News: Goddess of the Market by Jennifer Burns

[Greybird]

[Amazon.com's] successful algorithms for distribution, ranking, and marketing have little to nothing to do with the caliber of its users' reviews.

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.

Michael, your paraphrasing isn't helpful. I wasn't talking about Amazon's more general "wild success" — one that was a long time coming. I meant precisely what I actually said: The algorithms, as in how material is presented and processed, are not related to the caliber of the reviews.

They create a particular setting for those who make the reviews, inevitably encouraging some traits more than others, but they have nothing to do with the quality of the reviews. That is not in its direct control. It can't be, as that reflects the reading public's strengths and weaknesses.

Most are the sad products of government schooling, without an imaginative or analytical element in their brains — usually beaten out of them by the end of the "twelve-year sentence" — and that lack is on full display.

If a work has hundreds or thousands of user reviews, some more intelligent ones will show up. Your normal bell-curve distribution. Amazon's criterion for identifying them is user ratings for how "helpful" they are.

That highly flawed, rarely objective, push-a-button metric is far too vague, however simple it may be to gather the data. It sometimes makes informative reviews get featured — but just as often, it gains attention for reviews that pander to the work's creators (and, I suspect, are often planted by them) or that have vivid and hyperbolic criticisms.

The caliber of the user reviews is precisely calculated [...]

I don't know what alternate-universe version of Amazon you're looking at, but this, unfortunately, is nonsense on its face. Amazon does not write the user reviews. Nor does it, from all appearances, even filter or reject them, unless the writers cannot master punctuation and syntax — and, sometimes, even those lacking such used-to-be-common virtues get through.

[...] Professional reviews tell you how these things impact the reviewer.

As opposed to user reviews, which tell you how works "impact" ... someone else? I can't even figure out what you're talking about here. All reviews describe how a work affects the reviewer.

(Sorry, but I cannot stand the constant verbifying of nouns like "impact," a sign of the poverty of language usage in our age.)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Steve,

The point I am making has to do with the word "quality" that you keep saying ("quality of reviews" and so forth).

I get the impression that you are disappointed that Amazon does not use your standard of quality instead of its own. That's the actual impression I get from reading you trash the value of Amazon's user reviews in general.

Why am I even arguing about this? Hell, it's your opinion, not mine. On reflecting on this right now, I think I see why. Let's call it promoting a "glass half-full" perspective. It grates against my grain when I see a judgment that trashes the general "everybody" and takes brilliant achievements with it.

And to be even more precise, my standard of value starts with identifying correctly, and only then judging, then acting on that judgment. In fact, this is exactly what Amazon has done.

Rather than approach reviews from the standpoint of what users should do, Amazon gave them a resource to present their thoughts and looked at what they did do. From that point, it judged, then acted. It started tweaking and encouraging more and more quality, starting with weeding out spam, profanity, etc.

The should do emerged from the did do, not from a place of Amazon wanting to overhaul society and imposing its standards on folks. But here's the real interesting thing from my view: the overhaul is happening. Amazon is now, in reality and not in discourse only, imposing a quality structure on customers.

Since the purpose of Amazon is to sell stuff and not debate ideas, I don't imagine it will use this process to go much further than verifying that users interested in the merchandise enough to post about it are actively engaged with each other within a minimum level of civility and staying on topic. You don't need an "alternate universe" to see that, nor does Amazon need an "alternate universe" to calculate that level of quality with precision. And even on this level, this process spreads ideas with much greater effectiveness than other means (like public school, for instance) and improves the quality of judgments about them.

But Amazon could change this process if it's core value (i.e., profit from providing value) changed. I have no doubt, too, that it could easily be successful in drastically raising the quality of user reviews in the direction you prefer. But Amazon would not make nearly the quantity of money it does right now. From what I have seen of these processes (not looking only at Amazon, either), it would work well. If this is deeply important to you, why not look into it?

The tools are there. They work. Amazon wants money and uses them to get money. So what does Steve want? You don't even have to do it all. Just find like-minded people, make a plan, and off you go...

