really good value surrounding them.)

Michael