Ironically, you yourself get great value from Amazon's reader reviews and you use it in your discourse. You have a complaint about the low level of education in our country. Many of these reviews constitute concrete evidence supporting your argument. After all, if people interested in reading write that badly, imagine what those who don't read do?

You have something that spontaneously came from people doing what is important to them on record to point at. And anyone can consult it. What could be better than that for your argument? If things like these reviews did not exist, your opinion would be just that, an opinion.

You also have on record how well the ideas of any particular book and/or author are getting across, what people think about the manner of presentation, etc.

Maybe that information is not valuable to you, but it is to me and to a whole lot of other people. We all happen to buy more books because of this information combined with interaction. That makes Amazon not only real happy, it makes Amazon do more stuff like making similar user systems. And we all buy more books, which means, more ideas are getting out into the culture.

So what have we got here? Proof supporting one of your complaints for you—and market stimulation for Amazon. I see win-win. That's a glass that's actually more than half-full. Armed with facts like what Amazon gives you, you can actually do something—something effective—about your complaint instead of merely stating it as an opinion.

I think that's about as cool as it gets for people who want to change the world for the better. Are you such a person?

On another note, I'm sorry you "can't stand" the verb "impact" since it is a normal part of the English language. It is not only widely used as a verb in our culture and has been for decades, if not centuries, it has a standard definition as such (see here: impact, for instance). Just open any dictionary if you don't like the Free Online Dictionary.

I like writing in English, especially to people who speak it, and I intensely dislike obeying arbitrary commands (most particularly implied ones) from those with whom I am discussing things. But I can make an exception here. I have been out of the country for decades and often there is a literal blank inside me with respect to the cultural fads in the air. So I have no problem using "to affect" or "to prompt a value judgment" or whatever in the place of "to impact" to appease your sensibilities. That word is not as important to me as it is to you.

Just to be fair, here is the usage note on "impact" from the American Heritage Dictionary as quoted by FOD in my previous link:

Usage Note: The use of impact as a verb meaning "to have an effect" often has a big impact on readers. In our 2001 survey, 85 percent of the Usage Panel disapproved of the construction to impact on, as in the sentence These policies are impacting on our ability to achieve success; fully 80 percent disapproved of the use of impact as a transitive verb in the sentence The court ruling will impact the education of minority students. · It is unclear why this usage provokes such a strong response, but it cannot be because of novelty. Impact has been used as a verb since 1601, when it meant "to fix or pack in," and its modern, figurative use dates from 1935. It may be that its frequent appearance in the jargon-riddled remarks of politicians, military officials, and financial analysts continues to make people suspicious. Nevertheless, the verbal use of impact has become so common in the working language of corporations and institutions that many speakers have begun to regard it as standard. It seems likely, then, that the verb will eventually become as unobjectionable as contact is now, since it will no longer betray any particular pretentiousness on the part of those who use it. See Usage Note at contact.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

At least you are not alone in disliking the usage, even though I find it odd and even top experts (like the ones at AHD) can't figure out why.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

I wouldn't make my buying decisions about CDs primarily on the basis of user reviews at Amazon. I read Fanfare for classical releases, Cadence for jazz, and Blues & Rhythm for blues, R&B, and gospel. These are all magazines aimed at serious enthusiasts and none are particularly susceptible to the traditional forms of media manipulation. (I also use specialty sites, such as H&B for classical, because they offer better deals on some small label releases than Amazon does.)

Still, I appreciate the availability of the user reviews for CDs.

And when it comes to buying books I pay a fair amount of attention to the user reviews.

Some of the music suggestions and many of the book suggestions at Amazon are helpful, from my point of view. The reviews are contributing in that respect even if I never bother to read any of them.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

I don't use "impact" as a verb.

This may be because my father was a dentist, and it's hard for me to hear or read a sentence that uses "impact" as a verb without envisioning an impacted wisdom tooth...

Ouch.

I don't use the indirect quotational "like."

But both of these are as rule-governed as any of the usages I do employ. And no one is committing a sin by talking or writing in these ways. I just haven't joined in.

Underneath it all, a basic property of human languages is that they change.

And language change is a social process.

It only stops when they're completely dead, like Middle Egyptian.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On the Amazon thing, I got a private message about some Creationists doing Amazon user-review monkeyshines about a new Creationist book (similar to the false impression skewing of results Objectivists try to do with Rand's works at times, as if she needed that kind of help).

All this proves is that a brilliant achievement (like Amazon's system) can be used by morons to lie to the public.

They always pass, as do their trifling campaigns, but ain't it great that the real achievements always live on?

Michael

[Dragonfly]

I find the Amazon customer reviews very useful. Sure, you'll find many crappy ones, but in most cases there are enough that can give valuable information. If there are for a particular book a large number of reviews, I skip the 5 stars and the 1 star reviews and concentrate on the mixed ones, as you can expect to find there more balanced and well-reasoned information about strong and weak points of the book. Of course this also depends on the context, if I read for example the reviews of a creationist book or a book about quantum healing, I don't bother with the positive reviews at all. But then I wouldn't buy the book to begin with, I read those reviews only out of curiosity. On the other hand, if I'm reading the reviews of a serious book about evolution, I can easily dismiss the negative reviews that reveal clearly a creationist bias. It's a bit what you see in the Internet in general: no doubt there is tons of crap there, but also useful information which you can uncover by using the Internet intelligently.

[Robert Campbell]

Jim Valliant's review of Jennifer Burns' book has now appeared at SOLOP, along with Dr. Burns' reply

http://www.solopassion.com/node/7293

No post by Jim Valliant would be complete these days without a fawning compliment from Ellen Stuttle, which can also be seen on the thread.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

I read Jennifer's reply. I didn't bother with Valliant's review, but I suppose I will have to get to it sometime. The impression of the review given in Jennifer's response is more or less what I expect to be there.

(You know the dog is going to bark, so why do you need to go listen one more time to the dog barking to know that barking is all the dog does? )

I loved this quote by Jennifer: "There is far more to Rand than Objectivism, and it is not necessary to accept her philosophy in order to understand her singular contribution to American thought."

Looking at it from this angle, I would go so far as to say that there is far more to Objectivism than Objectivism.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Here's my take on the Jim Valliant review and Jennifer Burns' reply to it, over at SOLOP.

Mr. Valliant's review shows him on his best behavior, and genuinely interested in several intellectual figures on the American Right besides Ayn Rand.

But, of course, he is still Jim Valliant, which means that his review is tediously tendentious.

He credits Dr. Burns with not falling for every one of TheBrandens'™ evil tricks, selectively quoting her account of The Affair and its breakup to draw attention to her criticisms of Nathaniel Branden's conduct while ignoring her criticisms of "To Whom It May Concern." (The passages he quotes from Goddess of the Market are the same ones that Lindsay Perigo and Ellen Stuttle have already made use of.) But, of course, he is not satisfied, because Dr. Burns actually accepted much more of TheBrandens'™ accounts than he thinks she should have.

The rest is Mr. Valliant spinning out to inordinate length what Ayn Rand was able to communicate with notable economy:

Ford Hall Forum 1973

Q&A,17:00 to 17:20

Q: In the first 20 years after your coming to this country, were there any American writers, particularly in the field of non-fiction, who influenced your ideas?

A: No, not a single one. I wish there were.

Ford Hall Forum 1969

Q&A, 2:07 through 3:23

Q: In the last 25 years, have you had an important change of opinion?

A: Oh, I think you make it too restricted. Put it this way: in the last 64 years, I have not [lengthy applause]—not philosophical opinions. If you understand the term, that is fundamental views of the nature of man, of existence, and of the means of human knowledge and human values.

I certainly have learned a great deal in these years and in the last 25 years, and I have improved very frequently some formulation, some details of the conclusions which I reached, but never the philosophy nor the fundamentals.

During the 1980s, some American developmental psychologists became infatuated with the doctrines of Noam Chomsky, who made strong explicit claims for innate knowledge, with strong implications, in turn, that such knowledge could not have arisen through evolution. Articles appeared with the subtitle "What Does Not Develop." (IMHO, if you're a developmental psychologist and you put all your marbles on what doesn't develop, you're making a good case that your services are no longer required.)

The only account of Rand's intellectual development that could satisfy Jim Valliant would have to be "Ayn Rand's Ideas: What Did Not Develop."

Displaying his continuing mastery of equivocation, Valliant declares:

While she severely criticizes David Harriman and Michael Berliner for their editing of the Rand material in The Journals of Ayn Rand and Letters of Ayn Rand, PARC, which had made clear even the smallest omission or addition from Rand’s original text, pointedly avoids this. It is obvious that as historical documents the usefulness of these other volumes is limited, as Burns is right to point out. However, there are other purposes these works serve for the student of Rand’s philosophy seeking a deeper understanding of Objectivism and the rest of the author’s mature thought. Burns does not seem to appreciate the value of this.

In point of fact, Dr. Burns criticized Mr. Harriman for his rewriting of the Journals (along with Bob Mayhew and Tore Boeckmann, for their rewriting of Rand's lectures on writing and her answers to questions); according to her assessment, Dr. Berliner's editorial touch on the Letters was far lighter.

Making sure not to offend his sponsor Leonard Peikoff (who had authorized all of those posthumously rewritten Rand volumes), Mr. Valliant claims that Rand-Harriman and Rand-Mayhew and Rand-Boeckmann will somehow aid those who seek to understand the mature thought of Rand, unhyphenated. He doesn't say how.

I can't improve on Dr. Burns' rejoinder:

Yet for Valliant Rand is more than consistent, she is unchanging, even when her own writing indicates otherwise. Some of this may come from Valliant’s focus on her published work, when most of my book looks at the spadework that went into Rand’s publications. In these unpublished materials, I find marked differences in tone and temper — which are important to any discussion of Rand’s ideas. But for Valliant, these differences are nothing more than “stylistic adjustment to differing venues for her thought.” If Rand began writing more about philosophy in the 1960s, that fact is insignificant to Valliant and indicates nothing more than “a new interest in writing about it.” For Valliant, “The process of Rand’s development was largely the process of finding the right words to express her original intention and the language to fit her unique vision with precise clarity.”

Here we are at an impasse about the meaning and significance of language. For Valliant, language does not precisely express concepts or meaning: if Rand changed the language she used, it was not because her ideas changed but because she simply expanded the repertoire of words she had at her disposal. This argument sheds some light on why editors at the Ayn Rand Institute consider it perfectly acceptable to alter Rand’s language in compilations of her writings, speeches, and interviews. It is not, however, convincing to me, particularly when we are discussing a novelist who was legendary for her precise use of language and her desire to painstakingly craft a stylized universe. Nor is it an adequate explanation for philosophy, a field that hinges upon the precise usage of language. As Rand might say, if words don’t express meaning, then we are lost in a sea of subjectivity.

Indeed, if Mr. Valliant really imagines that Ayn Rand's actual words don't matter, and editorial tampering with them is legitimate for instructional purposes, it becames much easier to understand why his book includes all of those Valliantcites and Valliantquoats.

But it becomes even harder to understand why he insisted that changing a single line of Night of January 16th in performance was an act of "systematic and personal betrayal" (PARC, p. 76).

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Since Valliant's basic premise is get the Brandens, it's hard for me to refine anything good out of what he says. I'm trying. He said some interesting things. As for me posting on that thread over there, Ellen saying what she says about Valliant the way she says it makes me appreciate why an observant Jew wants a kosher kitchen. You'll find no comments from me about Valliant's review there.

--Brant

I liked her--a lot

[Roger Bissell]

[....]

Displaying his continuing mastery of equivocation, Valliant declares:

While she severely criticizes David Harriman and Michael Berliner for their editing of the Rand material in The Journals of Ayn Rand and Letters of Ayn Rand, PARC, which had made clear even the smallest omission or addition from Rand’s original text, pointedly avoids this. It is obvious that as historical documents the usefulness of these other volumes is limited, as Burns is right to point out. However, there are other purposes these works serve for the student of Rand’s philosophy seeking a deeper understanding of Objectivism and the rest of the author’s mature thought. Burns does not seem to appreciate the value of this.

In point of fact, Dr. Burns criticized Mr. Harriman for his rewriting of the Journals (along with Bob Mayhew and Tore Boeckmann, for their rewriting of Rand's lectures on writing and her answers to questions); according to her assessment, Dr. Berliner's editorial touch on the Letters was far lighter.

Making sure not to offend his sponsor Leonard Peikoff (who had authorized all of those posthumously rewritten Rand volumes), Mr. Valliant claims that Rand-Harriman and Rand-Mayhew and Rand-Boeckmann will somehow aid those who seek to understand the mature thought of Rand, unhyphenated. He doesn't say how.

I can't improve on Dr. Burns' rejoinder:

Yet for Valliant Rand is more than consistent, she is unchanging, even when her own writing indicates otherwise. Some of this may come from Valliant’s focus on her published work, when most of my book looks at the spadework that went into Rand’s publications. In these unpublished materials, I find marked differences in tone and temper — which are important to any discussion of Rand’s ideas. But for Valliant, these differences are nothing more than “stylistic adjustment to differing venues for her thought.” If Rand began writing more about philosophy in the 1960s, that fact is insignificant to Valliant and indicates nothing more than “a new interest in writing about it.” For Valliant, “The process of Rand’s development was largely the process of finding the right words to express her original intention and the language to fit her unique vision with precise clarity.”

Here we are at an impasse about the meaning and significance of language. For Valliant, language does not precisely express concepts or meaning: if Rand changed the language she used, it was not because her ideas changed but because she simply expanded the repertoire of words she had at her disposal. This argument sheds some light on why editors at the Ayn Rand Institute consider it perfectly acceptable to alter Rand’s language in compilations of her writings, speeches, and interviews. It is not, however, convincing to me, particularly when we are discussing a novelist who was legendary for her precise use of language and her desire to painstakingly craft a stylized universe. Nor is it an adequate explanation for philosophy, a field that hinges upon the precise usage of language. As Rand might say, if words don’t express meaning, then we are lost in a sea of subjectivity.

Indeed, if Mr. Valliant really imagines that Ayn Rand's actual words don't matter, and editorial tampering with them is legitimate for instructional purposes, it becames much easier to understand why his book includes all of those Valliantcites and Valliantquoats.

But it becomes even harder to understand why he insisted that changing a single line of Night of January 16th in performance was an act of "systematic and personal betrayal" (PARC, p. 76).

Robert Campbell

One thing that is overlooked here is that such works as Night of January 16th were PUBLISHED works -- i.e., THEY WERE ALREADY THE WAY RAND WANTED THEM, and any unauthorized changes during her lifetime were...UNAUTHORIZED. (Sorry for using shout mode, but I don't want this to be overlooked any further.) "~Systematic~ betrayal"? I don't think so. But the Smiths DID go against Rand's wishes.

Now, in regard to Rand's journals, letters, etc., -- including her epistemology seminars that went into the revised version of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, as well as her question-answer session comments after lectures -- these are all things that have been made public in printed form POSTHUMOUSLY by ARI loyalists. They were prepared "in loco Aynus Randus," as it were. The premise is (or should be): this is how Ayn Rand would have wanted these things to appear, if they appeared at all. In many (though not all) cases, the editors made their best guess as how Rand would have prepared the comments for publication, and they shared the edited/rewritten comments THAT WAY, rather than VERBATIM-ORIGINAL.

THE EDITORS DID NOT HOLD PRESERVATION OF THE HISTORICAL RECORD TO BE AN OVER-RIDING VALUE. We can only presume that Rand would not have, either, had she personally directed the publication of these various items.

That said, I do NOT excuse the numerous omissions and unnecessary, distorting edits made by Harriman, Mayhew, et al. Cleaning up a transcript is one thing -- distorting or falsifying the historical record quite another.

REB

[Neil Parille]

Needless to say Valliant is as selective in his use of Burns' book as he was in PARC with the Brandens' books. As Robert notes in Valliant's lumping together Dr. Burns' comments on the Journals and the Letters, he demonstrates no improvement in his "reading problem."

Perigo banned me prior to the Symposium, so unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) I can't point these mistakes out.

Perhaps Ellen or someone who posts on SOLO could ask Valliant if he agress with Dr. Burns that the Journals, Q&A and other material published constitute "a different Rand." (p. 292-3.)

-Neil Parille

Edited January 19, 2010 by Neil Parille

[Neil Parille]

Valliant is as clueless as always:

Burns appreciates the layers of complexity within Branden’s dishonesty to Rand, and she acknowledges the most exploitative aspect of Branden’s fraud.

Burns does not give any credence to Rand's claim (or implication) that Nathaniel engaged in fraudulent business practices. (P. 335.)

Again, scholar Chris Sciabarra, along with other critics of PARC, have refused to admit this dishonesty with the directness Burns has now offered, understanding the implication that Burns herself does not reach and may not have seen: if Nathan and Barbara lied not just to Rand but to their readers and continue to stand by those statements to this day, then their credibility on the subject of Rand is profoundly undermined.

Burns does not accuse the Brandens of lying to their readers. In addition, Burns is as hard on Rand for To Whom it May Concern as she is on Nathaniel Branden's responses. Incidentally, it does not appear that Burns criticizes Barbara's response. (See p. 243.) As usual, Valliant can't help treating theBrandens as one person.

While she severely criticizes David Harriman and Michael Berliner for their editing of the Rand material in The Journals of Ayn Rand and Letters of Ayn Rand, PARC, which had made clear even the smallest omission or addition from Rand’s original text, pointedly avoids this.

What does Valliant mean by this? That his editing of Rand's diaries is not as bad as Harriman's and Berliner's editing? That his criticism of the Smiths for Penthouse Legend doesn't apply to the material published with Peikoff's approval? (Note, of course, that Burns doesn't consider Berliner's edits nearly as bad as Harriman's.)

-Neil Parille

Edited January 19, 2010 by Neil Parille

[Neil Parille]

More Valliant:

Burns notes PARC’s "vigorous" argument against Frank O’Connor's alleged alcoholism. (GOM, p. 322, note 54) Interestingly, Burns cautions that “[f]irm diagnoses of the dead are always tenuous,” but concludes that it is "not unreasonable" to believe that his drinking was "at the very least unhealthy." However, she also acknowledges that this conclusion hinges on the credibility of witnesses (who, it must be added, are very few indeed.)

In PARC, Valliant accused Barbara of making it all up. Now he concedes there are witnesses. Why doesn't Valliant tell us what the interviews in the archives says about Frank's drinking? Since Don Ventura was interviewed by the archives, it would be nice if Valliant gives us a description of what Ventura said.

Indeed, the praise Burns gives Jeff Britting and the Ayn Rand Archive for their openness to a non-Objectivist, even an Objectivism-critical, scholar stands in sharp contradiction to many assertions by critics of the Ayn Rand Institute, such as Professor Robert Campbell of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, who routinely accuses that organization of harboring the most nefarious motives. On page 287, Burns writes that Britting was "unfailingly professional, endlessly informative, and always willing to go the extra mile."

As Robert Campbell's brilliant expose of Mayhew's jiggery pokery with respect to Ayn Rand Answers has shown, suspicions about the ARI and the Archives are justified. That doesn't mean that everyone (or even most people) associated with the ARI and the Archives shouldn't be trusted. I don't recall Dr. Campbell saying anything negative about Jeff Britting, for example.

Burns herself wrote recently:

http://jenniferburns.org/blog/65-in-the-rand-archives-part-2-the-edited-letters-and-diaries

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.”

When I arrived at the Ayn Rand Archive, I kept quiet about all of this. I was a little bit paranoid, in fact, during my early time at the Archive. I had read all the stories about Rand infighting, the schisms, purges, and breaks. I knew it would take me years to finish my dissertation, and then write a book, and I didn’t want to jeopardize my access to the archive.

Then one day, I mentioned the books in passing, and an archivist rolled his eyes at me.

“Those were done years ago,” he said. I sensed an opening. “Yes, I noticed some discrepancies…” I began tentatively. The floodgates sprang wide. The staff at the archive knew all about the editing – and they heartily disapproved. The staff at the Ayn Rand Archives is professionally trained and serious about their work; like all archivists and librarians, they treasure knowledge for its own sake and scrupulously try to preserve the historical record.

I felt a great weight lifting from my shoulders. No longer would I have to pretend there was nothing problematic about the published letters and journals. I began a serious concordance project, doing line by line comparisons of the published text and the originals. It was tedious, eye straining work. The archivists helped me locate the right files, which had been scattered into many folders.

When two Objectivist scholars, funded by the Ayn Rand Institute, arrived at the archive, I was again circumspect. Then I heard loud sighs of disgust arising from a nearby scholar. He, too, was comparing the different versions, and he, too, was outraged.

Does Valliant dispute that the changes to the Journals, the Q&A, etc. have been severe?

How can Valliant criticize Dr. Burns' conclusions about the development of Rand's thought if he has not utilized the originals?

-Neil Parille

Edited January 19, 2010 by Neil Parille

[Robert Campbell]

Neil mentioned that he has been banned from SOLOP.

For what it's worth, I've been banned, too.

Since I quit SOLOP in November, I've had no plans to return, so the ban makes no difference to me personally. The only reason I know about it is that just before the symposium went up on SOLOP, I got an unexpected email from the webmaster about my account being "reactivated." Huh? When I inquired, I was told that someone else must have been trying to use my account—and, not to worry, I'm still banned.

I guess Lindsay Perigo didn't want anyone to rain on Jim Valliant's parade over there.

Pretty soon they will truly be SOLOPsists—the site will consist of Mr. Perigo talking to himself.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Neil mentioned that he has been banned from SOLOP.

For what it's worth, I've been banned, too.

Since I quit SOLOP in November, I've had no plans to return, so the ban makes no difference to me personally. The only reason I know about it is that just before the symposium went up on SOLOP, I got an unexpected email from the webmaster about my account being "reactivated." Huh? When I inquired, I was told that someone else must have been trying to use my account—and, not to worry, I'm still banned.

I guess Lindsay Perigo didn't want anyone to rain on Jim Valliant's parade over there.

Pretty soon they will truly be SOLOPsists—the site will consist of Mr. Perigo talking to himself.

Robert Campbell

It's obvious that Lindsay simply doesn't want Robert or Neil to pop up on his two symposium threads as neither has posted on SOLOP lately. Stephen Boydstun has either been banned too or asked to be de-membered for different reasons whatever they are--I'm not the least bit curious about that only it's odd considering his phlegmatic and generally intellectual disposition.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

Brant,

Well, obviously, Mr. Perigo doesn't want Neil or me popping up on the symposium thread.

Funny thing is, he used to swear up and down that he wouldn't ban me from SOLOP, even when I dared him to.

Now he's red-buttoning people without announcing the bans in his former blustering manner.

Robert Campbell

[Chris Grieb]

Perigo continues to be a piece of work.

[Robert Campbell]

Yeah, what a guy!

Lindsay Perigo announces his new policy of … unannounced banning

The prime offense seems to be be "flouncing."

And "flouncing" need no longer be a public act.

Failing to post on SOLOP long enough that Mr. Perigo decides that it is "flouncing" will do just as well.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/7297

Mr. Perigo might just as well randomly and permanently ban one participant from SOLOP each week.

The process can end whenever he permanently bans himself.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Banning flouncers was Rowland's old trick. Maybe he still does.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

I don't even remember why I was banned from SoloP. It was several years ago.

I think I had posted a series of withering criticisms of him and his site, but I don't recall the exact sequence. I do remember Linz saying I was banned for posting in "bad faith".

That's a rather elastic term. I think it means dishonesty, that I didn't really believe what I was saying.

But what it really comes down to is that he bans people when they really, really, really get under his skin more and more over time.

[9thdoctor]

The prime offense seems to be be "flouncing."

If I’ve got the definition right, Phil and Jeff both flounced from OL, and now they’re back! Even Ted popped in for a bit not too long ago. Makes me feel like singing…

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7808&st=49

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> Edited January 20, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[Robert Campbell]

One thing that is overlooked here is that such works as Night of January 16th were PUBLISHED works -- i.e., THEY WERE ALREADY THE WAY RAND WANTED THEM, and any unauthorized changes during her lifetime were...UNAUTHORIZED. (Sorry for using shout mode, but I don't want this to be overlooked any further.) "~Systematic~ betrayal"? I don't think so. But the Smiths DID go against Rand's wishes.

Now, in regard to Rand's journals, letters, etc., -- including her epistemology seminars that went into the revised version of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, as well as her question-answer session comments after lectures -- these are all things that have been made public in printed form POSTHUMOUSLY by ARI loyalists. They were prepared "in loco Aynus Randus," as it were. The premise is (or should be): this is how Ayn Rand would have wanted these things to appear, if they appeared at all. In many (though not all) cases, the editors made their best guess as how Rand would have prepared the comments for publication, and they shared the edited/rewritten comments THAT WAY, rather than VERBATIM-ORIGINAL.

Roger,

Bob Mayhew explicitly argues, in his introduction to Ayn Rand Answers, for the position you describe here.

Obviously, though, neither Dr. Mayhew nor any of her latter-day followers can edit her work in loco Ayn-Randi.

First, they don't know how to. None of them, obviously, is Ayn Rand. They don't write or think like her; often, they can't even present a plausible simulacrum of her style. So they end up substituting their thinking and their style for hers. I doubt she would have considered any of them competent to edit her work.

Second, she allowed only one person to speak or write in loco Ayn-Randi. His name was Nathaniel Branden, and the experiment did not end well. After revoking his privileges in August 1968, she never granted them to anyone else.

Third, as per the "closed system" doctrine to which they all claim to subscribe, Objectivism was Ayn-Rand-thought, and nothing contributed by anyone since March 1982, no matter how well informed the contributor may be, could qualify as Objectivism. So by editing her work, they are, according to their own professed beliefs, contaminating and denaturing it.

THE EDITORS DID NOT HOLD PRESERVATION OF THE HISTORICAL RECORD TO BE AN OVER-RIDING VALUE. We can only presume that Rand would not have, either, had she personally directed the publication of these various items.

That said, I do NOT excuse the numerous omissions and unnecessary, distorting edits made by Harriman, Mayhew, et al. Cleaning up a transcript is one thing -- distorting or falsifying the historical record quite another.

No, Ayn Rand wouldn't have cared that much about preserving the historical record. We've learned that she handed pages of her original manuscripts to associates in lieu of tossing them in the wastebasket, and gave Frank's portrait of her to an acquaintance who saw her putting it out with the trash...

But now that Ayn Rand is no longer here, what else is it reasonable for persons associated with her estate to do?

Robert Campbell

[Neil Parille]

Perigo claims that I have been sending him my OL posts on Valliant. I think I sent him all of one. Since by "flouncing" he means "departing in a huff," I don't see how he can claim I flounced. There was no huff involved.

-Neil Parille

[Chris Grieb]

Perigo claims that I have been sending him my OL posts on Valliant. I think I sent him all of one. Since by "flouncing" he means "departing in a huff," I don't see how he can claim I flounced. There was no huff involved.

-Neil Parille

Could someone please post a picture of a huff. People are alway being described as departing in a huff. Is a huff suitable for a family or only one person. Please enlighten me.